![]() | 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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
The main article on etymology is shorter than its treatment here. Also, the article does not mention WHY the Shah changed the name from Persia...all of which is discussed in the naming dispute article. The page is locked...someone needs to merge the etymology and dispute articles into one, and write a better summary to be included here. The information is all there, it is very poorly organized. 75.3.237.103 ( talk) 07:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This articale really had me thinking and I would advice all persons interested in Iran, Iraq, USA foregin policy in the Middle East to take a look at it and similar article from Iran and across the world.
There is a wealth of informationn we can use for the new article tht would deal with war betwwne the USA and Iran. Maybe we can put a section in the Iran article. Lets get some opinions on this.
Here are some excerts from the article that are well documented with proof...
Beating the War Drums: A Summer Offensive against Syria and Iran?
“One scenario is that their intrusion was a prelude for a large-scale assault,” he [Ahmad Bakhshayesh, a professor of political science at Tehran’s Allameh Tabatabai University] said.
This week, Maj. Gen. Hassan Firoozabadi, Iranian armed forces chief of staff, predicted that the U.S. and Israel would launch a massive attack on the [Middle East] this summer.
“International Zionism and the Palestine-usurping Israel with the support of the reactionary neoconservatives of the U.S. are preparing a new plan,” he said, according to Iranian news agencies. [40]
At the official level, Israel has also ratcheted down the implausible rhetoric that Syria is preparing for a near-term offensive against Israel to the more plausible account that Syria is initiating the mobilization of its defensive forces. This includes the purchase of weapons systems from Iran and Russia, and also the manufacturing of rockets and missile with the help of Iran and Russia. Russian anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles are also being delivered to Syria. The U.S. has also imposed further sanction on the Syrian military. [41]
The consequences and results of any strikes against Syria would be far-reaching and would destabilize the whole of the Middle East from Turkey to Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Iran would also intervene on the side of its Syrian allies.
War in the Middle East: The Palestinian Front
A war against Syria would have disastrous ramifications for Anglo-American occupied Iraq and would spill over into Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordon. The Associated Press reported that Ahmed Jibril of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), a group with strong links to Syria, like other Palestinian leaders said that his forces would fight against Israel and the U.S. should they attack Syria or Iran;
“We will not allow any aggression against Syria or the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Ahmed Jibril told a rally of about 1,000 supporters in a Palestinian refugee camp in the Syrian capital.
“I say it frankly, we will not only be on their side, we will be in the forefront,” said Jibril. [42]
Hamas has also made similar statements saying that the Palestinians, Syria, and Iran are part of a united front and that any war launched against either Syria or Iran will generate a battle front in Palestine against Israeli forces. Khaled Meshaal, the political leader-in-exile of Hamas pledged his support to Iran and Syria in December of 2005:
“We are part of a united [resistance] front, and if one member [e.g. Syria, Iran] of this [resistance] front is attacked it is our duty to support them.” [43]
Iranian ballistic missiles will leave Israeli forces exposed. The leaders of the different Palestinian fractions and groups are well aware of this. The Palestinian leaders know in the possible scenario of a war against Iran and Syria, that Israel would be placed at a disadvantage inside the Palestinian Territories and that the battlefront would be “almost even” between Israeli troops and Palestinian fighters.
If Syria were attacked there would be violence in Jordan and possibly civil war. The bulk of the population in Jordan is either Palestinian or the descendents of Palestinian refugees. Many in Jordan also oppose the authoritarian rule of the Hashemite Dynasty and the support that King Abdullah II gives the U.S. and Israel, which is directed against Palestine and Iraq.
War in the Middle East: The Iraqi Front
“The U.S. military presence [in Iraq and Afghanistan] will not become an element of strength [as the Pentagon thinks] at our expense. The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into [our] hostages [in the event of any attacks against Iran].”
-Rear-Admiral Ali Shamkhani (August 18, 2004)
If war were to be waged against Iran and Syria, there would be casualties in the tens of thousands in Iraq and the Persian Gulf. Iraq would become a graveyard for American and British forces. American and British troops would be overwhelmed by waves of well armed and well trained Iranian troops from the East and Syrian troops from the West and an Iraqi Resistance that would undoubtedly grow in numbers and strengthen ten fold with the arrival of Iranian and Syrian military forces.
Iraqi cleric and leader, Moqtada Al-Sadr, a major opponent of the U.S. and Britain in Iraq, has also pledged to stand by Syria and Iran in a united front against Israel, the U.S., and Britain. While in Tehran, the young Shiite Muslim cleric said in the presence of Dr. Ali Larijani, the Secretary-General of the Supreme Security Council of Iran, that his forces would battle on the side of Iran if Iran were to be attacked. The Washington Post carried the story about Moqtada Al-Sadr’s visit to Tehran and concluded that Anglo-American occupied Iraq was destined to eventually become a battleground between U.S. and Iranian forces:
The rest of the article is here. Sorry I have no idea how to format so you can read everything here.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5791
Get the idea? There are many others from other news sources and writrs we can use inclsuding Seymour Hersh and from Russia.
We should really think about making an article not on threats of war, but on the buildup to a war that could happen in the Middle East.
The US also has 2 carrier battle groups in the region. Bearing in mind the US (and UK) also have incredibly developed power projection cabailities and could probably deliver another divison or at least another brigade to the region within weeks or even days of any signs of conflict, with another shortly thereafter due to the existing supply infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as US bases in Kuwait and other arab nations. Then theres the european nations such as france and germany who may get involved as many have strong ties to israel due to the nature of israel's origins. WikipedianProlific (Talk) 22:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Can an article be created on the Possibility of war in the Middle East? The answer is NO, because Wikipedia is NOT a Crystal Ball. (See WP:NOT) For your information, there has been an article on this subject that got deleted recently called " Plans for military attacks against Iran". 69.116.234.208 12:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
i wonder how ignorant you guys will a feel if nothing happens for the next decade, however i wonder how foolish i will feel if it does happen, either way i'll be running to the recruitment officers with filled out forms
If this article is ever going to become "very good" or "featured," it needs a foreign policy section. If it has a "cuisine" section, it needs a "foreign policy" section.
Emotions run high on the subject of Iranian foreign policy, as they do in the subject of United States foreign policy. Iran's foreign policy is obviously influenced by the history of colonialism in the Iran by the United Kingdom, the United States, and Russia. It is also influenced by the clash of religion and secularism, by the Iraq-Iran war, and by the hostage crisis of 1979-81.
These are hot topics that provoke emotional responses, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss them facutally and dispassionately.
Iran is trying to influence the course of the Middle East. Whether you think that this is for good or for ill is not relevant. However, it is a FACT that the Iranian government has deep ties with Hezbollah. It is also clear that they are maintaining ties with Shiite militias in Iraq. This is not POV, this is factual.
You may be angry at the United States or the Bush administration, or with the government in Iran. But that doesn't mean that Iran does not have an active foreign policy in the Middle East.
I had appended a foreign policy section to "Military," where somebody deleted the entire thing, and said that it was all POV.
This section on foreign policy can and must be improved. It can be added to. I'm sure people will get mad about it. But please work on it, don't just delete it.
Here's what I started with on June 17:
"Foreign Policy" Iran is deeply committed to limiting or eliminating the influence of Western powers in the Middle East, and to preventing the resurgence of a Sunni-dominated Iraq. As a result, it has tried to limit the influence of the United States, which currently has hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in three of Iran's neighbors: Iraq, Afganistan, and Turkey. While Iran has avoided direct military confrontation with the United States, Iran is able to project power and influence in the region through proxy sources. Iran's government has well-established military and political ties with Hezbollah in Lebanon, which is engaged in an armed struggle with Israel. [1] Additionally, the United States government maintains that Iran gives weapons, bomb technology and military training to Shiite militias in Iraq. These militias, which include Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, in turn use this training and technology in attacks against Sunni militias and US coalition forces in Iraq. Iran has denied any involvement in the civil war in Iraq. [2]
Western powers, including the United States and the United Kingdom, maintain that Iran is working towards the construction of an atomic bomb. Iran's government has denied this, while steadfastly maintaining that their nation has as much of a right to atomic weapons as the Western powers, Russia, China, or Israel.
On May 29, 2007, the United States and Iran held the first public, senior-level talks between the two nations in more than two decades. [3]
PLEASE REMEMBER THIS: Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily:
Do not simply revert changes in a dispute.
When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. -Unsigned comment by Mcattell
I would like to have a passport section about Iranian passport and its history, how it looked like until today. There are different passports:
1)Ordinary 2)Emergency 3)Protection 4)Refugee 5)Service 6)Diplomatique 7)Etc.....
Could anyone take this up and its history?? Please.....
There is another issue that should be discussed and it's Iran's national IQ, which is as low as 84 and not 105 as in Japan. Serious discussion please do not tell me that the Japanese eat more fish. I think they rather have a positive self-image. There is a distinct difference between The European High Self-Image and The more accurate and scientific positive Self-Image such as described by Mr. Bahman Chehel-Amirani ( an antroprologist from Uppsala University, Sweden ) and Dr. Holakoee ( a psychologist in L.A. ).
The Pre-Revolutionary section is quiet poor. I think it is because so many Iranian are still against the Pahlavi Era, even if The Shah gave us A Positive Persian Self-Image so we could live today. I just wonder what the traditional political parties did for You and Me. I am just a foot-soldier.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Iranian Issue ( talk • contribs) 13:29, 24 June 2007
I would see the use for an article devoted to the Iranian Nationality Laws like for other countries. See British nationality law as a possible model. 69.116.234.208 12:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The pahlavi dynasty is as it should be. unfortunately the other sections are way too detailed. Please people, this article is supposed to get smaller, not bigger!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.219.62.196 ( talk) 13:10, 30 June 2007
I strongley agree that Japan and Iran can't be compared when it comes to respective Nation's IQ. Iran must solve it's own problem which goes back 1000 years of lawless behaviour and bad, am-Iranian leadership until todays´date.
For example revolutionary leaders never cared about the unemployment: The best way they thought it was sending all people to War Front in order to defend Islam and become martyr for this. Their sole would eventually come to the paradise and meet 13 virgins (???). Talk about developing nation, IQ and solving problems.
According to Iranian socialogists, if Iran did not have the Clergies and Islam, We wouldn't have today's problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iranian Issue ( talk • contribs) 20:56, 24 June 2007
Having said that: Do you insinuate that Iran was somehow responsible for the war with Iraq and its economic repercussions(?). I strongly disagree that one regime or religion alone bears the entire responsibility. It's wrong to distinguish between religions or races. We are all one: One human race and one nation under God.
Also, you said: "According to Iranian sociologists, if Iran did not have the Clergies and Islam, We wouldn't have today's problems." please provide a link to this study (Wikipedia is not a political forum - See WP:NOT). If you want to contribute, please do so. Otherwise, it's a useless divisive debate. 69.116.234.208 01:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought we had resolved this problem long ago. Today, I see Cuvette reinstating a section devoted to health care when it is already mentioned and duplicated in the Demography of Iran section. For the rest, we have a separate article devoted to that entitrely. I think that we don't need "mortality rates for children under 5 years old" (and under 10 etc.) on the main page. What do you think? Please share your thoughts.
I agree that in the military section, mention by US top CENTCOM Commander is somewhat POVish because the same was said about Iraq in 1991 (i.e."4th mightiest army on earth"). I removed it. 69.116.234.208 04:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we see more information of this nature about Iran in Wikipedia?
Thousands of friends are far too few, an enemy is too much
69.116.234.208 08:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
You would have spared many lines to this talk page by simply answering "yes" or "no"... The subject is linked to Iran I can assure you but we never got to this point because you did not want to answer my simple question. Your link to the FED on Wikipedia is good but I am still not sure if average people will be able to find the answer by reading it entirely, three times. 69.116.234.208 08:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Cute Kid.-- Atlanic wave2. 00:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I find it appalling that democracy is not mentioned once in this article. Like it or not, this is a democratic country! They hold elections, people! VolatileChemical 00:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
democracy by label, not by practise.
We talking about the States or Iran here? I just can't tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.187.200 ( talk) 03:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
A recent Amnesty International report has rapped Iran over its continued use of execution to punish minors. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6244126.stm). This is quite a significant subject and should be mentioned and highlighed within the article. Jamie 07:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Children being killed, that is horrific! -- Atlanic wave2. 00:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
More information should be supplied on this topic not just a quick mention not even that! Mwalkmi 13:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Uhh, "horrific" you say. Just to add some perspective: the BBC article cited states: In a report entitled Iran: the Last Executioner of Children, Amnesty says that since 1990, 24 child offenders have been executed in Iran - more than in any other country in the world...Eleven of these people were still under 18 at the time of their execution, while the others were kept on death row until they reached 18 or were convicted and sentenced after reaching that age, the report says.
However, as this article points out: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/02/politics/02scotus.html, the practice was quite popular in another country until quite recently. Concluding that the United States and the world have turned against the death penalty for youthful offenders, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the Constitution categorically bars capital punishment for crimes committed before the age of 18. The 5-to-4 decision, which upheld a ruling by the Missouri Supreme Court, will move 72 people off death row in 12 states. It represented an about-face for a court that only 16 years ago rejected the argument that the execution of those who kill at the age of 16 or 17 violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments."...There have been 19 such executions in the United States since 1990, most recently in 2003.
And in the same BBC article cited above, it's apparent that Iran's lawmakers are heading in the same direction: Amnesty says a draft law proposed by the judiciary in 2001 and still under consideration by the Iranian authorities could pave the way for the abolition of the death sentence for minors - or at least result in a reduction in the number of offences for which child offenders could be sentenced to death. So let's just keep things in perspective here; ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Criminoboy ( talk • contribs) 07:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Pejman47, you have just reverted the work of several days for many people (including mine), who have been working on this article diligently. Our work was done independently of each other. Some have changed pics in the history section or in the economy; some have edited text in many different sections over that period. Please note that your intervention is disruptive and somewhat unexplained. You have to be specific and you can't revert the work of everybody at the same time. Please provide more explanations below for each individual edits that you have reverted. Thank you. 69.116.234.208 23:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
What on earth is that Ali quote doing next to the picture of Avicenna's book in the history section??-- Zereshk 08:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
By 2015 Iran will have as many as Russia has its population? I mean about 125 millions? Was Putin correct when he told this?-- Tones benefit 19:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
A source said on a UN web-page last year it would be about 90-95 million strong.-- Atlanic wave2. 00:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
There are several reliable sources which mention that Iran has become a great power in the middle east and Central Asia. For example Jacques Chirac has quoted:
Iran is a great power which has its rightful place and its rightful role to play in the stability of the region. [2]
Nicholas Burns has quoted:
Our view is that Iran is a generational challenge. It is not a challenge that is going to be episodic or fleeting; it will likely be on the front burners of our foreign policy in 2010, and 2012, and probably 2020. It is the largest country in the Middle East. It aims to be the most powerful country in the Middle East, and it always will, no matter what type of government it has. [3]
I propose adding this issue in the lead. We can mention abilities and disabilities of Iran to be a great power in th region.
Iran's power is based on its ideology which has affected Iraq and Lebanon. Iran also has great influence in Syria and Afghanistan. Iran has fascinating geographical position. There's the best transit corridor between east Asia and Europe as well as central Asia and the see. She has prominent position in the Persian Gulf and about 20 percent of oil's pass through Strait of Hormuz . Iran's political system is the most stable one in the region. There wasn't any coup in the last 50 years and it could survive an eight-year war. The terrorist attacks in Iran is less than other countries of the region. Iran don't have any severe clash with her neighbors while other great countries of the region have clashes. She can manage the ethnicities and prevent separatist tendencies. Iran has a lot of natural resources and raw minerals. Iran holds 10%(4th country) [4] of the world's proven oil reserves and 15%(2nd country) of its gas. It is OPEC's second largest exporter and the world's fourth oil producer. Iran also has gain high tech achievements like nuclear enrichment.
Iran also has large population(3rd in the region after Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey) [5], large army (2nd in the region after Pakistan) [6], large territory (2nd in the region after Saudi Arabia) [7].
The only challenge which may fade its power is economical condition. Although Iran has the second GDP in the region after Turkey [8] and about 5% GDP growth in average but has been threatened by the shortage of skilled labor, poverty, inflation, unemployment, dependency on the oil price, the U.S. sanctions, high risk of investment, mismanagement and instability in the economical policies.-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 04:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore here is the reasoning of the original poster broken down:
"Iran's power is based on its ideology which has affected Iraq and Lebanon. Iran also has great influence in Syria and Afghanistan."
"She has prominent position in the Persian Gulf and about 20 percent of oil's pass through Strait of Hormuz ."
"Iran don't have any severe clash with her neighbors while other great countries of the region have clashes."
"The only challenge which may fade its power is economical condition. Although Iran has the second GDP in the region after Turkey [10] and about 5% GDP growth in average."
WikipedianProlific (Talk) 20:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Who and WHY? Iran's page has been vandalized on a daily basis for many weeks and I am asking WHY it is not protected? Japan, USA and even France are protected. Why Iran's protection has been removed? Where are the Administrators?
69.116.234.208 22:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Protection may have expired. You can file a new request at WP:RfP. Hope this helps. WikipedianProlific (Talk) 21:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
well i dont see anything in the US section saying how the USA has lied about WMD and has started on war based of false pretence. If you want to see Iran's inovlment in Terrorism go to the Hezbollah page. Just like if you want to see info on anyother sub topic
Oh, hi. Iran controls, funds, trains, an operates an organization called Hezbollah. This is a known fact, not a bias or an opinion. To exclude this information is utter propagandistic crap. Let's not do that. Hezbollah is regarded as a Terrorist groups by many nations within the international community, due to their policy of intentionally and specifically targeting civilians for murder. So I'm making a section in the article about. I you want to take it down for some disingenuous reason, then we can have a little edit war about. Maybe while you are at it you can add a section to the Holocaust page about how its historical validity is din dispute by some people, yada, yada. No. Iran owns and operates Hezbollah. This happens, it exists, and it is a valid fact to put in any Encyclopedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oji The Unseen ( talk • contribs) 10:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC).
Those documented sources should be mentioned in the section and references are needed. Vonones 03:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC) All of them are available on the Wikipedia article on Hezbollah, and the information and the tone it was delivered in are consistent both with the Wikipedia Hezbollah article and Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Is really necessary to provide the Wikipedia article as a footnote if it is already linked?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oji The Unseen ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC).
Lies. I said Iran funds and directs the activites of Hezbollah, which is true. I said many nations considered Iran to be a terrorist organization, which is true. I also stated that much of the Muslim and Arab world view them as freedom Fighters, which is also true. That does not constitute an attack. You have no valid reason to reverse that edit. Accurate and True, as well as unbiased descriptions of relevant information about a topic is exactly what is supposed to go into encyclopedias. This is precisely what I have provided. Article will be restored.{{subst:unsigned|Oji The Unseen|—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oji The Unseen ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC).
Satisfied? -- Alexander
Information is relevant to article, relevant to the sort of guidelines that determine what goes into an Encyclopedia, relevant to an accurate depiction of Iran, and relevant to World affairs and politics. Leaving it out would be like omitting information about The Iran-Iraq War, or Zoroastrianism. It is an important piece of information. Stop your propaganda edits. This is supposed be an Encyclopedia with relevant, accurate, true, and honest information, not a propaganda outlet for Persian Pride. -- Alexander
Oh? Even if they kill and kidnap people in a very visible fashion at the order and understanding of that government? And even if it has a major impact on the International Relations and standing of that nation? Should Iran's military proper not have a place on their main page? Hezbollah has an impact and is of note. Other countries known of suspected of supporting Terrorists, or freedom fighters or whatever you want to call them have references to those organizations, including links to those groups entries on their main page. Like Ireland, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, ans so on, and in almost every one of these cases the governments involvement is less than in Iran's case with Hezbollah. Why should Iran's page be any different? Is Iran special somehow? In some manner protected from the publishing of an inconvenient truth? I fail to understand your reasoning. I am wary of your intentions. As for obeying Wikipedia's rules, I've yet to do otherwise, and I've no intention of being nasty. As far as cooperation, I'd be happy to cooperate with any other Wikipedia user in the quest to make sure pages have relevant, honest, informative, unbiased information on them. If you mean anything else by cooperate, then no, I don't. I'd be happy to sort the manner out with you via rational, plain, honest discourse, where the only agenda to push is the Truth and Relevancy of the article. Alexander 02:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It isn't undue weight due to the essentially unparalleled relationship between Hezbollah and the Iranian government, as well as the rather auspicious events Hezbollah has been involved in the area of International Relations. They were even directly involved in a war against a foreign country, and are direct agents of the Iranian government. This position is unique and important enough to the State and Statue of affairs in Iran as to deserve mention. "the article on Iran is not meant to mention everything about Iran" What?! That makes zero sense. As for referencing, the tone and information given is taken almost word for word from the article on Hezbollah, and furthermore is 'common knowledge', as well as already being linked to that article. It therefore does not particularly need any further sourcing unless you really want another link added to the bottom as a footnote. And it certainly passes the verification policy. Essentially what you are saying is without the redundant link you do not agree it is in line with this policy, yes? Also, this section fits in fine with the template laid out for the WikiProject Countries, perhaps you should read that again thoroughly. It fits perfectly into the 'Miscellaneous Topic' template section. I am not trying to be confrontational or insulting, but you are either very by the book or are just looking for any convenient excuse to keep any mention of Hezbollah out of this article for propagandistic reasons. Are you genuine or no? If so I suggest you try to reach a compromise with me instead of feeding into what is already a blossoming edit war. Alexander 04:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what about two guys shaking hands is so telling about Iran, so please make your case soon or else I will undo your revert. Thanks. The Behnam 04:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
For your information, I did not create, upload, paste or edit this image on Iran's page.
The picture illustrates the Irans isolation during the Iran-Iraq war and a key part of the events that happened during that war, which is Irans greatest War of the 20th century. Hajji Piruz 18:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
OK it seems there is no consensus and The Behman has deleted the image.
I suggest to vote.
QUESTION: Who wants to keep the follwing picture on the history section of Iran (Iran-Iraq war)?
Keep. The picture is relevant in order to illustrate an important aspect of the Iran-Iraq war, namely the unholy alliance between the USA and Iraq (i.e. USA providing weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein) SSZ 03:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment - A vote probably won't do anything here except keep the inappropriate image. Many users are sensitive to the issue and may vote 'keep' because they might like to increase awareness of US involvement in the procurement of WMD by Saddam regardless of whether or not the picture actually illustrates anything of direct relevance to the topic of the article, the nation of Iran. While it seems many users that I dispute with don't understand this, "consensus" doesn't mean anything if it is just 'weight in numbers' without true regard for policies and guidelines. SSZ, I encourage you to opt for an actual discussion rather than a "vote" that is susceptible to corruption. This ain't a democracy. Right now, I see that you want to keep the image to illustrate the "unholy alliance," not to illustrate something about the nation of Iran itself. This is precisely the 'to make a point' invalid reasoning that brought this whole issue to the table. The Behnam 04:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The Behman: as a compromise solution, I suggest we keep the image until the end of September 2007 (it would have been on Iran's page for a year). Then, we can remove it permanently from this page. Agree? SSZ 06:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
We are not supposed to be writing a "tragedy" - we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia article that is neutral. Hence we shouldn't be putting things in to communicate what we think is tragic or to demonstrate the "unholy alliance." The Behnam 19:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Somebody complained that the Rumsfeld picture didn't really say illustrate anything about the nation of Iran. I agreed and so I removed the picture. However, it was restored under the claim that "On contrary this image tells a lot about what happeend during that time in Iran."
I guess there refering to American involvment in the war —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.109.13 ( talk) 19:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Despite the discussions of détente in the Middle East, the peril of war is still a real menace that threatens to proliferate globally. The dialogue taking place between the U.S., the E.U., Russia, Syria, and Iran seems to be merely a transient point in the timeline of the Middle East and Central Asia. The ongoing international discussions focused on the Middle East are part of an instant in time and history that will come to pass. Attached to these discussions are the fate of the Middle East, or so it may seem. With certainty, only time will tell what will unfold in the Middle East and become recorded in the annals of history.
A deeper look must be taken at the evolving domestic conditions within the “American Homeland” and at the wave of events that are unfolding in the Palestinian Territories, Israel, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, the Persian Gulf, the former Soviet Union, and Iran.
There have been reports and chatter about war between Israel and Syria and a “Summer War” that could breakout in the Levant with the initiation of Israeli strikes in the Palestinian Territories and Lebanon. The summer-months of 2007 may see international tensions rise, but witness no regional war that could potentially spread in the Middle East and beyond. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6281 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.101.84.212 ( talk • contribs) 08:04, 16 July 2007.
re- "Zoroastrianism spread unimposed during the time of the Achaemenids and..."
What does 'unimposed' mean? Should it be 'unopposed'? Brian Pearson 03:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The motto presneted in the article (Independence, Freedom, Islamic Republic), is not the national motto of Iran. It is the political motto of the government of Iran. A national motto is something rooted in the nation's history and related to its coming into being, which is more likely the Zoroastrian-rooted motto (Kerdaar-e-nik, Pendaar-e-nik, Goftaar-e-nik). If we cannot agree on a motto it is better to remove it altogether than to put something purely political like this. Shervink 09:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick note - while you are quite correct, Behnam, that Farsi is the Farsi term for the Persian language, Persian is the English name for Farsi. I would use "Persian" in an English language article, and qualify it with "Farsi". Have a think about making the change. docboat 00:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Whoops - my apologies Behnam, I got that backassward. docboat 00:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Pars=Fars Pars= Persia(latinized)
This article is MASSIVE! we should AT LEAST HALF its size. The history section is growing by the week! If you think of something to to write on wikipediaq, write it in the MAIN ARTICLE!!!!!!
The history section should be as follows: 1-Pre-Parthian dynasties: The current subsection is too detailed. For instance cambyses only ruled for a short period of time and hasn't had any effect on modern Iran. if the subsection is supposed to be that detailed then we better write a line or two about the lives of every one who ever ruled Iran!
2-the rest of the pre islamic period: The sassanid and Parthian subsections should be merged and 50% to75% of the text deleted.
3-From then to the safavids: This SHOULD NOT be an essay about the attempt to arabize Iran or it's influence on the world; I couldn't care less about the ottomans in vienna Or Islamic Philosophy. Ferdowsi never effected The political history of Iran! I know how he saved farsi and he should be respected and remembered, but the only articles he should be reffered to is in articles (and setions) concerning Litterature and culture and language. It's like mentioning him in the Ahmadinejad article because he read his poetry in his schoolbooks!
4-from safavids till the revolution: The Birth of modern Iran is OK for now, but there is room for improvement. The merging of the two subsections is just an idea and it doesn't matter much but what does matter is the size of the Pahlavi section. I know there was alot was happening at that time but please shorten it!
5-Islamic repub.: This sould be a short summary of the most recent 28 years of Iranian history! I haven't read the section in full because the parts that I did read bored me with statistics and saying who backed who in the war. Manu kian maheri93 19:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I shouldn't have deleted that. But at the time and even now I feel as if that info is too detailed for the section. I will let others decide on that. Manu kian maheri93 23:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Back in March, I came to this page to respond to a request for "impartial editorial input" on the topic of the size of the history section. I reviewed the arguments, and I did a simple statistical review of other, similar articles (e.g. Egypt, Greece, China, etc). My conclusion was emphatically that the history section in this article should be reduced dramatically, to on the order of 1000-1500 words. My analysis and commentary are [ archived here]. After my posting, discussion stopped, but no action was taken. -- Psm 18:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that there was a map of the safavid empire in the from the fall of...section. so I moved it to it's rightful place. Manu kian maheri93 23:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I also noticed a few other pics not being in(what Ithink) is there proper place. For instance that picture of the avesta writen in middle Persian should be in the culture sec. under Persian language. Also the ferdowsi picture should be in the culture section. I have not yet made these two changes. Manu kian maheri93 23:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The current timeline for establishment in the infobox is somewhat misleading. The subject of the article wasn't actually established with the Elamite, Median, Achaemenian, etc empires. Those are part of the history but not actually part of the same entity. There is no continuity - it isn't like some Sassanian exile government was waiting and eventually reestablished itself.
I'm looking into options that may be more accurate. I have seen Italy's "formation" infobox, as it has a similar history (big empires in the past, later periods of disunity and/or foreign control). Italy starts with "Unification" in 1861, but also marks when the current (form) of government took hold, "Republic" in 1946.
I think that a similar format would be informative and accurate on this article. Hence, we could have "Unification" w/ Safavid in 1502, then "Constitutional Monarchy" at 1906, and lastly "Islamic Republic" at 1979. The Behnam 19:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Why is there a tag at the top saying the article is too long? Did someone shorten the article and forget to remove the tag? The length looks fine to me. Slacker 08:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about the rest of you, but I think the History section on this page is just too damn long. It's like the entire History of Iran page itself was simply copied and pasted onto this one. Thoughts? 24.160.170.22 03:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I have tried many many many times to shorten it and have mentioned it several times on this page, but, as you said people always undo them and I even been accused of vandalism. So instead I have been working on nShiraz and other articles, but I will help you shorten it. Just ask! Manu kian maheri93 10:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
This has been debated in previous (archived) talk sessions. The conclusion has been to shorten it (significantly). But any attempts get stopped. Seems to be viewed as a patriotic issue.-- Psm 05:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
{{reqmapin|Iran|the Middle East}} There should be a good orienting map near the beginning of the article showing neighboring countries, major cities, and major geographical features. -- Beland 18:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Iranians also adapted the same culture as Pakistanis, including music and cinema. Afghanistan as well, Irans cinema and entertainment has often seeked entertainment from India as well.
Why is this note attached to the caption of the Rumi image: "This image is a candidate for speedy deletion. It will be deleted after seven days from the date of nomination." It appears we have the permission of the artist to use the image and it is noted on the image page. No deletion notice is on the page, but someone has complained on the talk page about it supposedly showing God. Why would this image be deleted? Algabal 16:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I recently added a link to this page that connected to Iran collection website. This site is one of the rarest site that talks about Persian currencies (Coins and pape money) plus medals and orders of Iran. The site is just informative and not a trading site. I added this, only for informative purposes and regret to see that a user has deleted the link. There are too many links in the page and none of them regard such a theme. I can not forget this rude action. Leo71538 09:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
http://www.iranhome.net
"and also playing a prominent role in the formation of both European and Asiatic medieval art." Shouldn't there be written asian medieval art. National socialists used word 'asiatic', 'asiates' in hate langue, so at least in russian it has negative conotations with meaning something like barbarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.148.71.250 ( talk) 05:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that this article on Iran, a minor country, has an article size larger than that of France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, Italy, and India?
Yeah its a minor power, yet its on the news every other half hour. Regardless, this page is long because there are a lot of sub topics all in this page (i.e. sports- one sentence will do anything more should go in another page). Your ignorance is quite evident. Iran has significant role in pre history, Ancient history, Middle Age, as well as current.e.g. Iran is claimed democaracy yet it is quite clear that to call Iran a republic without the element of theocracy involvment will be misinformed. Therefor it will require more explanation. As oppose to France, which is a plain democaracy.
For anyone to say that Iran in any point in history. like the one guy did saying it didnt have much a role in the middle ages....is plain stupid. Iran only rivaled with the roman empire. because we all kno
Maybe i should start claiming that the UK should change it's name beacause the whole United KINGDOM is smaller then Iran. Its petty, if you think other countries should have a bigger page then start researching and typing. I quite frankly think that a smaller page is better because it gets to the point
This seems as though the article is extremely biased in favour of Iran and seriously breaching the WP:NPOV considering Iran is not even a “ Middle Power” like that of Canada, Spain, Brazil, South Korea, or Australia, but perhaps merely a “ Regional power” like that of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Indonesia, Mexico, Thailand, or South Africa. The article has became larger than every other country article expect that of the United States, even larger than articles on “ Great powers” like that of China, France, and Germany, and even larger than previous “ Superpowers” of Russia, and the United Kingdom.
Some might state that Iran has much ancient history to divulge hence the article size yet so do the articles on Egypt, Greece, Italy, China, and the articles of France, Spain, and England have much medieval history to divulge yet none of these articles are anywhere near the size of this article.
Well lets see your right in Ancient time iran rivaled egypt greece. Well in the middle ages where was Greece and Egypt??? Persia rivaled the Roman Empire with many recorded wars over land. Even records from Roman empire who saw Iran as threat and feared their growth.....i suggest you read some history
Most of the problem is the sheer quantity of ancient Persian history included in this article’s history section. I suggest that an amount of the information regarding ancient Persia be moved to an article regarding ancient Persia.
If this doesn’t happen the article itself will become damaged by the article continuing to grow in size until the sheer volume of information puts readers off reading the article as a whole. Signsolid 16:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I liked it, I learned a lot about Iran, and I don't believe Iran is a minor country coz Persia has been one of the most influential civilizations ever! (also unfortunately whenever Bush and Blair talk about WW3, they name Iran!)also by a simple look at the number archive pages here, you would understand that it's one of the most viewed pages on wikipedia, that reflects it's importance among viewers! anyway, the article is categorized so everyone can find the information she/he needs, hopefully one needs not to read the whole page by force! so Do you hate information or do you have problem with Persians?!!! Sean
If the USA article is really that long why don't you shorten that article first? Shervink 10:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If the USA page is larger than Irans, there seems to be a problem, since USA's history is peanuts in size compared to Iran's. But I do think the history section of Iran should be actually Summarized Bretonnia ( talk) 22:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This has been discussed elsewhere and settled by RfC after extensive discussion (e.g. see the talk pages related to Sparta). The conclusion was not to use the word "superpower" in regards to *any* ancient empires. To spare you reading through that talk page, here's the gist of it: Ancient empires were not able to be a Superpower in that they were not able to project military force on a global scale. The superpower notion post-dates WWII and was a way to distinguish the new phenomenon of the USA and USSR (from 1945 onwards) in contrast to the previous period of the Great Power (from roughly 1815 to WWII). Similarly, "ruling over the known world" is a related misnomer. Ancient empires ruled over what they ruled over, and may or may not have been aware of other empires far away. E.g. the incense trade routes are as old as 2000 BC, so certainly the Persians were aware of the Indies, but had absolutely no manner to project power. The Roman Republic was also co-terminus with the Persian Empire, but neither (at the time) had the ability to project force to the other. Even when Rome was able to project force to Arabia, that still did not constitute a Superpower. -- Psm 18:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is now the largest on Wikipedia, larger than the USA article as well. It needs to be cut in half. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.203.200 ( talk) 09:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Kurds: Indoeuropean migration: Around 7000 years ago the first migration waves( maybe because of population overcrowd) of the biggest language family of the world called indoeuropean language family started.The members of this big family first live together in a region in caucasus(west of caspian sea and today's Georgia and Armenia) or maybe in Anatolia near Van lake(today's turkey). Different branches of this big family were Germanic,Celtic, Baltic Slavic, Albanian, Latin, Greek, Armenian, Iranian and indoaryans. Among these branches there was a big branch named Iranian family. Iranian family had three major subgroups : Medes(today's Kurdish), Persian(today's Farsi,Tajik and Dari) and Parthian(extincted). Iranian people who called themselves as aryans( and iran means the land of aryans) first started their settlement in zagros mountains(west of today's iran)to anatolia (east of today's Van lake in turkey) in around 7000 years ago. They were Medes( ancectors of today's Kurds) first iranians who came to iran. Persians and Parthians came to iran hundreds of years later. The Medes formed the first big civilization of aryans (or maybe all indoeuropeans) in their lands. They preserved their brilliant culture and language against all foreign invasions during thausands of years. The first iranian big empire was founded by these people around 3000 years ago although they had many smaller kingdoms before that.Medes people( Kurds) have had important roles in development and vanishment of different big empires and kingdomes of the region until around 1000 years ago when islam came to their region. Many scolars believe that Zoroaster, the great iranian prophet was median. You can find in ancient greek and asyrian documents that they frequently mentioned directly to Median or Kurdish people as a people with a great civilization. Today their land is divided into more than four countries including Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Armenia and Azerbaijan as well. but all of the kurds in those countries still have the same language and culture. Except for Azerbaijan and Armenia and recently Iraq all other three countries are not democratic countries and kurds think they are under oppression in those countries and are fighting against those governments militarily or politicaly for their natural rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awyer ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hehehe gosh this is so funny....some people are living in a big bubble filled with greatness & superiority about their nationalism....try to stop choosing only parts that favor & flourish your nationalism....it seems like no other nations existed before or after you.....actually Mesopotamia was a great civilization before the Persian empire, Egypt, Ancient Greek, Chinese etc....break the bubble you're living in, what a looooong article & only specifically chosen topics.....& I noticed in the summarizing history table the editor JUMPED OVER the period with the Arabic/Islamic invasion & within the article they only speak of how the Great persians resisted arabization & they only acquired Islam...I was for a while suspecting the "self-great feeling" in persians but after this article & many other Iran-related articles I'm sure this idea is valid...anyway who cares...this was a funny article...regards 193.6.158.33 13:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
If you look into the pre-historic documents, both people of Iran and India are of same orgins "Aryan". Due to time and war etc.. people moved to different parts of the world and settled there life.I have gone through the lots of websites, all of them are showing the same..both belongs to Aryan origins.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bi-vu-ne ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The following quote is unattributed. Who said it, and when?
"The Persians ruled for a thousand years and did not need us even for a day. We have been ruling them for one or two centuries and cannot do without them for an hour.[42]"
I see the citation, of course, but the context must also be given in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.61.81.231 ( talk) 15:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to thank you and encourage you all for your great work on this article. By working together, you have collectively "agreed" on Iran, including many Iranian editors with diverse background and international editors. You have molded something detailed and general, at the same time. This article represents CONSENSUS on what Iran should be at this time. It is not easy to reach consensus when some people want to rage war on Iran. This article has tested the limits of open source collaboration and I salute everyone for that. You have greatly helped Iran and the international community of readers by providing information for free through your free time. Nowhere else people can find so much information about Iran and related articles on the Internet (in english). Thank you all. SSZ ( talk) 13:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this quotation goes well in here
“ | For thirty years, I suffered much pain and strife |
” |
' Cyrus111 ( talk) 12:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems that Alborz Fallah changed the pronunciation from ʔiˈrɒn back to iːˈɾɒn, including an audio recording of the pronunciation of the name. Regarding the notation, it is not possible to start a word with a vowel in pɒɾsi or any other Indo-European language, as far as I know. Also, pɒɾsi does not distinguish between [i] and [iː]. Regarding the recording, I know that Alborz Fallah claims to be a native pɒɾsi, but I have never heard a native speaker pronounce the name of the country or any other word in the language with [ɹ], making me doubt his knowledge about pɒɾsi phonology. DJ1AM ( talk) 19:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)DJ1AM
it is clear that this article have it's own POV, but i have no problems with that. What i do have problems with is the description of Iran as having scientific commuinity which mets the westren standards of qulity, what is, of course, not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.184.240 ( talk) 10:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be legitimate to say Iran is above the third world (and significantly ahead of what would be expected) in the scientific community when one considers the fact that Iran is the #1 victim of Brain Drain, has been economically isolated from the United States for decades (along with US pressure on other European countries against expanding trade with Iran), but I wouldn't really put their scientific community (within the country) on par with the Europeans and certainly no where near America. It's an above average scientific community, probobly one of the best in Asia, and a startingly good one considering the circumstances, but it's not on par with Western Europe or the USA. Obviously if the diaspora were to return and Iran's isolation were to end and government interference would cease, then Iran would certainly be on par with the Western World (minus the scientific superpower USA) - the vitality of the Iranian diaspora speaks for itself and it is bar none the most educated diaspora in the world. But until that happens, I wouldn't call Iran on par with the West scientifically, although it is above average. - 68.43.58.42 ( talk) 04:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
To wrote that iran don't have military nuclear program and to expect people to believe it is oh, well....Recently iran admitted that it intending to develop a nuclear weapons for already many years now, the un didn't claim-at least not recently, that iran don't have a nuclear weapon program. Who did somehow closer statement was the controversial muchmad el bardaei, head of the [ [International Atomic Energy Agency]] and even he only said that he don't have enough information to determine , however, this month he had no option but to declare that iran delivered to the agency a nuclear warhead drawings (after it had no other option but to do so-it was a political trick that been done by officials of the iranian regime-their intention was to precede the americans and the europeans whose already took up the drawings from iranian scientist laptop), actually similar to pakistanians nuclear warheads (and by that admitted it's hostile intentions), that is, from the same technological source (pakistanian dr.abdul chan) that sold them the centrifuges technology during the 90'. However, iran had problems, for a considerable time, till lately, to make the centrifuges work (and even if the iranian intentions was only civilian they still dont have even single nuclear power factory working that suppling energy for civilian purposes (not that iran need such, after all it have immense reserves of oil and gas. and there is also no sense in the refusal of iran to give free access for inspectors to the suspected nuclear sites if they have no military purpose and this after that iran faced sanctions and having, for this and for other reasons, heavy military tension with no less than the world No1 military superpower –USA-what made the oil prices to rise all over the world and even drived the iranian regime to cast fuel limits on the iranian citizen (much because iran don’t have a developed distillation industry and so in a case of war the fuel storage could be very short ). the claims that iran don't have nuclear program are not serious ones, it is like to said that israel don't have nuclear arsenal because no body outside israel have seen an israeli A-bomb. The iranian president himself declare that now iran have 7000 activated centrifuges- clearly, no country have what to do with so many of them, unless it intending to have a nuclear weapon. I didn't hear that iran have the 5th place in submitted patents-but it make no difference as what is more important is the quality of each patent and unfortunately it won't be too risky to bet that it is low, but i might be going wrong about it and i would be very happy if it is the case. Any way-please add a source for this argument you made. The most educated diaspora in the world is not the iranian, you are seriously misinformed about it, even if it is highly educated-and all of the examples you made (few) are for scientist who flew iran shortly after the revolution, get western education and are opponers to the radical islamic regime there (lets admit it: iran executed many homosexuals without even giving them a decent trial, and iran have a barbaric 'justice' system-that's why one of the most known regime opposers tongue been publicly cut off and the iranian TV keep broadcasting advertisement asking people not to take the law to their hands, or else they could find themselves executed (there are pictures of hanged citizens in it))- the iranian universities are not excommunicated by other world universities and still not even one of them is within the list of best 500 world universities. Can you name even one revolutionary scientific/technological original iranian made achievement since 1978? As i see it, and many others. iran is, sadly, a third world country by any mean. Finally, if compared with Israel-than the argument that Israel get all the help it needed is some how unsupported, Israel is isolated from it's own neighbors, don't having contracts with most of the Muslim world and been through many wars and yet all of it's universities are within the best 500, including one in the best 100 and the technion which is one of the 50 world's most outstanding educational institutions in engineering and computer science. More, it's population is much smaller than this of Iran and yet-far more advanced than Iran is in any aspect-the Israeli economy is surely first world economy (the Israeli incomes this year are about 210-230 billion dollars (only 3 billion of it, or less, are from external aid and there many people in Israel who oppose to it as it make Israel to depended on USA dictates) for only 7,000,000 citizens while, unlike Iran, it have no natural resources and Iran's incomes is around 600 billion dollars for a population almost 10 times bigger) and unlike those of Iran based upon the most innovative hi-tech industry in the world and other innovative industries mainly ( here is one source but you better check out for that matter). Israel probably had nuclear weaponry as early as 1963 while it was still poor and small country surrounded by enemies -by people who know better about the Israeli project the story is that Israel didn't have back then heavy industry and so the French were willing to help Israel and to supply the nuclear reactor but in return received Israeli technical and scientific nuclear knowledge which helped them to build their own nuclear program (today this reactor was improved by the Israelis and it is capable of producing 10 bombs each year this knowledge astonished the world as no other reactor this size can do something even close to it. More, Israel is the only country that successfully active laser based uranium enriching process that produce meaningful amounts of highly enriched uranium) -no less, and any way the chief of the French nuclear program was, if I'm not mistaken, Jewish, and so many of the French nuclear scientists- as it was for USA and UK (Israel and French had nuclear capability around the same time) . The Israeli weaponry industry is a way more sophisticated than those the Iranians have and evidently it sells in many billions each year to most of the western armies and to others. It is funny, but few months ago Iran to convince the Indian air force to sell it it's Israeli avionic systems for SU-30 jet fighters- Iran been told to be focused on the Israeli systems and to prefer it over French systems and etc as the Israeli avionic systems are well known around the world. Unlike Iran , Israel did suffered from many attempts to isolate it academically and to cast academic embargo over it- however, the contribution of the Israeli scientific community is so intense that it didn't passed, any way –the Israelis have figures like Yuval Ne'eman and they do have Nobel prizes for economy and chemistry and Jews that had their education in Israeli intuitions won Nobel prizes for physics and etc -according to some the Israeli community have at least 30 scientists ( him for example) who by no doubt deserve the Nobel prize but only political reasons, probably, are standing against it. If we are talking about Jewish diasporas-so there is no question that these are the most educated diasporas in the world and believe me-their achievements are without no possible comparison. The Israelis which immigrated outside Israel are may be the most creditable community for their abilities. I don't think that there is any nation that would done better than Israel under the same constraints. Now, we can compare Iran to other countries as well-but as long as it having this regime it wpuld remain third world country —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.242.202 ( talk) 07:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Why are they treating me like their KING and Lord then? (I am 100% Iranian genetically)
There is only ONE human race. The rest is ILLUSION and MYTH. 69.116.247.26 ( talk) 14:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
How is Israel relavent to this thread? Israel was never poor. Almost all of the Jews that migrated to Israel came from industrialized nations with education. As for its isolation in the Muslim World - that is entirely irrelevent. Israel is the only non-European state that is allowed to have scientific grants from the European Union. Moreover, the primary economic dilemma in the Middle East is nationalization and high government interference (ironically in a region that is religious and hates socialism/communism). Most of the Middle Eastern economies have been oil based and haven't carried significant trade leverage for decades. Oil is conducive to capital, but it is not conducive to labor, nor has it proven effective when it comes to diversification of an economy. The money from oil never gets redistributed. The only thing any of the Muslim countries (in the Middle East) have been capable of providing Israel since 1948 is oil. That's about it. Before oil was being pumped, the only countries in the region that weren't predominantly tribal were probobly Iran and Turkey. It is not like the Israelis were ever planning on actively trading with their Arab neighbors in the first place, so I don't see how that could possibly have been an economic setback for their economy. All 22 Arabic-speaking states have an economy smaller than that of Spain - it's not like isolation from the Arab World is as threatening to an economy as isolation from the United States. Almost 40% of Israel's exports go to the United States (which would be considered relatively low by previous Israeli standards); it seems Israel wouldn't fair too well in the event of American sanctions and a EU moratorium on scientific grants to the Israeli scientific community either. Further, it is foolish to say Israel simply "has no resources." The only resource the Arabs have is non-labor conducive oil. Most of them have very little access to the water, and with the exception of Egypt, Lebanon and Turkey, none of them have strategic trade positions on the Mediterreanean as Israel does. Prior to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006, Lebanon was booming and rapidly developing its economy since the end of Israeli occupation and Civil War before that. Turkey continues to boom. Egypt, similar to Iran, has too much government interference. Even so, Israel is entirely irrelevent to this thread. I'm assuming you are either anti-Islamic/Islamophobic, or you are simply blatantly pro-Israeli. Regardless of your political convictions, you need not lecture us on Israel. No one here cares. Iranians actually have the most educated diaspora in the world ever since 1979 and is considered to be the #1 victim of Brain Drain in the world. I could provide sources if you aren't aware. I agree with you that Iran should not be considered on par with the West scientifically, but it certainly is superior to much of the third world in this respect. Turkey, for example, is an industrialized nation, and its scientific community is not that significantly superior. - 68.43.58.42 ( talk) 03:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope this picture with the short article behind it from British Museum could be helpful about the citation required for the age of history of Iran. Apparently it goes somehting 8500 years before. http://behzadghorbani.com/images/2004_1114Image0022.JPG T2345 17:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
my question is how the hell did such a treasure for iran get to the british museam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.72.204 ( talk) 07:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is too big! I was delighted when I saw that the history section was smaller than the last time I saw the page. Let's keep the good work up and shrink it even more. For example the Iranian revolution... was way too detailed in events. events must should be more summarised e.g. The hostage crisis should be like this:
On (date) the American embassy was seized and x diplomats were taken hostage. By (date) all of the hostages were released due to diplomatic agreement. America hasn't yet executed their end of the agreement.
Or something like that. Also can the government section be slightly summarised? Ardeshire Babakan 13:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
i dont understand why evryone is being such a hard ass on size by sumerizing and deleting you lose information, maybee make a seperate article instead -Nikou- —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
64.230.34.97 (
talk) 05:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
More detailed information is ONLY FOR THE MAIN ARTICLE AND SEE-ALSOS! THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE FOR! Too much text will bore the reader. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ardeshire Babakan (
talk •
contribs) 16:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
wel before deleting the hard work many people have put in make the side articles and add a link to it -nikou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.72.204 ( talk) 07:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Who thinks the cuisine doesn't deserve a subsection all to it's self? It is dwarfed by Our art and literature and it hasn't got any defining text. It should either be a part of the introduction of the culture or preferably not mentioned at all. Give me your views. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 17:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the U.S.A. article has one so it should fly, but for a subesction you would need plenty of information (I'm not sure if it is dwarfed because of the fact it has little in being unique from many other countries in the region). Bretonnia ( talk) 16:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
actually it is very different than the food in other countries in the region. Siavash1989 ( talk) 19:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Then making a subsection for Cuisine should work out fine. Bretonnia ( talk) 16:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Pejman47 and I have come to a dilemma. We disagreed on this text in the culture section:
The Sassanid era was an important and influential historical periods in Iran Their cultural influenced Roman civilization considerably[102] and so influencing as far as Western Europe,[103] Africa,[104] China and India[105] and also playing a prominent role in the formation of both European and Asiatic medieval art.[106] This influence carried forward to the Islamic world.
I believe that this text is advertising Iranian culture and not only neglects giving the reader a better understanding of what Iranian culture is, but advertises it's importance.
Pejman47 however, sees that the influences of a culture is an important part of understanding that culture.
To prevent an edit war between us I have posted this on the talk page. Please post your views here and say who you agree with and make suggestions. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 13:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
http://www.PersiansAreNotArabs.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.9 ( talk) 19:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please confirm that the sound file at the intro comes from a native speaker?-- Avg 23:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Folks
I've amended the following line
to
for 2 reasons
1) It's factually inaccurate and misleading.
2) It reads like international sanctions are something new for Iran which of course they aren't.
If anyone can improve it and (please, please, please) maintain NPOV please do so.
Sean.hoyland -
talk 14:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that the Iran page has come to a stage where it is good enough to become an FA and Also it is very hard to find any improvements that we could make. So I am proposing that we renominate the Iran page for FA status. If U think the page is ready to be nominated then say so! Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 19:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Since Turkey article does not define that country as part of Middle East we should not do the same here. Iran is only Middle Eastern from the Euro POV. WP is a global encyclopedia. Even according to the Middle East article its usage is controversial and not necessarily accurate. I suggest we keep it out of the intro or rephrase as "being part of the geopolitical territory of Middle East". Also according to Middle East article: "The Middle East is a historical and political region of Afro-Eurasia with no clear boundaries" Meaning its usage is becoming more irrelevant as time goes by with the world becoming more global and less Eurocentric. BTW that article also contradicts itself in certain points. Khorshid ( talk) 09:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree; regional terms are ambiguous. Central Eurasian, Southwest Asian, or West Asian are all more appropriate. - Rosywounds ( talk) 14:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
No serious efforts have been made to condense certain portions of this article, particularly the history section. I am going to begin condensing it. The article is rich in information, but it is too diffuse and cluttered to be seriously considered for FA. Moreover, I think we need to go over it to fix some grammar. I hope others will make serious efforts as well. I just condensed the Mossadegh/Pahlavi section; I don't think it lost any valuable content, despite the fact that I was able to shred off 2 entire paragraphs. - Rosywounds ( talk) 14:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree with U. I give you my full support. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 20:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Iran has been Iran since the Sassanid times and you can see this name on Iranian coins and documents. Persia was not used in Iran. Untill the begining of the 20th century it was erroneusly used by the Western countries and nowadays the Iranian Americans call themselves Persian instead of Iranian, mainly due to avoid hostile behavior by the Americans there. Other than that the name has no added value. Im not going to revert your editions because they are harmless (bald letters were not necessary though). Just to let you know thast Iran is correct and Persia is wrong. Strictly taken Persia is only Ostan-e Fars, a region South Western Iran.-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 23:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
![]() | 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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
The main article on etymology is shorter than its treatment here. Also, the article does not mention WHY the Shah changed the name from Persia...all of which is discussed in the naming dispute article. The page is locked...someone needs to merge the etymology and dispute articles into one, and write a better summary to be included here. The information is all there, it is very poorly organized. 75.3.237.103 ( talk) 07:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This articale really had me thinking and I would advice all persons interested in Iran, Iraq, USA foregin policy in the Middle East to take a look at it and similar article from Iran and across the world.
There is a wealth of informationn we can use for the new article tht would deal with war betwwne the USA and Iran. Maybe we can put a section in the Iran article. Lets get some opinions on this.
Here are some excerts from the article that are well documented with proof...
Beating the War Drums: A Summer Offensive against Syria and Iran?
“One scenario is that their intrusion was a prelude for a large-scale assault,” he [Ahmad Bakhshayesh, a professor of political science at Tehran’s Allameh Tabatabai University] said.
This week, Maj. Gen. Hassan Firoozabadi, Iranian armed forces chief of staff, predicted that the U.S. and Israel would launch a massive attack on the [Middle East] this summer.
“International Zionism and the Palestine-usurping Israel with the support of the reactionary neoconservatives of the U.S. are preparing a new plan,” he said, according to Iranian news agencies. [40]
At the official level, Israel has also ratcheted down the implausible rhetoric that Syria is preparing for a near-term offensive against Israel to the more plausible account that Syria is initiating the mobilization of its defensive forces. This includes the purchase of weapons systems from Iran and Russia, and also the manufacturing of rockets and missile with the help of Iran and Russia. Russian anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles are also being delivered to Syria. The U.S. has also imposed further sanction on the Syrian military. [41]
The consequences and results of any strikes against Syria would be far-reaching and would destabilize the whole of the Middle East from Turkey to Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Iran would also intervene on the side of its Syrian allies.
War in the Middle East: The Palestinian Front
A war against Syria would have disastrous ramifications for Anglo-American occupied Iraq and would spill over into Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordon. The Associated Press reported that Ahmed Jibril of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), a group with strong links to Syria, like other Palestinian leaders said that his forces would fight against Israel and the U.S. should they attack Syria or Iran;
“We will not allow any aggression against Syria or the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Ahmed Jibril told a rally of about 1,000 supporters in a Palestinian refugee camp in the Syrian capital.
“I say it frankly, we will not only be on their side, we will be in the forefront,” said Jibril. [42]
Hamas has also made similar statements saying that the Palestinians, Syria, and Iran are part of a united front and that any war launched against either Syria or Iran will generate a battle front in Palestine against Israeli forces. Khaled Meshaal, the political leader-in-exile of Hamas pledged his support to Iran and Syria in December of 2005:
“We are part of a united [resistance] front, and if one member [e.g. Syria, Iran] of this [resistance] front is attacked it is our duty to support them.” [43]
Iranian ballistic missiles will leave Israeli forces exposed. The leaders of the different Palestinian fractions and groups are well aware of this. The Palestinian leaders know in the possible scenario of a war against Iran and Syria, that Israel would be placed at a disadvantage inside the Palestinian Territories and that the battlefront would be “almost even” between Israeli troops and Palestinian fighters.
If Syria were attacked there would be violence in Jordan and possibly civil war. The bulk of the population in Jordan is either Palestinian or the descendents of Palestinian refugees. Many in Jordan also oppose the authoritarian rule of the Hashemite Dynasty and the support that King Abdullah II gives the U.S. and Israel, which is directed against Palestine and Iraq.
War in the Middle East: The Iraqi Front
“The U.S. military presence [in Iraq and Afghanistan] will not become an element of strength [as the Pentagon thinks] at our expense. The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into [our] hostages [in the event of any attacks against Iran].”
-Rear-Admiral Ali Shamkhani (August 18, 2004)
If war were to be waged against Iran and Syria, there would be casualties in the tens of thousands in Iraq and the Persian Gulf. Iraq would become a graveyard for American and British forces. American and British troops would be overwhelmed by waves of well armed and well trained Iranian troops from the East and Syrian troops from the West and an Iraqi Resistance that would undoubtedly grow in numbers and strengthen ten fold with the arrival of Iranian and Syrian military forces.
Iraqi cleric and leader, Moqtada Al-Sadr, a major opponent of the U.S. and Britain in Iraq, has also pledged to stand by Syria and Iran in a united front against Israel, the U.S., and Britain. While in Tehran, the young Shiite Muslim cleric said in the presence of Dr. Ali Larijani, the Secretary-General of the Supreme Security Council of Iran, that his forces would battle on the side of Iran if Iran were to be attacked. The Washington Post carried the story about Moqtada Al-Sadr’s visit to Tehran and concluded that Anglo-American occupied Iraq was destined to eventually become a battleground between U.S. and Iranian forces:
The rest of the article is here. Sorry I have no idea how to format so you can read everything here.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5791
Get the idea? There are many others from other news sources and writrs we can use inclsuding Seymour Hersh and from Russia.
We should really think about making an article not on threats of war, but on the buildup to a war that could happen in the Middle East.
The US also has 2 carrier battle groups in the region. Bearing in mind the US (and UK) also have incredibly developed power projection cabailities and could probably deliver another divison or at least another brigade to the region within weeks or even days of any signs of conflict, with another shortly thereafter due to the existing supply infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as US bases in Kuwait and other arab nations. Then theres the european nations such as france and germany who may get involved as many have strong ties to israel due to the nature of israel's origins. WikipedianProlific (Talk) 22:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Can an article be created on the Possibility of war in the Middle East? The answer is NO, because Wikipedia is NOT a Crystal Ball. (See WP:NOT) For your information, there has been an article on this subject that got deleted recently called " Plans for military attacks against Iran". 69.116.234.208 12:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
i wonder how ignorant you guys will a feel if nothing happens for the next decade, however i wonder how foolish i will feel if it does happen, either way i'll be running to the recruitment officers with filled out forms
If this article is ever going to become "very good" or "featured," it needs a foreign policy section. If it has a "cuisine" section, it needs a "foreign policy" section.
Emotions run high on the subject of Iranian foreign policy, as they do in the subject of United States foreign policy. Iran's foreign policy is obviously influenced by the history of colonialism in the Iran by the United Kingdom, the United States, and Russia. It is also influenced by the clash of religion and secularism, by the Iraq-Iran war, and by the hostage crisis of 1979-81.
These are hot topics that provoke emotional responses, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss them facutally and dispassionately.
Iran is trying to influence the course of the Middle East. Whether you think that this is for good or for ill is not relevant. However, it is a FACT that the Iranian government has deep ties with Hezbollah. It is also clear that they are maintaining ties with Shiite militias in Iraq. This is not POV, this is factual.
You may be angry at the United States or the Bush administration, or with the government in Iran. But that doesn't mean that Iran does not have an active foreign policy in the Middle East.
I had appended a foreign policy section to "Military," where somebody deleted the entire thing, and said that it was all POV.
This section on foreign policy can and must be improved. It can be added to. I'm sure people will get mad about it. But please work on it, don't just delete it.
Here's what I started with on June 17:
"Foreign Policy" Iran is deeply committed to limiting or eliminating the influence of Western powers in the Middle East, and to preventing the resurgence of a Sunni-dominated Iraq. As a result, it has tried to limit the influence of the United States, which currently has hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in three of Iran's neighbors: Iraq, Afganistan, and Turkey. While Iran has avoided direct military confrontation with the United States, Iran is able to project power and influence in the region through proxy sources. Iran's government has well-established military and political ties with Hezbollah in Lebanon, which is engaged in an armed struggle with Israel. [1] Additionally, the United States government maintains that Iran gives weapons, bomb technology and military training to Shiite militias in Iraq. These militias, which include Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, in turn use this training and technology in attacks against Sunni militias and US coalition forces in Iraq. Iran has denied any involvement in the civil war in Iraq. [2]
Western powers, including the United States and the United Kingdom, maintain that Iran is working towards the construction of an atomic bomb. Iran's government has denied this, while steadfastly maintaining that their nation has as much of a right to atomic weapons as the Western powers, Russia, China, or Israel.
On May 29, 2007, the United States and Iran held the first public, senior-level talks between the two nations in more than two decades. [3]
PLEASE REMEMBER THIS: Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily:
Do not simply revert changes in a dispute.
When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. -Unsigned comment by Mcattell
I would like to have a passport section about Iranian passport and its history, how it looked like until today. There are different passports:
1)Ordinary 2)Emergency 3)Protection 4)Refugee 5)Service 6)Diplomatique 7)Etc.....
Could anyone take this up and its history?? Please.....
There is another issue that should be discussed and it's Iran's national IQ, which is as low as 84 and not 105 as in Japan. Serious discussion please do not tell me that the Japanese eat more fish. I think they rather have a positive self-image. There is a distinct difference between The European High Self-Image and The more accurate and scientific positive Self-Image such as described by Mr. Bahman Chehel-Amirani ( an antroprologist from Uppsala University, Sweden ) and Dr. Holakoee ( a psychologist in L.A. ).
The Pre-Revolutionary section is quiet poor. I think it is because so many Iranian are still against the Pahlavi Era, even if The Shah gave us A Positive Persian Self-Image so we could live today. I just wonder what the traditional political parties did for You and Me. I am just a foot-soldier.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Iranian Issue ( talk • contribs) 13:29, 24 June 2007
I would see the use for an article devoted to the Iranian Nationality Laws like for other countries. See British nationality law as a possible model. 69.116.234.208 12:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The pahlavi dynasty is as it should be. unfortunately the other sections are way too detailed. Please people, this article is supposed to get smaller, not bigger!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.219.62.196 ( talk) 13:10, 30 June 2007
I strongley agree that Japan and Iran can't be compared when it comes to respective Nation's IQ. Iran must solve it's own problem which goes back 1000 years of lawless behaviour and bad, am-Iranian leadership until todays´date.
For example revolutionary leaders never cared about the unemployment: The best way they thought it was sending all people to War Front in order to defend Islam and become martyr for this. Their sole would eventually come to the paradise and meet 13 virgins (???). Talk about developing nation, IQ and solving problems.
According to Iranian socialogists, if Iran did not have the Clergies and Islam, We wouldn't have today's problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iranian Issue ( talk • contribs) 20:56, 24 June 2007
Having said that: Do you insinuate that Iran was somehow responsible for the war with Iraq and its economic repercussions(?). I strongly disagree that one regime or religion alone bears the entire responsibility. It's wrong to distinguish between religions or races. We are all one: One human race and one nation under God.
Also, you said: "According to Iranian sociologists, if Iran did not have the Clergies and Islam, We wouldn't have today's problems." please provide a link to this study (Wikipedia is not a political forum - See WP:NOT). If you want to contribute, please do so. Otherwise, it's a useless divisive debate. 69.116.234.208 01:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought we had resolved this problem long ago. Today, I see Cuvette reinstating a section devoted to health care when it is already mentioned and duplicated in the Demography of Iran section. For the rest, we have a separate article devoted to that entitrely. I think that we don't need "mortality rates for children under 5 years old" (and under 10 etc.) on the main page. What do you think? Please share your thoughts.
I agree that in the military section, mention by US top CENTCOM Commander is somewhat POVish because the same was said about Iraq in 1991 (i.e."4th mightiest army on earth"). I removed it. 69.116.234.208 04:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we see more information of this nature about Iran in Wikipedia?
Thousands of friends are far too few, an enemy is too much
69.116.234.208 08:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
You would have spared many lines to this talk page by simply answering "yes" or "no"... The subject is linked to Iran I can assure you but we never got to this point because you did not want to answer my simple question. Your link to the FED on Wikipedia is good but I am still not sure if average people will be able to find the answer by reading it entirely, three times. 69.116.234.208 08:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Cute Kid.-- Atlanic wave2. 00:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I find it appalling that democracy is not mentioned once in this article. Like it or not, this is a democratic country! They hold elections, people! VolatileChemical 00:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
democracy by label, not by practise.
We talking about the States or Iran here? I just can't tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.187.200 ( talk) 03:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
A recent Amnesty International report has rapped Iran over its continued use of execution to punish minors. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6244126.stm). This is quite a significant subject and should be mentioned and highlighed within the article. Jamie 07:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Children being killed, that is horrific! -- Atlanic wave2. 00:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
More information should be supplied on this topic not just a quick mention not even that! Mwalkmi 13:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Uhh, "horrific" you say. Just to add some perspective: the BBC article cited states: In a report entitled Iran: the Last Executioner of Children, Amnesty says that since 1990, 24 child offenders have been executed in Iran - more than in any other country in the world...Eleven of these people were still under 18 at the time of their execution, while the others were kept on death row until they reached 18 or were convicted and sentenced after reaching that age, the report says.
However, as this article points out: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/02/politics/02scotus.html, the practice was quite popular in another country until quite recently. Concluding that the United States and the world have turned against the death penalty for youthful offenders, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the Constitution categorically bars capital punishment for crimes committed before the age of 18. The 5-to-4 decision, which upheld a ruling by the Missouri Supreme Court, will move 72 people off death row in 12 states. It represented an about-face for a court that only 16 years ago rejected the argument that the execution of those who kill at the age of 16 or 17 violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments."...There have been 19 such executions in the United States since 1990, most recently in 2003.
And in the same BBC article cited above, it's apparent that Iran's lawmakers are heading in the same direction: Amnesty says a draft law proposed by the judiciary in 2001 and still under consideration by the Iranian authorities could pave the way for the abolition of the death sentence for minors - or at least result in a reduction in the number of offences for which child offenders could be sentenced to death. So let's just keep things in perspective here; ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Criminoboy ( talk • contribs) 07:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Pejman47, you have just reverted the work of several days for many people (including mine), who have been working on this article diligently. Our work was done independently of each other. Some have changed pics in the history section or in the economy; some have edited text in many different sections over that period. Please note that your intervention is disruptive and somewhat unexplained. You have to be specific and you can't revert the work of everybody at the same time. Please provide more explanations below for each individual edits that you have reverted. Thank you. 69.116.234.208 23:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
What on earth is that Ali quote doing next to the picture of Avicenna's book in the history section??-- Zereshk 08:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
By 2015 Iran will have as many as Russia has its population? I mean about 125 millions? Was Putin correct when he told this?-- Tones benefit 19:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
A source said on a UN web-page last year it would be about 90-95 million strong.-- Atlanic wave2. 00:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
There are several reliable sources which mention that Iran has become a great power in the middle east and Central Asia. For example Jacques Chirac has quoted:
Iran is a great power which has its rightful place and its rightful role to play in the stability of the region. [2]
Nicholas Burns has quoted:
Our view is that Iran is a generational challenge. It is not a challenge that is going to be episodic or fleeting; it will likely be on the front burners of our foreign policy in 2010, and 2012, and probably 2020. It is the largest country in the Middle East. It aims to be the most powerful country in the Middle East, and it always will, no matter what type of government it has. [3]
I propose adding this issue in the lead. We can mention abilities and disabilities of Iran to be a great power in th region.
Iran's power is based on its ideology which has affected Iraq and Lebanon. Iran also has great influence in Syria and Afghanistan. Iran has fascinating geographical position. There's the best transit corridor between east Asia and Europe as well as central Asia and the see. She has prominent position in the Persian Gulf and about 20 percent of oil's pass through Strait of Hormuz . Iran's political system is the most stable one in the region. There wasn't any coup in the last 50 years and it could survive an eight-year war. The terrorist attacks in Iran is less than other countries of the region. Iran don't have any severe clash with her neighbors while other great countries of the region have clashes. She can manage the ethnicities and prevent separatist tendencies. Iran has a lot of natural resources and raw minerals. Iran holds 10%(4th country) [4] of the world's proven oil reserves and 15%(2nd country) of its gas. It is OPEC's second largest exporter and the world's fourth oil producer. Iran also has gain high tech achievements like nuclear enrichment.
Iran also has large population(3rd in the region after Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey) [5], large army (2nd in the region after Pakistan) [6], large territory (2nd in the region after Saudi Arabia) [7].
The only challenge which may fade its power is economical condition. Although Iran has the second GDP in the region after Turkey [8] and about 5% GDP growth in average but has been threatened by the shortage of skilled labor, poverty, inflation, unemployment, dependency on the oil price, the U.S. sanctions, high risk of investment, mismanagement and instability in the economical policies.-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 04:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore here is the reasoning of the original poster broken down:
"Iran's power is based on its ideology which has affected Iraq and Lebanon. Iran also has great influence in Syria and Afghanistan."
"She has prominent position in the Persian Gulf and about 20 percent of oil's pass through Strait of Hormuz ."
"Iran don't have any severe clash with her neighbors while other great countries of the region have clashes."
"The only challenge which may fade its power is economical condition. Although Iran has the second GDP in the region after Turkey [10] and about 5% GDP growth in average."
WikipedianProlific (Talk) 20:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Who and WHY? Iran's page has been vandalized on a daily basis for many weeks and I am asking WHY it is not protected? Japan, USA and even France are protected. Why Iran's protection has been removed? Where are the Administrators?
69.116.234.208 22:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Protection may have expired. You can file a new request at WP:RfP. Hope this helps. WikipedianProlific (Talk) 21:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
well i dont see anything in the US section saying how the USA has lied about WMD and has started on war based of false pretence. If you want to see Iran's inovlment in Terrorism go to the Hezbollah page. Just like if you want to see info on anyother sub topic
Oh, hi. Iran controls, funds, trains, an operates an organization called Hezbollah. This is a known fact, not a bias or an opinion. To exclude this information is utter propagandistic crap. Let's not do that. Hezbollah is regarded as a Terrorist groups by many nations within the international community, due to their policy of intentionally and specifically targeting civilians for murder. So I'm making a section in the article about. I you want to take it down for some disingenuous reason, then we can have a little edit war about. Maybe while you are at it you can add a section to the Holocaust page about how its historical validity is din dispute by some people, yada, yada. No. Iran owns and operates Hezbollah. This happens, it exists, and it is a valid fact to put in any Encyclopedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oji The Unseen ( talk • contribs) 10:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC).
Those documented sources should be mentioned in the section and references are needed. Vonones 03:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC) All of them are available on the Wikipedia article on Hezbollah, and the information and the tone it was delivered in are consistent both with the Wikipedia Hezbollah article and Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Is really necessary to provide the Wikipedia article as a footnote if it is already linked?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oji The Unseen ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC).
Lies. I said Iran funds and directs the activites of Hezbollah, which is true. I said many nations considered Iran to be a terrorist organization, which is true. I also stated that much of the Muslim and Arab world view them as freedom Fighters, which is also true. That does not constitute an attack. You have no valid reason to reverse that edit. Accurate and True, as well as unbiased descriptions of relevant information about a topic is exactly what is supposed to go into encyclopedias. This is precisely what I have provided. Article will be restored.{{subst:unsigned|Oji The Unseen|—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oji The Unseen ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC).
Satisfied? -- Alexander
Information is relevant to article, relevant to the sort of guidelines that determine what goes into an Encyclopedia, relevant to an accurate depiction of Iran, and relevant to World affairs and politics. Leaving it out would be like omitting information about The Iran-Iraq War, or Zoroastrianism. It is an important piece of information. Stop your propaganda edits. This is supposed be an Encyclopedia with relevant, accurate, true, and honest information, not a propaganda outlet for Persian Pride. -- Alexander
Oh? Even if they kill and kidnap people in a very visible fashion at the order and understanding of that government? And even if it has a major impact on the International Relations and standing of that nation? Should Iran's military proper not have a place on their main page? Hezbollah has an impact and is of note. Other countries known of suspected of supporting Terrorists, or freedom fighters or whatever you want to call them have references to those organizations, including links to those groups entries on their main page. Like Ireland, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, ans so on, and in almost every one of these cases the governments involvement is less than in Iran's case with Hezbollah. Why should Iran's page be any different? Is Iran special somehow? In some manner protected from the publishing of an inconvenient truth? I fail to understand your reasoning. I am wary of your intentions. As for obeying Wikipedia's rules, I've yet to do otherwise, and I've no intention of being nasty. As far as cooperation, I'd be happy to cooperate with any other Wikipedia user in the quest to make sure pages have relevant, honest, informative, unbiased information on them. If you mean anything else by cooperate, then no, I don't. I'd be happy to sort the manner out with you via rational, plain, honest discourse, where the only agenda to push is the Truth and Relevancy of the article. Alexander 02:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It isn't undue weight due to the essentially unparalleled relationship between Hezbollah and the Iranian government, as well as the rather auspicious events Hezbollah has been involved in the area of International Relations. They were even directly involved in a war against a foreign country, and are direct agents of the Iranian government. This position is unique and important enough to the State and Statue of affairs in Iran as to deserve mention. "the article on Iran is not meant to mention everything about Iran" What?! That makes zero sense. As for referencing, the tone and information given is taken almost word for word from the article on Hezbollah, and furthermore is 'common knowledge', as well as already being linked to that article. It therefore does not particularly need any further sourcing unless you really want another link added to the bottom as a footnote. And it certainly passes the verification policy. Essentially what you are saying is without the redundant link you do not agree it is in line with this policy, yes? Also, this section fits in fine with the template laid out for the WikiProject Countries, perhaps you should read that again thoroughly. It fits perfectly into the 'Miscellaneous Topic' template section. I am not trying to be confrontational or insulting, but you are either very by the book or are just looking for any convenient excuse to keep any mention of Hezbollah out of this article for propagandistic reasons. Are you genuine or no? If so I suggest you try to reach a compromise with me instead of feeding into what is already a blossoming edit war. Alexander 04:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what about two guys shaking hands is so telling about Iran, so please make your case soon or else I will undo your revert. Thanks. The Behnam 04:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
For your information, I did not create, upload, paste or edit this image on Iran's page.
The picture illustrates the Irans isolation during the Iran-Iraq war and a key part of the events that happened during that war, which is Irans greatest War of the 20th century. Hajji Piruz 18:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
OK it seems there is no consensus and The Behman has deleted the image.
I suggest to vote.
QUESTION: Who wants to keep the follwing picture on the history section of Iran (Iran-Iraq war)?
Keep. The picture is relevant in order to illustrate an important aspect of the Iran-Iraq war, namely the unholy alliance between the USA and Iraq (i.e. USA providing weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein) SSZ 03:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment - A vote probably won't do anything here except keep the inappropriate image. Many users are sensitive to the issue and may vote 'keep' because they might like to increase awareness of US involvement in the procurement of WMD by Saddam regardless of whether or not the picture actually illustrates anything of direct relevance to the topic of the article, the nation of Iran. While it seems many users that I dispute with don't understand this, "consensus" doesn't mean anything if it is just 'weight in numbers' without true regard for policies and guidelines. SSZ, I encourage you to opt for an actual discussion rather than a "vote" that is susceptible to corruption. This ain't a democracy. Right now, I see that you want to keep the image to illustrate the "unholy alliance," not to illustrate something about the nation of Iran itself. This is precisely the 'to make a point' invalid reasoning that brought this whole issue to the table. The Behnam 04:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The Behman: as a compromise solution, I suggest we keep the image until the end of September 2007 (it would have been on Iran's page for a year). Then, we can remove it permanently from this page. Agree? SSZ 06:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
We are not supposed to be writing a "tragedy" - we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia article that is neutral. Hence we shouldn't be putting things in to communicate what we think is tragic or to demonstrate the "unholy alliance." The Behnam 19:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Somebody complained that the Rumsfeld picture didn't really say illustrate anything about the nation of Iran. I agreed and so I removed the picture. However, it was restored under the claim that "On contrary this image tells a lot about what happeend during that time in Iran."
I guess there refering to American involvment in the war —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.109.13 ( talk) 19:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Despite the discussions of détente in the Middle East, the peril of war is still a real menace that threatens to proliferate globally. The dialogue taking place between the U.S., the E.U., Russia, Syria, and Iran seems to be merely a transient point in the timeline of the Middle East and Central Asia. The ongoing international discussions focused on the Middle East are part of an instant in time and history that will come to pass. Attached to these discussions are the fate of the Middle East, or so it may seem. With certainty, only time will tell what will unfold in the Middle East and become recorded in the annals of history.
A deeper look must be taken at the evolving domestic conditions within the “American Homeland” and at the wave of events that are unfolding in the Palestinian Territories, Israel, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, the Persian Gulf, the former Soviet Union, and Iran.
There have been reports and chatter about war between Israel and Syria and a “Summer War” that could breakout in the Levant with the initiation of Israeli strikes in the Palestinian Territories and Lebanon. The summer-months of 2007 may see international tensions rise, but witness no regional war that could potentially spread in the Middle East and beyond. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6281 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.101.84.212 ( talk • contribs) 08:04, 16 July 2007.
re- "Zoroastrianism spread unimposed during the time of the Achaemenids and..."
What does 'unimposed' mean? Should it be 'unopposed'? Brian Pearson 03:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The motto presneted in the article (Independence, Freedom, Islamic Republic), is not the national motto of Iran. It is the political motto of the government of Iran. A national motto is something rooted in the nation's history and related to its coming into being, which is more likely the Zoroastrian-rooted motto (Kerdaar-e-nik, Pendaar-e-nik, Goftaar-e-nik). If we cannot agree on a motto it is better to remove it altogether than to put something purely political like this. Shervink 09:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick note - while you are quite correct, Behnam, that Farsi is the Farsi term for the Persian language, Persian is the English name for Farsi. I would use "Persian" in an English language article, and qualify it with "Farsi". Have a think about making the change. docboat 00:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Whoops - my apologies Behnam, I got that backassward. docboat 00:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Pars=Fars Pars= Persia(latinized)
This article is MASSIVE! we should AT LEAST HALF its size. The history section is growing by the week! If you think of something to to write on wikipediaq, write it in the MAIN ARTICLE!!!!!!
The history section should be as follows: 1-Pre-Parthian dynasties: The current subsection is too detailed. For instance cambyses only ruled for a short period of time and hasn't had any effect on modern Iran. if the subsection is supposed to be that detailed then we better write a line or two about the lives of every one who ever ruled Iran!
2-the rest of the pre islamic period: The sassanid and Parthian subsections should be merged and 50% to75% of the text deleted.
3-From then to the safavids: This SHOULD NOT be an essay about the attempt to arabize Iran or it's influence on the world; I couldn't care less about the ottomans in vienna Or Islamic Philosophy. Ferdowsi never effected The political history of Iran! I know how he saved farsi and he should be respected and remembered, but the only articles he should be reffered to is in articles (and setions) concerning Litterature and culture and language. It's like mentioning him in the Ahmadinejad article because he read his poetry in his schoolbooks!
4-from safavids till the revolution: The Birth of modern Iran is OK for now, but there is room for improvement. The merging of the two subsections is just an idea and it doesn't matter much but what does matter is the size of the Pahlavi section. I know there was alot was happening at that time but please shorten it!
5-Islamic repub.: This sould be a short summary of the most recent 28 years of Iranian history! I haven't read the section in full because the parts that I did read bored me with statistics and saying who backed who in the war. Manu kian maheri93 19:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I shouldn't have deleted that. But at the time and even now I feel as if that info is too detailed for the section. I will let others decide on that. Manu kian maheri93 23:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Back in March, I came to this page to respond to a request for "impartial editorial input" on the topic of the size of the history section. I reviewed the arguments, and I did a simple statistical review of other, similar articles (e.g. Egypt, Greece, China, etc). My conclusion was emphatically that the history section in this article should be reduced dramatically, to on the order of 1000-1500 words. My analysis and commentary are [ archived here]. After my posting, discussion stopped, but no action was taken. -- Psm 18:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that there was a map of the safavid empire in the from the fall of...section. so I moved it to it's rightful place. Manu kian maheri93 23:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I also noticed a few other pics not being in(what Ithink) is there proper place. For instance that picture of the avesta writen in middle Persian should be in the culture sec. under Persian language. Also the ferdowsi picture should be in the culture section. I have not yet made these two changes. Manu kian maheri93 23:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The current timeline for establishment in the infobox is somewhat misleading. The subject of the article wasn't actually established with the Elamite, Median, Achaemenian, etc empires. Those are part of the history but not actually part of the same entity. There is no continuity - it isn't like some Sassanian exile government was waiting and eventually reestablished itself.
I'm looking into options that may be more accurate. I have seen Italy's "formation" infobox, as it has a similar history (big empires in the past, later periods of disunity and/or foreign control). Italy starts with "Unification" in 1861, but also marks when the current (form) of government took hold, "Republic" in 1946.
I think that a similar format would be informative and accurate on this article. Hence, we could have "Unification" w/ Safavid in 1502, then "Constitutional Monarchy" at 1906, and lastly "Islamic Republic" at 1979. The Behnam 19:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Why is there a tag at the top saying the article is too long? Did someone shorten the article and forget to remove the tag? The length looks fine to me. Slacker 08:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about the rest of you, but I think the History section on this page is just too damn long. It's like the entire History of Iran page itself was simply copied and pasted onto this one. Thoughts? 24.160.170.22 03:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I have tried many many many times to shorten it and have mentioned it several times on this page, but, as you said people always undo them and I even been accused of vandalism. So instead I have been working on nShiraz and other articles, but I will help you shorten it. Just ask! Manu kian maheri93 10:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
This has been debated in previous (archived) talk sessions. The conclusion has been to shorten it (significantly). But any attempts get stopped. Seems to be viewed as a patriotic issue.-- Psm 05:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
{{reqmapin|Iran|the Middle East}} There should be a good orienting map near the beginning of the article showing neighboring countries, major cities, and major geographical features. -- Beland 18:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Iranians also adapted the same culture as Pakistanis, including music and cinema. Afghanistan as well, Irans cinema and entertainment has often seeked entertainment from India as well.
Why is this note attached to the caption of the Rumi image: "This image is a candidate for speedy deletion. It will be deleted after seven days from the date of nomination." It appears we have the permission of the artist to use the image and it is noted on the image page. No deletion notice is on the page, but someone has complained on the talk page about it supposedly showing God. Why would this image be deleted? Algabal 16:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I recently added a link to this page that connected to Iran collection website. This site is one of the rarest site that talks about Persian currencies (Coins and pape money) plus medals and orders of Iran. The site is just informative and not a trading site. I added this, only for informative purposes and regret to see that a user has deleted the link. There are too many links in the page and none of them regard such a theme. I can not forget this rude action. Leo71538 09:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
http://www.iranhome.net
"and also playing a prominent role in the formation of both European and Asiatic medieval art." Shouldn't there be written asian medieval art. National socialists used word 'asiatic', 'asiates' in hate langue, so at least in russian it has negative conotations with meaning something like barbarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.148.71.250 ( talk) 05:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that this article on Iran, a minor country, has an article size larger than that of France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, Italy, and India?
Yeah its a minor power, yet its on the news every other half hour. Regardless, this page is long because there are a lot of sub topics all in this page (i.e. sports- one sentence will do anything more should go in another page). Your ignorance is quite evident. Iran has significant role in pre history, Ancient history, Middle Age, as well as current.e.g. Iran is claimed democaracy yet it is quite clear that to call Iran a republic without the element of theocracy involvment will be misinformed. Therefor it will require more explanation. As oppose to France, which is a plain democaracy.
For anyone to say that Iran in any point in history. like the one guy did saying it didnt have much a role in the middle ages....is plain stupid. Iran only rivaled with the roman empire. because we all kno
Maybe i should start claiming that the UK should change it's name beacause the whole United KINGDOM is smaller then Iran. Its petty, if you think other countries should have a bigger page then start researching and typing. I quite frankly think that a smaller page is better because it gets to the point
This seems as though the article is extremely biased in favour of Iran and seriously breaching the WP:NPOV considering Iran is not even a “ Middle Power” like that of Canada, Spain, Brazil, South Korea, or Australia, but perhaps merely a “ Regional power” like that of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Indonesia, Mexico, Thailand, or South Africa. The article has became larger than every other country article expect that of the United States, even larger than articles on “ Great powers” like that of China, France, and Germany, and even larger than previous “ Superpowers” of Russia, and the United Kingdom.
Some might state that Iran has much ancient history to divulge hence the article size yet so do the articles on Egypt, Greece, Italy, China, and the articles of France, Spain, and England have much medieval history to divulge yet none of these articles are anywhere near the size of this article.
Well lets see your right in Ancient time iran rivaled egypt greece. Well in the middle ages where was Greece and Egypt??? Persia rivaled the Roman Empire with many recorded wars over land. Even records from Roman empire who saw Iran as threat and feared their growth.....i suggest you read some history
Most of the problem is the sheer quantity of ancient Persian history included in this article’s history section. I suggest that an amount of the information regarding ancient Persia be moved to an article regarding ancient Persia.
If this doesn’t happen the article itself will become damaged by the article continuing to grow in size until the sheer volume of information puts readers off reading the article as a whole. Signsolid 16:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I liked it, I learned a lot about Iran, and I don't believe Iran is a minor country coz Persia has been one of the most influential civilizations ever! (also unfortunately whenever Bush and Blair talk about WW3, they name Iran!)also by a simple look at the number archive pages here, you would understand that it's one of the most viewed pages on wikipedia, that reflects it's importance among viewers! anyway, the article is categorized so everyone can find the information she/he needs, hopefully one needs not to read the whole page by force! so Do you hate information or do you have problem with Persians?!!! Sean
If the USA article is really that long why don't you shorten that article first? Shervink 10:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If the USA page is larger than Irans, there seems to be a problem, since USA's history is peanuts in size compared to Iran's. But I do think the history section of Iran should be actually Summarized Bretonnia ( talk) 22:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This has been discussed elsewhere and settled by RfC after extensive discussion (e.g. see the talk pages related to Sparta). The conclusion was not to use the word "superpower" in regards to *any* ancient empires. To spare you reading through that talk page, here's the gist of it: Ancient empires were not able to be a Superpower in that they were not able to project military force on a global scale. The superpower notion post-dates WWII and was a way to distinguish the new phenomenon of the USA and USSR (from 1945 onwards) in contrast to the previous period of the Great Power (from roughly 1815 to WWII). Similarly, "ruling over the known world" is a related misnomer. Ancient empires ruled over what they ruled over, and may or may not have been aware of other empires far away. E.g. the incense trade routes are as old as 2000 BC, so certainly the Persians were aware of the Indies, but had absolutely no manner to project power. The Roman Republic was also co-terminus with the Persian Empire, but neither (at the time) had the ability to project force to the other. Even when Rome was able to project force to Arabia, that still did not constitute a Superpower. -- Psm 18:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is now the largest on Wikipedia, larger than the USA article as well. It needs to be cut in half. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.203.200 ( talk) 09:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Kurds: Indoeuropean migration: Around 7000 years ago the first migration waves( maybe because of population overcrowd) of the biggest language family of the world called indoeuropean language family started.The members of this big family first live together in a region in caucasus(west of caspian sea and today's Georgia and Armenia) or maybe in Anatolia near Van lake(today's turkey). Different branches of this big family were Germanic,Celtic, Baltic Slavic, Albanian, Latin, Greek, Armenian, Iranian and indoaryans. Among these branches there was a big branch named Iranian family. Iranian family had three major subgroups : Medes(today's Kurdish), Persian(today's Farsi,Tajik and Dari) and Parthian(extincted). Iranian people who called themselves as aryans( and iran means the land of aryans) first started their settlement in zagros mountains(west of today's iran)to anatolia (east of today's Van lake in turkey) in around 7000 years ago. They were Medes( ancectors of today's Kurds) first iranians who came to iran. Persians and Parthians came to iran hundreds of years later. The Medes formed the first big civilization of aryans (or maybe all indoeuropeans) in their lands. They preserved their brilliant culture and language against all foreign invasions during thausands of years. The first iranian big empire was founded by these people around 3000 years ago although they had many smaller kingdoms before that.Medes people( Kurds) have had important roles in development and vanishment of different big empires and kingdomes of the region until around 1000 years ago when islam came to their region. Many scolars believe that Zoroaster, the great iranian prophet was median. You can find in ancient greek and asyrian documents that they frequently mentioned directly to Median or Kurdish people as a people with a great civilization. Today their land is divided into more than four countries including Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Armenia and Azerbaijan as well. but all of the kurds in those countries still have the same language and culture. Except for Azerbaijan and Armenia and recently Iraq all other three countries are not democratic countries and kurds think they are under oppression in those countries and are fighting against those governments militarily or politicaly for their natural rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awyer ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hehehe gosh this is so funny....some people are living in a big bubble filled with greatness & superiority about their nationalism....try to stop choosing only parts that favor & flourish your nationalism....it seems like no other nations existed before or after you.....actually Mesopotamia was a great civilization before the Persian empire, Egypt, Ancient Greek, Chinese etc....break the bubble you're living in, what a looooong article & only specifically chosen topics.....& I noticed in the summarizing history table the editor JUMPED OVER the period with the Arabic/Islamic invasion & within the article they only speak of how the Great persians resisted arabization & they only acquired Islam...I was for a while suspecting the "self-great feeling" in persians but after this article & many other Iran-related articles I'm sure this idea is valid...anyway who cares...this was a funny article...regards 193.6.158.33 13:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
If you look into the pre-historic documents, both people of Iran and India are of same orgins "Aryan". Due to time and war etc.. people moved to different parts of the world and settled there life.I have gone through the lots of websites, all of them are showing the same..both belongs to Aryan origins.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bi-vu-ne ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The following quote is unattributed. Who said it, and when?
"The Persians ruled for a thousand years and did not need us even for a day. We have been ruling them for one or two centuries and cannot do without them for an hour.[42]"
I see the citation, of course, but the context must also be given in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.61.81.231 ( talk) 15:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to thank you and encourage you all for your great work on this article. By working together, you have collectively "agreed" on Iran, including many Iranian editors with diverse background and international editors. You have molded something detailed and general, at the same time. This article represents CONSENSUS on what Iran should be at this time. It is not easy to reach consensus when some people want to rage war on Iran. This article has tested the limits of open source collaboration and I salute everyone for that. You have greatly helped Iran and the international community of readers by providing information for free through your free time. Nowhere else people can find so much information about Iran and related articles on the Internet (in english). Thank you all. SSZ ( talk) 13:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this quotation goes well in here
“ | For thirty years, I suffered much pain and strife |
” |
' Cyrus111 ( talk) 12:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems that Alborz Fallah changed the pronunciation from ʔiˈrɒn back to iːˈɾɒn, including an audio recording of the pronunciation of the name. Regarding the notation, it is not possible to start a word with a vowel in pɒɾsi or any other Indo-European language, as far as I know. Also, pɒɾsi does not distinguish between [i] and [iː]. Regarding the recording, I know that Alborz Fallah claims to be a native pɒɾsi, but I have never heard a native speaker pronounce the name of the country or any other word in the language with [ɹ], making me doubt his knowledge about pɒɾsi phonology. DJ1AM ( talk) 19:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)DJ1AM
it is clear that this article have it's own POV, but i have no problems with that. What i do have problems with is the description of Iran as having scientific commuinity which mets the westren standards of qulity, what is, of course, not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.184.240 ( talk) 10:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be legitimate to say Iran is above the third world (and significantly ahead of what would be expected) in the scientific community when one considers the fact that Iran is the #1 victim of Brain Drain, has been economically isolated from the United States for decades (along with US pressure on other European countries against expanding trade with Iran), but I wouldn't really put their scientific community (within the country) on par with the Europeans and certainly no where near America. It's an above average scientific community, probobly one of the best in Asia, and a startingly good one considering the circumstances, but it's not on par with Western Europe or the USA. Obviously if the diaspora were to return and Iran's isolation were to end and government interference would cease, then Iran would certainly be on par with the Western World (minus the scientific superpower USA) - the vitality of the Iranian diaspora speaks for itself and it is bar none the most educated diaspora in the world. But until that happens, I wouldn't call Iran on par with the West scientifically, although it is above average. - 68.43.58.42 ( talk) 04:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
To wrote that iran don't have military nuclear program and to expect people to believe it is oh, well....Recently iran admitted that it intending to develop a nuclear weapons for already many years now, the un didn't claim-at least not recently, that iran don't have a nuclear weapon program. Who did somehow closer statement was the controversial muchmad el bardaei, head of the [ [International Atomic Energy Agency]] and even he only said that he don't have enough information to determine , however, this month he had no option but to declare that iran delivered to the agency a nuclear warhead drawings (after it had no other option but to do so-it was a political trick that been done by officials of the iranian regime-their intention was to precede the americans and the europeans whose already took up the drawings from iranian scientist laptop), actually similar to pakistanians nuclear warheads (and by that admitted it's hostile intentions), that is, from the same technological source (pakistanian dr.abdul chan) that sold them the centrifuges technology during the 90'. However, iran had problems, for a considerable time, till lately, to make the centrifuges work (and even if the iranian intentions was only civilian they still dont have even single nuclear power factory working that suppling energy for civilian purposes (not that iran need such, after all it have immense reserves of oil and gas. and there is also no sense in the refusal of iran to give free access for inspectors to the suspected nuclear sites if they have no military purpose and this after that iran faced sanctions and having, for this and for other reasons, heavy military tension with no less than the world No1 military superpower –USA-what made the oil prices to rise all over the world and even drived the iranian regime to cast fuel limits on the iranian citizen (much because iran don’t have a developed distillation industry and so in a case of war the fuel storage could be very short ). the claims that iran don't have nuclear program are not serious ones, it is like to said that israel don't have nuclear arsenal because no body outside israel have seen an israeli A-bomb. The iranian president himself declare that now iran have 7000 activated centrifuges- clearly, no country have what to do with so many of them, unless it intending to have a nuclear weapon. I didn't hear that iran have the 5th place in submitted patents-but it make no difference as what is more important is the quality of each patent and unfortunately it won't be too risky to bet that it is low, but i might be going wrong about it and i would be very happy if it is the case. Any way-please add a source for this argument you made. The most educated diaspora in the world is not the iranian, you are seriously misinformed about it, even if it is highly educated-and all of the examples you made (few) are for scientist who flew iran shortly after the revolution, get western education and are opponers to the radical islamic regime there (lets admit it: iran executed many homosexuals without even giving them a decent trial, and iran have a barbaric 'justice' system-that's why one of the most known regime opposers tongue been publicly cut off and the iranian TV keep broadcasting advertisement asking people not to take the law to their hands, or else they could find themselves executed (there are pictures of hanged citizens in it))- the iranian universities are not excommunicated by other world universities and still not even one of them is within the list of best 500 world universities. Can you name even one revolutionary scientific/technological original iranian made achievement since 1978? As i see it, and many others. iran is, sadly, a third world country by any mean. Finally, if compared with Israel-than the argument that Israel get all the help it needed is some how unsupported, Israel is isolated from it's own neighbors, don't having contracts with most of the Muslim world and been through many wars and yet all of it's universities are within the best 500, including one in the best 100 and the technion which is one of the 50 world's most outstanding educational institutions in engineering and computer science. More, it's population is much smaller than this of Iran and yet-far more advanced than Iran is in any aspect-the Israeli economy is surely first world economy (the Israeli incomes this year are about 210-230 billion dollars (only 3 billion of it, or less, are from external aid and there many people in Israel who oppose to it as it make Israel to depended on USA dictates) for only 7,000,000 citizens while, unlike Iran, it have no natural resources and Iran's incomes is around 600 billion dollars for a population almost 10 times bigger) and unlike those of Iran based upon the most innovative hi-tech industry in the world and other innovative industries mainly ( here is one source but you better check out for that matter). Israel probably had nuclear weaponry as early as 1963 while it was still poor and small country surrounded by enemies -by people who know better about the Israeli project the story is that Israel didn't have back then heavy industry and so the French were willing to help Israel and to supply the nuclear reactor but in return received Israeli technical and scientific nuclear knowledge which helped them to build their own nuclear program (today this reactor was improved by the Israelis and it is capable of producing 10 bombs each year this knowledge astonished the world as no other reactor this size can do something even close to it. More, Israel is the only country that successfully active laser based uranium enriching process that produce meaningful amounts of highly enriched uranium) -no less, and any way the chief of the French nuclear program was, if I'm not mistaken, Jewish, and so many of the French nuclear scientists- as it was for USA and UK (Israel and French had nuclear capability around the same time) . The Israeli weaponry industry is a way more sophisticated than those the Iranians have and evidently it sells in many billions each year to most of the western armies and to others. It is funny, but few months ago Iran to convince the Indian air force to sell it it's Israeli avionic systems for SU-30 jet fighters- Iran been told to be focused on the Israeli systems and to prefer it over French systems and etc as the Israeli avionic systems are well known around the world. Unlike Iran , Israel did suffered from many attempts to isolate it academically and to cast academic embargo over it- however, the contribution of the Israeli scientific community is so intense that it didn't passed, any way –the Israelis have figures like Yuval Ne'eman and they do have Nobel prizes for economy and chemistry and Jews that had their education in Israeli intuitions won Nobel prizes for physics and etc -according to some the Israeli community have at least 30 scientists ( him for example) who by no doubt deserve the Nobel prize but only political reasons, probably, are standing against it. If we are talking about Jewish diasporas-so there is no question that these are the most educated diasporas in the world and believe me-their achievements are without no possible comparison. The Israelis which immigrated outside Israel are may be the most creditable community for their abilities. I don't think that there is any nation that would done better than Israel under the same constraints. Now, we can compare Iran to other countries as well-but as long as it having this regime it wpuld remain third world country —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.242.202 ( talk) 07:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Why are they treating me like their KING and Lord then? (I am 100% Iranian genetically)
There is only ONE human race. The rest is ILLUSION and MYTH. 69.116.247.26 ( talk) 14:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
How is Israel relavent to this thread? Israel was never poor. Almost all of the Jews that migrated to Israel came from industrialized nations with education. As for its isolation in the Muslim World - that is entirely irrelevent. Israel is the only non-European state that is allowed to have scientific grants from the European Union. Moreover, the primary economic dilemma in the Middle East is nationalization and high government interference (ironically in a region that is religious and hates socialism/communism). Most of the Middle Eastern economies have been oil based and haven't carried significant trade leverage for decades. Oil is conducive to capital, but it is not conducive to labor, nor has it proven effective when it comes to diversification of an economy. The money from oil never gets redistributed. The only thing any of the Muslim countries (in the Middle East) have been capable of providing Israel since 1948 is oil. That's about it. Before oil was being pumped, the only countries in the region that weren't predominantly tribal were probobly Iran and Turkey. It is not like the Israelis were ever planning on actively trading with their Arab neighbors in the first place, so I don't see how that could possibly have been an economic setback for their economy. All 22 Arabic-speaking states have an economy smaller than that of Spain - it's not like isolation from the Arab World is as threatening to an economy as isolation from the United States. Almost 40% of Israel's exports go to the United States (which would be considered relatively low by previous Israeli standards); it seems Israel wouldn't fair too well in the event of American sanctions and a EU moratorium on scientific grants to the Israeli scientific community either. Further, it is foolish to say Israel simply "has no resources." The only resource the Arabs have is non-labor conducive oil. Most of them have very little access to the water, and with the exception of Egypt, Lebanon and Turkey, none of them have strategic trade positions on the Mediterreanean as Israel does. Prior to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006, Lebanon was booming and rapidly developing its economy since the end of Israeli occupation and Civil War before that. Turkey continues to boom. Egypt, similar to Iran, has too much government interference. Even so, Israel is entirely irrelevent to this thread. I'm assuming you are either anti-Islamic/Islamophobic, or you are simply blatantly pro-Israeli. Regardless of your political convictions, you need not lecture us on Israel. No one here cares. Iranians actually have the most educated diaspora in the world ever since 1979 and is considered to be the #1 victim of Brain Drain in the world. I could provide sources if you aren't aware. I agree with you that Iran should not be considered on par with the West scientifically, but it certainly is superior to much of the third world in this respect. Turkey, for example, is an industrialized nation, and its scientific community is not that significantly superior. - 68.43.58.42 ( talk) 03:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope this picture with the short article behind it from British Museum could be helpful about the citation required for the age of history of Iran. Apparently it goes somehting 8500 years before. http://behzadghorbani.com/images/2004_1114Image0022.JPG T2345 17:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
my question is how the hell did such a treasure for iran get to the british museam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.72.204 ( talk) 07:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is too big! I was delighted when I saw that the history section was smaller than the last time I saw the page. Let's keep the good work up and shrink it even more. For example the Iranian revolution... was way too detailed in events. events must should be more summarised e.g. The hostage crisis should be like this:
On (date) the American embassy was seized and x diplomats were taken hostage. By (date) all of the hostages were released due to diplomatic agreement. America hasn't yet executed their end of the agreement.
Or something like that. Also can the government section be slightly summarised? Ardeshire Babakan 13:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
i dont understand why evryone is being such a hard ass on size by sumerizing and deleting you lose information, maybee make a seperate article instead -Nikou- —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
64.230.34.97 (
talk) 05:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
More detailed information is ONLY FOR THE MAIN ARTICLE AND SEE-ALSOS! THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE FOR! Too much text will bore the reader. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ardeshire Babakan (
talk •
contribs) 16:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
wel before deleting the hard work many people have put in make the side articles and add a link to it -nikou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.72.204 ( talk) 07:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Who thinks the cuisine doesn't deserve a subsection all to it's self? It is dwarfed by Our art and literature and it hasn't got any defining text. It should either be a part of the introduction of the culture or preferably not mentioned at all. Give me your views. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 17:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the U.S.A. article has one so it should fly, but for a subesction you would need plenty of information (I'm not sure if it is dwarfed because of the fact it has little in being unique from many other countries in the region). Bretonnia ( talk) 16:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
actually it is very different than the food in other countries in the region. Siavash1989 ( talk) 19:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Then making a subsection for Cuisine should work out fine. Bretonnia ( talk) 16:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Pejman47 and I have come to a dilemma. We disagreed on this text in the culture section:
The Sassanid era was an important and influential historical periods in Iran Their cultural influenced Roman civilization considerably[102] and so influencing as far as Western Europe,[103] Africa,[104] China and India[105] and also playing a prominent role in the formation of both European and Asiatic medieval art.[106] This influence carried forward to the Islamic world.
I believe that this text is advertising Iranian culture and not only neglects giving the reader a better understanding of what Iranian culture is, but advertises it's importance.
Pejman47 however, sees that the influences of a culture is an important part of understanding that culture.
To prevent an edit war between us I have posted this on the talk page. Please post your views here and say who you agree with and make suggestions. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 13:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
http://www.PersiansAreNotArabs.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.9 ( talk) 19:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please confirm that the sound file at the intro comes from a native speaker?-- Avg 23:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Folks
I've amended the following line
to
for 2 reasons
1) It's factually inaccurate and misleading.
2) It reads like international sanctions are something new for Iran which of course they aren't.
If anyone can improve it and (please, please, please) maintain NPOV please do so.
Sean.hoyland -
talk 14:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that the Iran page has come to a stage where it is good enough to become an FA and Also it is very hard to find any improvements that we could make. So I am proposing that we renominate the Iran page for FA status. If U think the page is ready to be nominated then say so! Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 19:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Since Turkey article does not define that country as part of Middle East we should not do the same here. Iran is only Middle Eastern from the Euro POV. WP is a global encyclopedia. Even according to the Middle East article its usage is controversial and not necessarily accurate. I suggest we keep it out of the intro or rephrase as "being part of the geopolitical territory of Middle East". Also according to Middle East article: "The Middle East is a historical and political region of Afro-Eurasia with no clear boundaries" Meaning its usage is becoming more irrelevant as time goes by with the world becoming more global and less Eurocentric. BTW that article also contradicts itself in certain points. Khorshid ( talk) 09:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree; regional terms are ambiguous. Central Eurasian, Southwest Asian, or West Asian are all more appropriate. - Rosywounds ( talk) 14:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
No serious efforts have been made to condense certain portions of this article, particularly the history section. I am going to begin condensing it. The article is rich in information, but it is too diffuse and cluttered to be seriously considered for FA. Moreover, I think we need to go over it to fix some grammar. I hope others will make serious efforts as well. I just condensed the Mossadegh/Pahlavi section; I don't think it lost any valuable content, despite the fact that I was able to shred off 2 entire paragraphs. - Rosywounds ( talk) 14:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree with U. I give you my full support. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 20:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Iran has been Iran since the Sassanid times and you can see this name on Iranian coins and documents. Persia was not used in Iran. Untill the begining of the 20th century it was erroneusly used by the Western countries and nowadays the Iranian Americans call themselves Persian instead of Iranian, mainly due to avoid hostile behavior by the Americans there. Other than that the name has no added value. Im not going to revert your editions because they are harmless (bald letters were not necessary though). Just to let you know thast Iran is correct and Persia is wrong. Strictly taken Persia is only Ostan-e Fars, a region South Western Iran.-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 23:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |