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. |
I am really, really suprised that this page is not written in Persian. The article is written in 30 different languages but not Persian. Could somebody clarify why we don't have an article in wikipedia written in Persian about Persian people? -- Ddd0dd ( talk) 00:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
In order to fulfill the "to do this", the following changes were made to the introduction paragraph.
1.There are currently no valid sources for introduction. The material need citation. Please put some references for claims. No sources for made for claims such as:"Persians on Western borders of Iran are closer to Iraqi Shia"
2. Persians are an ethnic group, with speaking of Persian as mother language and having similar culture. Like Kurds being an ethnic group, like Germans, like Italians, etc. Not every single Italian is from the original Indo-European Italian, none the less they are still called by that name. Please refer to ethnic group for more info. There is simply no question about Persians being an ethnic group. Persian identity is completely another subject and is not relevant to this article. Persian is an ethnicity, regardless of genetic background of each and every single Persian person on earth. Was Rumi or Cyrus necessarily from pure Persian and Aryan blood? we don't know, and there is no way we could find that out.
3. Consistent with critisism rose by others and the reason for article being listed for "dispution", the following paragraph was eliminated. Because it had no references or citation, and was simply based on nonsense political propaganda, e.g. : "pan-nationals calling themselves Persians". Most Iranians who live outside of Iran "do" speak Persian as their mother tongue. We are not here to detect whether each and every single Persian person is actually born to both Persian speaking parents from pure Aryan blood. Furthermore whoever wrote this paragraph listed no sources. Editors HAVE TO LIST REFERENCES AND USE VALID SOURCES. There was NONE. At this point this paragraph is basically nonsense and irrelevant. It is simply out of the context of this article to argue whether there are some non-Persian-speakers who call themselves that or why they do so, or any similar arguments.
"While a categorization of a 'Persian' ethnic group persists in the West, Persians have generally been a pan-national group often comprising regional peoples who rarely refer to themselves as 'Persians' and sometimes use the term 'Iranian' instead. The synonymous usage of Iranian and Persian persisted over the centuries despite the varied meanings of Iranian, which includes different but related languages and ethnic groups. As a pan-national group, defining Persians as an ethnic group, at least in terms used in the West, is problematic since Persians are a varied group."
Please make more contributions to this article, as it needs serious reconsideration in its wording and please indicate some references for claims made. -- 74.12.98.74 ( talk) 03:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Where are the modern day pics of Persians with the afros as in ancient times? As far as I know, I can't find a tribe of Asians with afros. "300" must have been partially correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.93.188 ( talk) 05:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-Don't you think there should be a reference to Afghanistan and Tajikistan in the info-box? They speak exactly the same language and have strong mtDNA similarities with east/north-east Iranians. ( 64.42.209.33 01:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC))
-New picture for info-box is needed
I::::: I disagree the people in the picture do not look very Iranian; except Kiarostami the others look more like Arab and Indian. (no offense to them). Moreover you have no proof that they are ethnic Persians/Fars. Lily Afshar is from a Turkic tribe called Afshar. Kiarostami has a Mazandarani Gilaki name. Kamran Vafa. Im not sure but I know many Azeris of this name. Babakexorramdin 00:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This article needs a lot of work overall and starting with the picture, it might be a good idea to do what was done with Azeris and Pashtuns, both articles I worked on and have an opening image not of famous people, but ordinary Persians. This is what most encyclopedias do and the famous people usage can be relegated to sections on history and culture instead which makes more sense. Tombseye 16:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
To: Tombseye: You have switched back some of the "persian" terms to "iranian" at places that are inaccurate o at least debatable. Based on the above discussion on this page, I think the two terms should be used with care. Please discuss here where you want to apply "Persian" and where "Iranian" when referring to the history and culture of Iran. ( Ghlobe ( talk) 17:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC))
Since when Persians are a minority in Tajikistan? -- Mardavich 11:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Is for example, 2000 in Finland, really a "significant population"? I think the article will look better without such a long list of countries. -- Rayis 22:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
why is afghanistan not included in the list? it is obvious to me that afghanistan has one of the most significant persian population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.84.89 ( talk) 20:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The upper and lower bounds for the population did not match the numbers given in the list. A simple addition gives the range 36-43 million. Heja Helweda 05:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I wonder how you have forgotton the ethnic Fars of the Persian Gulf ministates. They are not only the recent migrants but are also ancient ethnic groups there for example in Bahrain (a majority of people there are believed to be Fars/Persian or at least partially.
Babakexorramdin 19:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Babakexorramdin
Currently we have following articles related to this topic
To solve above mentioned problems I think the articles should be changed as follows:
Persian (disambiguation) and Iranian (disambiguation), be mentioned in the first line of new Iranian.
So what do you think? ( Arash the Archer 19:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC))
According to my discussion with Ali Doostzadeh here [1], I changed the total population number. The previous total number did not match the numbers given in the table. I inivite editors to check it out for themselves. The previous range could not be derived from the table and this was damaging the credibility of a good article.Thanks. Heja Helweda 05:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
respectfully request stacking photos vertically (2X2) vs (4) in order to render infobox a smaller width. the current width of the infobox is too wide and impedes user experience. παράδοξος 03:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Tired of reading fake persian history Afghanistan is not a persian speaking Country and the dari language is called Afghani not called persian this was imposed on us by biased historians and iranians. Fake history —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.5.197.224 ( talk) 04:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
Just adding to the last point, why are Tats also listed as Persians? First of all there are 10,900 Tats in Azerbaijan, not 22,000. And secondly, even though Tats descend from pre-Islamic Persians who moved to the Caucasus in the 5th century, they have reshaped into a separate ethnic and cultural group by now. They are as much Persian as are Pashtuns and Kurds, and the Tat language is not mutually intelligible with Persian. It is absolutely incorrect to keep them on that list. Parishan 07:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
All credible sources clearly state that Tati language is a dialect of Persian. Khorshid 03:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Ethnologue is not a reliable source, although it is a source. They make lots of mistakes which they themselves admit to. Just thought I'd mention that. Azerbaijani 23:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
According to the last Soviet census of 1989 there lived 30669 Moslems Tats in the whole Soviet Union while 10239 were (still) living in the republic of Azerbaijan. In addition there were 18513 Jewish tats of which 5484 lived in the rep. Azerbaijan. The number of 22000 (I have seen that number in an rep. Azerbaijani site too!) could be correct when we regard the population increase and the fact that many citizens of rep. Azerbaijan which were living in other republic (e.g. Kazakhstan) have returned to their homeland. --Babakexorramdin 08:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)-- Babakexorramdin 15:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I see that no one from WikiProject Iran has yet given this article a rating or an importance rating. I really think that should be done soon, this article is very important. -- Behnam 17:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
So what's the issue with the image currently in the infobox? There seems to be multiple reversions going on, and I haven't seen any recent discussion here over why it should be removed. Please discuss and maybe we can find some middle ground. -- Bobak 19:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
All right, as per the above, I've swapped the original with Image:4Persians.jpg, in a derivative work of the original PD-self image. -- Bobak 14:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
As i have noticed that there are some people who claim that Zoroaster is not a Persian, please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranians#Religious_figures . if the pic should be removed then shall the name zoroaster be removed from this article.
"Crystalinks" doesn not fall under WP:RS. I have removed the problematic photo and swapped in the above discussion 3Persians since it was also uncontroversial. Wikipedia is about discussion and collaboration, please do not remove the photo without gaining consensus. -- Bobak 21:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thumb I have made a new image for the infobox and it should solve the problems. It includes 4 ethnic Persians who are very important in Persian history. All the images used here are PD so we can use this freely. I made this very quickly at work and I will make a better one soon, so if there is any improvements or changes please let me know. -- Behnam 21:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks good for now, none of those photos should have problems. I think this is a pretty good middle ground. -- Bobak 15:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Sangak Talk 20:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
BTW, Is Sadi's photo persian looking??! Is Cyrus photo persian looking?! Is Anousheh Ansari persian looking?! Sangak Talk 20:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Just curious, if Tats are included in the population total while they have been classified as a sub-group in the article... then why aren't Tajiks included in the total? I think we should either include both of them in total or keep both out of the total. What do you guys think? -- Behnam 03:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Well let me begin this way. If the Persian-speakers of Khorasan are regarded as Persian then Farsiwan in Herat can be too. But Caution is called for Hazara. Hazara are a Mongolian or Turkic people who are lingually Persified, so strictly taken they are not Persian. Similar things can be said about the Tajiks. Tajiks (and Uzbeks) are the decendents of ancient Iranian tribes (notably the Soghdians in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan and Bactraians in Afghanistan) and Turkic tribes. These people however have adopted Persian language and do have an Iranian culture. They are therfore Iranian (and not turkic or Mongolian!) people. But They are not Persians! More strongly the Parsis of India have Persian decent, but do niether speak Persian nor have an Iranian culture. Moreover the story says that they are from Zanjan (modern day Azeri region of Iran!) and not from Southern Iran (Modern day Fars/ ethnic Persian) region of Iran (they they might have went into their ships from Southern Iran). Not for nothing is their first village called Sanjan. In the memory of their city of Zanjan! The only thing Parsis have kept from Iran is their religion. Their culture is not very Iranian, but more British with Indian elements. They spoke Gujarati once but now they speak English. Many go even that far to deny any relationship with Iran. So the level of subjective awareness (of ethnic and racial connection to Iran) among them is also not that strong. Babakexorramdin 14:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
It is important what Frye thinks, because he is one of the leading and most important scholars of Iranology. In this regard, it is rather unimportant what you think. And, without being insulting to you, I hoestly doubt that you have any significant knowledge of Iranology or a deeper understanding of the subject. Strong differences between dialects is nothing uncommon. The southwestern dialects of German, spoken in and arround Koblenz, sound like a totally different language to someone from Hamburg. But despite these difference, these languages are classified as German, and their speakers as Germans. The difference between Arabic dialects (Iraq vs. Maghrebian vs. Egyptian) is much much bigger. It is almost impossible for someone from Marakesh to understand someone from Kairo. The difference between Persian dialects is less significant, because the written form of all of these dialects is identical. What differes is the use of vowls and their pronounciation. There are also small differences in the use of vocabulary (Iranian Persian uses more foreign words of Arabic and Turkic origin while Afghans use more archaic Persian words, or, in recent times, use certain English words). Upper classes of educated Persian-speakers have no problems in understanding each others. Ahmadinejad does not need a translator to communicate with Hamid Karzai or Emamali Rahman. At the same time, all three can read and understand Dari poetry. As for Bakhtiari: you should read the respective article in Encyclopaedia Iranica. The word Bakhtiyari is derived from Bactria and points to an original East Iranian Bactrian origin. And while you are at it, you should listen to this song sang by an Afghan Hazara. It is a poem of Rumi.
okay first of all persians in iran if you consider subgourps are about 65% of the population is persian.
persian is an ethnic group okay. persians in iran are also lurs,gilakis,bakhterians,and mazandaranis. also some small speakers like lakis, pahlevis (middle persian speakers), sangsars (old shirazi dari),and tat (middevil persian speakers) and dari speakers do still live in iran being more then 2 million and they are the purest persians out there.
also the tajiks being 27% of afghanistan,hazaras,fariswans are all persian afghanistan itself is 50% persian tajikestan is 79% persian.
and some other persians all over the world the population will be more then 70 million. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.255.27.157 ( talk) 00:35, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
What a BS he is creating. If i start to coreect you i need surly more than 10 hours, fucktoon idiot. btw, Pashtuns say Abey and not Aw. Aw is the verbal language of Parsi while Ab is the term you use in books. So Pashtoons has stolen it since Pashtoons don´t know what water is and also never knew..just smell on one..-- Aspandyar Agha 15:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The sentence:
"They also inhabit in neighboring countries particularly in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. However; Nick Teresko referenced, in these countries they are usually thought of as a sub-group and are referred to as Tajiks"
represents a mis-use of a semi-colon and makes for a rough sounding sentence. It would probably be better stated as:
"They also inhabit in neighboring countries particularly in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. However, as referenced by Nick Teresko, in these countries they are usually thought of as a sub-group and are referred to as Tajiks.
This is still not quite right, but makes more sense. Who is Nick Teresko? Instead of mentioning that he referenced this, the primary source should be cited instead. That is the appropriate way of doing this.
Halogenated 14:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is Ansari listed as a "Great Persian" on the title picture? Couldn't we come up with anyone more worthy (than some buisiness woman who spent alot of money and went to space...)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.193.254 ( talk) 16:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
That figure of 88,000 Persians in Canada is incredibly outdated, there are more Persians living in Toronto alone let along all of Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.85.9.1 ( talk) 21:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Lurs,bakhterians,tatis,mazandaranis,gilakis,tajiks,tylish are all persian and speak a language related to pahlavi or a mix. just like a turkmen is turkic.
this claims are dumb and anti persian. i am getting a feeling that they put this stuff up to divide people.
the pahlavi shah was from mazandaran and he was a persian nationalist.
their culture,language mostly is related to pahlavi (middle persian),and behaviour is persian and the most imporntent thing is that they consider themself persian also. so please correct it and dont try to use your divide tactics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.27.157 ( talk) 18:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we should make one thing clear here. Are we talking about ancient Persians, or about modern Persian-speaking people. It is obvious that these are two very different things, as "Persian" in the sense it is used for someone like Darius the Great does not necessarily (or even remotely) apply to a modern-day person like me whose mother tongue is Persian. If it is the former, we should not be talking about modern language as the criterion. If it's the latter, we should not be linking the modern thing to the ancient one, and we should then definitely remove the achaemenid pictures from the top of the page. Shervink ( talk) 11:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
According to my Iranian friend, Afghani people are also Persian, because according to the Wikipedia article on Afghanistan, 50% of their population speaks Persian. So they must be Persian people if they speak the Persian language. So can we include Afghanistan in the table of countries in this article? Please comment! AppleJuggler ( talk) 05:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. You have a good point. However, I found the following paragraph relating to the Afghani people's ethnicity on the Internet:
"The Tajiks (Tadzhiks), are the second largest ethnic group in Afghanistan. They live in the valleys north of Kabul and in Badakhshan. They are farmers, artisans, and merchants. The Tajiks speak Dari (Afghan Persian), also an Indo-European language and the other official language of Afghanistan. Dari is more widely spoken than Pashto in most of the cities. The Tajiks are closely related to the people of Tajikistan." -- from: http://www.afghanistans.com/Information/People/EthnicityLanguages.htm
If the Dari Persian-speaking Afghans are of Tajik origin, and, if according to this 'Persian people' Wiki article Tajiks from Tajikistan are considered Persians, then Tajiks in Afghanistan are also logically Persians. Do you not agree? Hope to hear your view on this. AppleJuggler ( talk) 04:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
In that case, then I shall remove the reference to Tajikistan from the long list on the right-hand side of the article which contains countries where Persian people are found. Also in accordance with your argument, I have removed Tat-Persian speakers from Azerbaijan from that list as well. Please correct my edits if I am wrong. Thank you. AppleJuggler ( talk) 05:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I have undid all my previous edits. I will leave it to the experts to debate on this. I am not knowledgeable on this issue. All the best. AppleJuggler ( talk) 03:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Could some reliable sources be used for these figures?
800,000 Persians in Turkey?
50-70 million Persians? the total population of Iran is 65-70 million, including 15-25 million Turks, 5-7 million Kurds, a few million Arabs, Baluches etc...
The 50 million Persians in Iran link does not state that there are 50 million Persians in Iran, the source is a hoax http://www.economist.com/countries/Iran/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-FactSheet
Seen as though Ethnalogue is used for sourcing Persians in UAE, Bahrain, Iraq, it should be used for Iran as well.
Population 22,000,000 in Iran (1997). Population includes 800,000 Eastern Farsi in Khorasan, Gilan, Tat, Bakhtiari, Lur. Population total all countries: 24,316,121 http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=pes
According to CIA 51% of Iran is Persian, around 30-35 million.
Torke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.0.143 ( talk) 14:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I wrote a new opening and will follow-up with citations soon. Constructive comments are welcome and hopefully this article can be upgraded to a featured article in the not too distant future. Peace. Tombseye ( talk) 18:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. Please also see: [21], I will be expanding it with couple or more sources. Basically the term Persian due to its being old has several meanings as you noticed:1) Inhabitant of Iran 2) Historical relation with Persia (Iran) 3) Descendant of Iranians who have a pre-Islamic past in the region 4) Parsis of India 5) Persian-Khurasani speakers, Chorasmian speakers, Old Azari speakers and almost any Iranic language speakers. 6) Called Tat, Tajik, Ajam by non-Iranic speakers and eventually these terms were adopted by native Iranic speakers. I think it would be a challenge to encompass all these terms, but I would like to see if you can do it, since you seem to have the energy for this undertaking. Note the Parsis of India do not speak an Iranic language but they speak an Indic language, yet they are Persians. So I think the introduction should as you say be all encompassing in terms of its scope and then discuss Persian-Dari speakers of Iran and related groups..-- alidoostzadeh ( talk) 18:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
PS The Pictures should have people all Iranians from all groups respect Darius and Cyrus were a good choice but Anosheh Ansari just payed to go to Space she didnt study Aeronautics or contribute anything. She is fine in the Iranian-American pictures -- Mohammad ( talk) 07:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)MJM
In old ages Afghanistan was a central place of Persia. today most of afghan people talk persian.But is there any small groups of persians in Afghanistan?! it is impossible .So why the persian population of Afghanistan is not listed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.191.122.15 ( talk) 00:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
J1 is found at up to 9% in Iran (similar to what Turkey has). Most of it is from the southwest. It is an Arab genetic marker (it originated in Arabia, or perhaps North Africa), which brought small strains of African blood with it. But there is no recent (10000 ybp) african specific admixture in Iranians (which supports that persians never had slaves). The mongoloid component is entirely paternal, and hits a peak of 8% (I forgot where it is highest). This is less than the scandinavians of Europe have (more like 12.5%). The Iranians with the least admixture are confined to the eastern and 'northern 1/4' of the country. And dark skin in Iranians is also a post-LGM phenomena, which has effected southern europeans as well (the climate shift). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zadeh79 ( talk • contribs) 00:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
for a country that has helped the civilized world such as the Persians have, it seems the pictures of prominent persians is lacking to say the least. -- GrecoPersian ( talk) 12:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The underlying component of Iranians is Elamite, or at least Proto-Elamite. The Elamites were a, Proto-Semetic, Proto-Aryan, group of primary Caucasoids (cold adapted peoples). The are represented by Y-chromosome haplogroup J, which later flooded Europe and the Middle East with the Neolithic (agricultural) movement. Haplogroup J, in turn, gave rise to HG J1 (Semetic) in southern Arabia. J also gave rise to J2 (in either Eastern Turkey or the Zagros mountain range). HG J2 (along with R1 derivatives, which may exhibit spatial correlations with HG J2) is often assumed to be IE, by population geneticists.
In the opening paragraph, a sentence states "Significant colonies of Persians reside overseas in North America and Europe." What is that suppose to mean? That there are actually COLONIES of Persians in the North America and Europe? I hope you guys know the word Colony has many political implications. The population of Persians in North America and Europe are immigrants to their respective countries, not Colonists in service of a foreign nation. I suggest replacing the word "colonies" in that sentence with "populations" or "numbers" etc. Akaloc ( talk) 16:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Guys, i put a link in the main page,about Iranian/Persian inventions, if anyone wants to Add anything more to it, please go ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.142.110 ( talk) 04:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. Keegan talk 04:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Persian people → Persian speakers
I'm proposing that this artcile (Persian people) be moved to "Persian speakers". The reasons behind the proposal are as follows: 1)Persian speakers don't call themselves "Persian" as a distinctive term or subbranch of "Iranian". 2)"Persian" is equivalent to "Iranian" in English.
I suggest that the article be started with something like:
"The Persian speakers of Iran are the amalgam of Iranian peoples and indigenous inhabitants of Iran before the migration of Indo-Iranians."
and continues with mentioning and describing the heritage/descent of Persian speakers that include: Tappeh Sialk, Jiroft culture, Shahr-i Sokhta, Elam, Medes (which contains Hamedan, Tehran, Lorestan, Esfahan), Persian Empire, Parthia, etc.-- Raayen ( talk) 17:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.The new "Persian people" article is ready with all its deficiencies to be improved by you. Please people, speak out, what is your view about the name for this present article:
1)Persian-Speaking people,
2)Persian-Dari speaking people.
or anything else?--
Raayen (
talk)
15:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I'm OK with either plan: making this article more general and then creating another article for Persians of Iran OR just doing it all in one article with somewhat more discussion about the Persians of Iran in this article. As a supra-'ethnic', the Persian-speakers are interesting testament to the Persian language as a lingua franca of the past that assimilated people who at some point knew it as a 2nd language etc. (not unlike the Poles or the Germans before Nazism). So what plan does everyone prefer? I know Khoi khoi's with the 2 article plan so a quick show of hands will suffice. This seems like a good solution to this problem. Tombseye ( talk) 03:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it would be better if we just made this article more general without renaming or creating any new pages. Britannica's article on Iran for example ( [22]) says "The predominant ethnic and cultural group in the country consists of native speakers of Persian. But the people who are generally known as Persians are of mixed ancestry, and the country has important Turkic and Arab elements in addition to the Kurds, Baloch, Bakhtyārī, Lurs, and other smaller minorities (Armenians, Assyrians, Jews, Brahuis, and others)." Yes it is true that the term "Persian" as an ethnic group is not used in contemporary Iran. People in Iran typically identify first by nationality and second as the province they come from. But I don't think that renaming this article "Persian-speaking people" would help in articles such as al-Khwārizmī. Khoi khoi 07:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, so I was reading some of the votes regarding the article's name change and at least 3 people ( WikiPersianHistorian's among them) are against it. So how about as Khoi khoi says, we just keep this article's name and expand its scope further to include groups that are historically viewed as 'Persians' in the past (with the usage being clear that it is from the Greeks) and explain its proper designation and how it does not coincide with local usage and then create a new article on Persian-speakers in Iran? We can explain that 'Persian' is not a precise ethnic designation nor is it one that is used by Persian speakers who simply view themselves as 'Iranians' or in terms of their localities. Everyone agree with this approach? Tombseye ( talk) 18:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear 07fan, if you follow the discussion, it seems that is nearly what we have finally decided to do.-- Raayen ( talk) 14:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Persian speaking people was created. Please help to modify and improve the content of both articles.-- Raayen ( talk) 01:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This article is not about citizens of Iran, this article is about the ethno-linguistic group, which according to the CIA Factbook, account for 51% of Iran's population today. For an article about citizens of Iran, please see Demographics of Iran. Pejman, if you want to change the title of this article, it's best to go to WP:RM in this case. Your move is simply too controversial to be done without discussion. Khoi khoi 01:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
"Persian-Speaking people" is more exact title for this entry. CIA also is not a reliable source. -- Pejman ( talk) 17:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Could it be noted in this article that the term "Persian" (ethnicity) is known as "Parsi" or the latter "Farsi" in the Persian language? ( Gta40 ( talk) 21:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC))
The Achaemenid Kings referred to themselves as "پارسي" "Parsi" (Latter "Farsi"). I'm assuming you know why the "P" was changed to "F" but for the sake of consistency I will just use it with the "P".
For example Darius the Great:
"I am Darius the great king, king of kings, king of countries containing all kinds of men, king in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenid, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage." [1]
Here, Darius is clearly referring to himself as Persian. [Line 13, Old Persian "Pârsa" = New Persian "Parsi"] ( Gta40 ( talk) 06:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC))
Well I am not saying who is or who isn't Persian (ethnicity), I'm simply saying "Parsi" is the equivalent of the word "Persian" and that this should be noted as other terms have been noted as well. ( Gta40 ( talk) 20:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC))
Detailed modern genetic analysis makes quite evident that modern day Persians are a Lost Tribe of Israel. Common words in the Persian language with Hebrew and also common names Jewish names such as Sulaiman, Daud, musa are to found in modern day Persia. Also Israel and original home of the Jewish people Babylon is next to Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.168.82 ( talk) 20:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the table be moved to Persian-speakers of Iran?! This article is a general overview, including other Persian groups such as Tajiks and Hazara. All of them also have their own separate articles. Tājik ( talk) 14:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Judging from the introduction of this article, perhaps it should be renamed Persian identity, and have the link Persian people redirect to Persian-speakers of Iran? The naming of the articles, as it stands, could confuse readers. IranianGuy ( talk) 02:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Why aren't there any women in the picture? All I see is a bunch of muslim leaders, and Cyrus; there are no photographs either. This picture isn't representative of Persians. 75.164.107.139 ( talk) 23:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted unjustified deletions. Tājik ( talk) 08:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear Raayen and all. There are no Persian Speakers in pakistan and China. Sources which say this are confused. In Pakistan there are considerable Persian speakers from Afghanistan and in addition in Pakistani held Northernb area live some Pamiri ethnic groups. The same is true about China. The so called Tajiks of China are in fact Pamiri people. They are not Persians but East Iranians. It is sad that there are still sources that do not/ cannot distinguish between Iranian languages and Persian. -- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 13:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The current title is incorrect. This should be renamed to Persian ethnicity. Persian has historically been an adjective to describe Persia, one of two possible names for Iran. Likewise, its people were referred to as Persians. See Iran naming dispute Magemirlen ( talk) 14:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that the article changes focusing on Persian speaking people and stops defining Persian ethnicity on the basis of linguistics because this approach is nonsensical. Firstly modern Farsi spoken in Iran can not be considered the same as the Dari, they use a different grammar and Farsi contains much more Arabic works than Dari, although they are mutual intelligibility.
Secondly the aim of the article is to describe the word Persian, a word intended to denote an ethnic group; That is a group of human beings whose identify with each other mainly, through a common heritage and ancestry. The Hazara people of Afghanistan are of related to Mongolian people and the Uyghurs of China rather than the Indo-European Persian people of Iran.
And also there is lot more to be said about the Persian people if we are actually allowed to focus on the Persian people instead of regarding them as ‘an eclectic collection of groups with the Persian language being the main shared legacy’. This description is simply not true because Persians of Iran and the Dari speaking Tajiks and Hazaras do NOT share common hereditary traits, culture, tradition, identity nor do they identity with each other and consider themselves as the same people. And separate articles exists for Tajiks and Hazara people. Danz23 ( talk) 19:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that this article be revised and that its content focused on the Persian people as an ethnic group instead of the illogical description ; 'an eclectic collection of groups with the Persian language being the main shared legacy'. The description disregards several important facts, mainly;
1) Farsi and Dari are mutual intelligibility but not the same language.
2) Persian people do not share a common culture, tradition or identity with Hazaras or Tajiks they consider them to be 'Afghans'.
3) Persian people are racially different from both Hazaras and Tajiks.
4) There is no accurate way to describe any an ethnic group other than to regard them a distinctive and unique if you want to describe their cultural attitudes, costumes and practices, values and social norms, This articles does not allow that.
5) This 'article' completely disregard the ethnic geography of Persians and contains no statistics of their numbers because it refuses to acknowledge Persians as a distinctive ethnic group.
Rewriting the article focusing of Persian as an ethnic group (removing Hazaras & Tajiks) would make a far more accurate and descriptive article than the current revisionist piece of propaganda.
Having said that, I welcome creating a new article called 'Persian language' that focuses on the different variants of Farsi and geographical propagation. Although such an article should not be called 'Persian people'.
Danz23 ( talk) 23:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The definition of an ethnic group is as following according to Wikipedia:
'An ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or presumed. Ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness and the recognition of common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioural or biological traits, real or presumed, as indicators of contrast to other groups.'
Hazara, Tajiks and Persians do not identity with each other through common heritage, culture or identity. Tajiks and Hazaras have their own identity, culture, costumes and racial distinctiveness and do not consider themselves to be Persians, nor do Persians consider them as their own people.
Therefore Hazara and Tajiks can not be included in an article that tries to describe Persians People. I have already mentioned that speaking an accent of a language does not qualify membership
to any ethnic group, the notion that any racially pure 'ancient persians' is equaly absurd.
Both Tajiks and Hazaras have their own articles which refute the claim that they are Persians or identity themselves as such.
Here is one description of Tajiks:
Tājik' ( Persian: تاجيک; UniPers: Tâjik; Tajik: Тоҷик) is a term generally applied to Persian language speakers of primarily East Iranic (mixed Sogdian, Khorezmian, Bactrian, Tokharian and Parthian)[1] origin living in Central Asia. The traditional Tajik homelands are in present-day Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and southern Uzbekistan.
There is no way to write a factually correct and descriptive article about any ethnic group another than to consider them distinctive and unique. The notion of 'an eclectic collection of groups with the Persian language being the main shared legacy' does not allow the description of their cultural attitudes, costumes and practices, values and social norms or any statistics of their actual numbers.
Why do you insist on denying the existence of Persians?
Why my message of disputed neutrality removed before any real discussion have taken place?
Danz23 ( talk) 22:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Further Response'
The question is very simple,
There is no point in digressing, disregarding and pushing for your political point of view.
Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research.
You are trying to pose your values and opinions as facts, A fact is a piece of undisputed information. There is no reliable source that claims that 27% of the Afghan population are Persians or that the terms 'Persians' and 'Tajik'can be used interchangeably to describe the same ethnic group.
It is a undisputed FACT that the CIA factbook states Tajiks as one distinctive ethnic group and Persians as another.
I have already stated the definition of ethnic groups, members of ethnic groups need to identity with each other and recognize each other as the same people, Persians do NOT identity with Hazaras and Tajiks trough common heritage, history, culture and therefore they are different ethnic groups and different terms are used to describe them and must be used in order to avoid confusion.
You can not manipulate the definition of an ethnic group by using confusing and dubious semantics, If ethnic groups could be defined in such a fashion I could claim that Persians and German people are the same people because both have used the term 'Aryan' to describe themselves.
Tajiks and Hazaras must be removed from this article, and they should have pride and confidence in their OWN ethnic identity.
I am not claiming that they can not be counted as Iranian people; many different ethnic groups can be counted as Iranian people or Iranic people, such as Kurds and Lurs but only as Persian.
Danz23 ( talk) 15:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Reponse
I think that you are showing a clear contempt of the wikipedias standards as I mentioned earlier and keep repeating the same nonsensical arguments which I have already addressed and refuted
There is no debate about the existence of a distinctive Persian ethnicity. Persians are Iran's largest ethnic group, they constitute 51% of Iran’s population according to the CIA factbook and they are one of the oldest, their existence and distinctiveness acknowledged in assyrian inscription as far back as 800s BC which calls them the Parsu and mentions them alongside another Aryan group, the Madai (Medes).
Secondly if you think that Tajik people are Persian people because some use the wrong name of the language they speak (Farsi instead of Dari) to denote the ethnic group Tajiks among other names such as Farsiwan then you need to learn the definition of an ethnic group.
I think that the denial of an ethnic group and the attempt to delude their distinctiveness is more than just racist, I see it as a crime: Ethnocide
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007):
Article 7
1. Indigenous peoples have the collective and individual right not to be subjected to ethnocide and cultural genocide, including prevention of and redress for:
(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct
peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;
The declaration was passed on 13 September 2007 by 144 member nations
I see little point on further discussion and will contact a senior editor regarding this issue
Danz23 ( talk) 17:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
My response'
I said it is racist to deny the existence of ethnic groups or to dilute their definition, not that you or anyone else is racist. Can you make the distinction? I have however claimed that this article violated the standards of wikipedia and is written with a political agenda, and I stand by my claim.
You have not presented any scholarly works that support your claims to my knowledge, you keep mentioning The Encyclopaedia of Islam which it is not an ethnographic encyclopaedia and does not make the same distinctions ethnographers make.
And from what I can tell only claims states the following: Tajik is the general name of the Persian-speaking population of Afghanistan.
Here is one source which addresses the Issue of Tajik ethnicity:
Tājik' (Persian: تاجيک; UniPers: Tâjik; Tajik: Тоҷик) is a term generally applied to Persian language speakers of primarily East Iranic (mixed Sogdian, Khorezmian, Bactrian, Tokharian and Parthian)[1] origin living in Central Asia. The traditional Tajik homelands are in present-day Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and southern Uzbekistan.
• [1] Krader, L. 1963. Formations of the Peoples. Indiana Uralic and Altaic Series v. 26- Peoples of Central Asia: 54-57, Hirth, F. 1917. The story of Chang K'ien, China's pioneer in Western Asia. Journal of the American Oriental Society. v. 37, no.2: 89-152; Shiratori, K. 1902. Über den Wu-sun-Stamm in Centralasien, 103-140.
Other sources claim the same; Persians and Tajiks are separate ethnic groups although Persian can be counted to one of the several ethnic groups that trough ethnogenesis gave raise to the Tajik people, I don’t object to this. I can list more sources if you want.
Tajiks today by both Western scholarship and national defintions (Such as the CIA Factbook) are not just considered Persians. They are considered a separate ethnic group. For example, under Tajik statistics, we have the amount of Tajiks in Iran, that alone implying Tajiks in Iran (Afghani refugees) are not the same as Persians, and therefore they should not be mentioned in the article regarding Persian people, because it creates confusion and dilutes the meaning of the term Persian.
I don't feel it relevant to address Issues not related to this article, such as the ethnicity of individuals or to argue against your personal opinions and values because they have no relevance.
We are not getting anywhere and maybe it is best if we stop this discussion. Danz23 ( talk) 19:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
rumi cant become persian because he lived in konya why you fearing to show him as Turk? why didnt you look at map about where is konya? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.179.27.56 ( talk) 16:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
چند شهر است اندر ایران مرتفع تر از همه
Some cities of Iran are better than the rest,
بهتر و سازنده تر از خوشی آب و هوا
these have pleasant and compromising weather,
گنجه پر گنج در اران صفاهان در عراق
The wealthy Ganjeh of Arran, and Esfahān as well,
در خراسان مرو و طوس در روم باشد اقسرا
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. |
I am really, really suprised that this page is not written in Persian. The article is written in 30 different languages but not Persian. Could somebody clarify why we don't have an article in wikipedia written in Persian about Persian people? -- Ddd0dd ( talk) 00:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
In order to fulfill the "to do this", the following changes were made to the introduction paragraph.
1.There are currently no valid sources for introduction. The material need citation. Please put some references for claims. No sources for made for claims such as:"Persians on Western borders of Iran are closer to Iraqi Shia"
2. Persians are an ethnic group, with speaking of Persian as mother language and having similar culture. Like Kurds being an ethnic group, like Germans, like Italians, etc. Not every single Italian is from the original Indo-European Italian, none the less they are still called by that name. Please refer to ethnic group for more info. There is simply no question about Persians being an ethnic group. Persian identity is completely another subject and is not relevant to this article. Persian is an ethnicity, regardless of genetic background of each and every single Persian person on earth. Was Rumi or Cyrus necessarily from pure Persian and Aryan blood? we don't know, and there is no way we could find that out.
3. Consistent with critisism rose by others and the reason for article being listed for "dispution", the following paragraph was eliminated. Because it had no references or citation, and was simply based on nonsense political propaganda, e.g. : "pan-nationals calling themselves Persians". Most Iranians who live outside of Iran "do" speak Persian as their mother tongue. We are not here to detect whether each and every single Persian person is actually born to both Persian speaking parents from pure Aryan blood. Furthermore whoever wrote this paragraph listed no sources. Editors HAVE TO LIST REFERENCES AND USE VALID SOURCES. There was NONE. At this point this paragraph is basically nonsense and irrelevant. It is simply out of the context of this article to argue whether there are some non-Persian-speakers who call themselves that or why they do so, or any similar arguments.
"While a categorization of a 'Persian' ethnic group persists in the West, Persians have generally been a pan-national group often comprising regional peoples who rarely refer to themselves as 'Persians' and sometimes use the term 'Iranian' instead. The synonymous usage of Iranian and Persian persisted over the centuries despite the varied meanings of Iranian, which includes different but related languages and ethnic groups. As a pan-national group, defining Persians as an ethnic group, at least in terms used in the West, is problematic since Persians are a varied group."
Please make more contributions to this article, as it needs serious reconsideration in its wording and please indicate some references for claims made. -- 74.12.98.74 ( talk) 03:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Where are the modern day pics of Persians with the afros as in ancient times? As far as I know, I can't find a tribe of Asians with afros. "300" must have been partially correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.93.188 ( talk) 05:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-Don't you think there should be a reference to Afghanistan and Tajikistan in the info-box? They speak exactly the same language and have strong mtDNA similarities with east/north-east Iranians. ( 64.42.209.33 01:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC))
-New picture for info-box is needed
I::::: I disagree the people in the picture do not look very Iranian; except Kiarostami the others look more like Arab and Indian. (no offense to them). Moreover you have no proof that they are ethnic Persians/Fars. Lily Afshar is from a Turkic tribe called Afshar. Kiarostami has a Mazandarani Gilaki name. Kamran Vafa. Im not sure but I know many Azeris of this name. Babakexorramdin 00:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This article needs a lot of work overall and starting with the picture, it might be a good idea to do what was done with Azeris and Pashtuns, both articles I worked on and have an opening image not of famous people, but ordinary Persians. This is what most encyclopedias do and the famous people usage can be relegated to sections on history and culture instead which makes more sense. Tombseye 16:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
To: Tombseye: You have switched back some of the "persian" terms to "iranian" at places that are inaccurate o at least debatable. Based on the above discussion on this page, I think the two terms should be used with care. Please discuss here where you want to apply "Persian" and where "Iranian" when referring to the history and culture of Iran. ( Ghlobe ( talk) 17:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC))
Since when Persians are a minority in Tajikistan? -- Mardavich 11:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Is for example, 2000 in Finland, really a "significant population"? I think the article will look better without such a long list of countries. -- Rayis 22:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
why is afghanistan not included in the list? it is obvious to me that afghanistan has one of the most significant persian population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.84.89 ( talk) 20:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The upper and lower bounds for the population did not match the numbers given in the list. A simple addition gives the range 36-43 million. Heja Helweda 05:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I wonder how you have forgotton the ethnic Fars of the Persian Gulf ministates. They are not only the recent migrants but are also ancient ethnic groups there for example in Bahrain (a majority of people there are believed to be Fars/Persian or at least partially.
Babakexorramdin 19:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Babakexorramdin
Currently we have following articles related to this topic
To solve above mentioned problems I think the articles should be changed as follows:
Persian (disambiguation) and Iranian (disambiguation), be mentioned in the first line of new Iranian.
So what do you think? ( Arash the Archer 19:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC))
According to my discussion with Ali Doostzadeh here [1], I changed the total population number. The previous total number did not match the numbers given in the table. I inivite editors to check it out for themselves. The previous range could not be derived from the table and this was damaging the credibility of a good article.Thanks. Heja Helweda 05:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
respectfully request stacking photos vertically (2X2) vs (4) in order to render infobox a smaller width. the current width of the infobox is too wide and impedes user experience. παράδοξος 03:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Tired of reading fake persian history Afghanistan is not a persian speaking Country and the dari language is called Afghani not called persian this was imposed on us by biased historians and iranians. Fake history —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.5.197.224 ( talk) 04:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
Just adding to the last point, why are Tats also listed as Persians? First of all there are 10,900 Tats in Azerbaijan, not 22,000. And secondly, even though Tats descend from pre-Islamic Persians who moved to the Caucasus in the 5th century, they have reshaped into a separate ethnic and cultural group by now. They are as much Persian as are Pashtuns and Kurds, and the Tat language is not mutually intelligible with Persian. It is absolutely incorrect to keep them on that list. Parishan 07:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
All credible sources clearly state that Tati language is a dialect of Persian. Khorshid 03:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Ethnologue is not a reliable source, although it is a source. They make lots of mistakes which they themselves admit to. Just thought I'd mention that. Azerbaijani 23:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
According to the last Soviet census of 1989 there lived 30669 Moslems Tats in the whole Soviet Union while 10239 were (still) living in the republic of Azerbaijan. In addition there were 18513 Jewish tats of which 5484 lived in the rep. Azerbaijan. The number of 22000 (I have seen that number in an rep. Azerbaijani site too!) could be correct when we regard the population increase and the fact that many citizens of rep. Azerbaijan which were living in other republic (e.g. Kazakhstan) have returned to their homeland. --Babakexorramdin 08:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)-- Babakexorramdin 15:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I see that no one from WikiProject Iran has yet given this article a rating or an importance rating. I really think that should be done soon, this article is very important. -- Behnam 17:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
So what's the issue with the image currently in the infobox? There seems to be multiple reversions going on, and I haven't seen any recent discussion here over why it should be removed. Please discuss and maybe we can find some middle ground. -- Bobak 19:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
All right, as per the above, I've swapped the original with Image:4Persians.jpg, in a derivative work of the original PD-self image. -- Bobak 14:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
As i have noticed that there are some people who claim that Zoroaster is not a Persian, please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranians#Religious_figures . if the pic should be removed then shall the name zoroaster be removed from this article.
"Crystalinks" doesn not fall under WP:RS. I have removed the problematic photo and swapped in the above discussion 3Persians since it was also uncontroversial. Wikipedia is about discussion and collaboration, please do not remove the photo without gaining consensus. -- Bobak 21:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thumb I have made a new image for the infobox and it should solve the problems. It includes 4 ethnic Persians who are very important in Persian history. All the images used here are PD so we can use this freely. I made this very quickly at work and I will make a better one soon, so if there is any improvements or changes please let me know. -- Behnam 21:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks good for now, none of those photos should have problems. I think this is a pretty good middle ground. -- Bobak 15:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Sangak Talk 20:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
BTW, Is Sadi's photo persian looking??! Is Cyrus photo persian looking?! Is Anousheh Ansari persian looking?! Sangak Talk 20:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Just curious, if Tats are included in the population total while they have been classified as a sub-group in the article... then why aren't Tajiks included in the total? I think we should either include both of them in total or keep both out of the total. What do you guys think? -- Behnam 03:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Well let me begin this way. If the Persian-speakers of Khorasan are regarded as Persian then Farsiwan in Herat can be too. But Caution is called for Hazara. Hazara are a Mongolian or Turkic people who are lingually Persified, so strictly taken they are not Persian. Similar things can be said about the Tajiks. Tajiks (and Uzbeks) are the decendents of ancient Iranian tribes (notably the Soghdians in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan and Bactraians in Afghanistan) and Turkic tribes. These people however have adopted Persian language and do have an Iranian culture. They are therfore Iranian (and not turkic or Mongolian!) people. But They are not Persians! More strongly the Parsis of India have Persian decent, but do niether speak Persian nor have an Iranian culture. Moreover the story says that they are from Zanjan (modern day Azeri region of Iran!) and not from Southern Iran (Modern day Fars/ ethnic Persian) region of Iran (they they might have went into their ships from Southern Iran). Not for nothing is their first village called Sanjan. In the memory of their city of Zanjan! The only thing Parsis have kept from Iran is their religion. Their culture is not very Iranian, but more British with Indian elements. They spoke Gujarati once but now they speak English. Many go even that far to deny any relationship with Iran. So the level of subjective awareness (of ethnic and racial connection to Iran) among them is also not that strong. Babakexorramdin 14:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
It is important what Frye thinks, because he is one of the leading and most important scholars of Iranology. In this regard, it is rather unimportant what you think. And, without being insulting to you, I hoestly doubt that you have any significant knowledge of Iranology or a deeper understanding of the subject. Strong differences between dialects is nothing uncommon. The southwestern dialects of German, spoken in and arround Koblenz, sound like a totally different language to someone from Hamburg. But despite these difference, these languages are classified as German, and their speakers as Germans. The difference between Arabic dialects (Iraq vs. Maghrebian vs. Egyptian) is much much bigger. It is almost impossible for someone from Marakesh to understand someone from Kairo. The difference between Persian dialects is less significant, because the written form of all of these dialects is identical. What differes is the use of vowls and their pronounciation. There are also small differences in the use of vocabulary (Iranian Persian uses more foreign words of Arabic and Turkic origin while Afghans use more archaic Persian words, or, in recent times, use certain English words). Upper classes of educated Persian-speakers have no problems in understanding each others. Ahmadinejad does not need a translator to communicate with Hamid Karzai or Emamali Rahman. At the same time, all three can read and understand Dari poetry. As for Bakhtiari: you should read the respective article in Encyclopaedia Iranica. The word Bakhtiyari is derived from Bactria and points to an original East Iranian Bactrian origin. And while you are at it, you should listen to this song sang by an Afghan Hazara. It is a poem of Rumi.
okay first of all persians in iran if you consider subgourps are about 65% of the population is persian.
persian is an ethnic group okay. persians in iran are also lurs,gilakis,bakhterians,and mazandaranis. also some small speakers like lakis, pahlevis (middle persian speakers), sangsars (old shirazi dari),and tat (middevil persian speakers) and dari speakers do still live in iran being more then 2 million and they are the purest persians out there.
also the tajiks being 27% of afghanistan,hazaras,fariswans are all persian afghanistan itself is 50% persian tajikestan is 79% persian.
and some other persians all over the world the population will be more then 70 million. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.255.27.157 ( talk) 00:35, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
What a BS he is creating. If i start to coreect you i need surly more than 10 hours, fucktoon idiot. btw, Pashtuns say Abey and not Aw. Aw is the verbal language of Parsi while Ab is the term you use in books. So Pashtoons has stolen it since Pashtoons don´t know what water is and also never knew..just smell on one..-- Aspandyar Agha 15:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The sentence:
"They also inhabit in neighboring countries particularly in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. However; Nick Teresko referenced, in these countries they are usually thought of as a sub-group and are referred to as Tajiks"
represents a mis-use of a semi-colon and makes for a rough sounding sentence. It would probably be better stated as:
"They also inhabit in neighboring countries particularly in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. However, as referenced by Nick Teresko, in these countries they are usually thought of as a sub-group and are referred to as Tajiks.
This is still not quite right, but makes more sense. Who is Nick Teresko? Instead of mentioning that he referenced this, the primary source should be cited instead. That is the appropriate way of doing this.
Halogenated 14:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is Ansari listed as a "Great Persian" on the title picture? Couldn't we come up with anyone more worthy (than some buisiness woman who spent alot of money and went to space...)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.193.254 ( talk) 16:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
That figure of 88,000 Persians in Canada is incredibly outdated, there are more Persians living in Toronto alone let along all of Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.85.9.1 ( talk) 21:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Lurs,bakhterians,tatis,mazandaranis,gilakis,tajiks,tylish are all persian and speak a language related to pahlavi or a mix. just like a turkmen is turkic.
this claims are dumb and anti persian. i am getting a feeling that they put this stuff up to divide people.
the pahlavi shah was from mazandaran and he was a persian nationalist.
their culture,language mostly is related to pahlavi (middle persian),and behaviour is persian and the most imporntent thing is that they consider themself persian also. so please correct it and dont try to use your divide tactics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.27.157 ( talk) 18:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we should make one thing clear here. Are we talking about ancient Persians, or about modern Persian-speaking people. It is obvious that these are two very different things, as "Persian" in the sense it is used for someone like Darius the Great does not necessarily (or even remotely) apply to a modern-day person like me whose mother tongue is Persian. If it is the former, we should not be talking about modern language as the criterion. If it's the latter, we should not be linking the modern thing to the ancient one, and we should then definitely remove the achaemenid pictures from the top of the page. Shervink ( talk) 11:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
According to my Iranian friend, Afghani people are also Persian, because according to the Wikipedia article on Afghanistan, 50% of their population speaks Persian. So they must be Persian people if they speak the Persian language. So can we include Afghanistan in the table of countries in this article? Please comment! AppleJuggler ( talk) 05:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. You have a good point. However, I found the following paragraph relating to the Afghani people's ethnicity on the Internet:
"The Tajiks (Tadzhiks), are the second largest ethnic group in Afghanistan. They live in the valleys north of Kabul and in Badakhshan. They are farmers, artisans, and merchants. The Tajiks speak Dari (Afghan Persian), also an Indo-European language and the other official language of Afghanistan. Dari is more widely spoken than Pashto in most of the cities. The Tajiks are closely related to the people of Tajikistan." -- from: http://www.afghanistans.com/Information/People/EthnicityLanguages.htm
If the Dari Persian-speaking Afghans are of Tajik origin, and, if according to this 'Persian people' Wiki article Tajiks from Tajikistan are considered Persians, then Tajiks in Afghanistan are also logically Persians. Do you not agree? Hope to hear your view on this. AppleJuggler ( talk) 04:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
In that case, then I shall remove the reference to Tajikistan from the long list on the right-hand side of the article which contains countries where Persian people are found. Also in accordance with your argument, I have removed Tat-Persian speakers from Azerbaijan from that list as well. Please correct my edits if I am wrong. Thank you. AppleJuggler ( talk) 05:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I have undid all my previous edits. I will leave it to the experts to debate on this. I am not knowledgeable on this issue. All the best. AppleJuggler ( talk) 03:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Could some reliable sources be used for these figures?
800,000 Persians in Turkey?
50-70 million Persians? the total population of Iran is 65-70 million, including 15-25 million Turks, 5-7 million Kurds, a few million Arabs, Baluches etc...
The 50 million Persians in Iran link does not state that there are 50 million Persians in Iran, the source is a hoax http://www.economist.com/countries/Iran/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-FactSheet
Seen as though Ethnalogue is used for sourcing Persians in UAE, Bahrain, Iraq, it should be used for Iran as well.
Population 22,000,000 in Iran (1997). Population includes 800,000 Eastern Farsi in Khorasan, Gilan, Tat, Bakhtiari, Lur. Population total all countries: 24,316,121 http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=pes
According to CIA 51% of Iran is Persian, around 30-35 million.
Torke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.0.143 ( talk) 14:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I wrote a new opening and will follow-up with citations soon. Constructive comments are welcome and hopefully this article can be upgraded to a featured article in the not too distant future. Peace. Tombseye ( talk) 18:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. Please also see: [21], I will be expanding it with couple or more sources. Basically the term Persian due to its being old has several meanings as you noticed:1) Inhabitant of Iran 2) Historical relation with Persia (Iran) 3) Descendant of Iranians who have a pre-Islamic past in the region 4) Parsis of India 5) Persian-Khurasani speakers, Chorasmian speakers, Old Azari speakers and almost any Iranic language speakers. 6) Called Tat, Tajik, Ajam by non-Iranic speakers and eventually these terms were adopted by native Iranic speakers. I think it would be a challenge to encompass all these terms, but I would like to see if you can do it, since you seem to have the energy for this undertaking. Note the Parsis of India do not speak an Iranic language but they speak an Indic language, yet they are Persians. So I think the introduction should as you say be all encompassing in terms of its scope and then discuss Persian-Dari speakers of Iran and related groups..-- alidoostzadeh ( talk) 18:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
PS The Pictures should have people all Iranians from all groups respect Darius and Cyrus were a good choice but Anosheh Ansari just payed to go to Space she didnt study Aeronautics or contribute anything. She is fine in the Iranian-American pictures -- Mohammad ( talk) 07:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)MJM
In old ages Afghanistan was a central place of Persia. today most of afghan people talk persian.But is there any small groups of persians in Afghanistan?! it is impossible .So why the persian population of Afghanistan is not listed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.191.122.15 ( talk) 00:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
J1 is found at up to 9% in Iran (similar to what Turkey has). Most of it is from the southwest. It is an Arab genetic marker (it originated in Arabia, or perhaps North Africa), which brought small strains of African blood with it. But there is no recent (10000 ybp) african specific admixture in Iranians (which supports that persians never had slaves). The mongoloid component is entirely paternal, and hits a peak of 8% (I forgot where it is highest). This is less than the scandinavians of Europe have (more like 12.5%). The Iranians with the least admixture are confined to the eastern and 'northern 1/4' of the country. And dark skin in Iranians is also a post-LGM phenomena, which has effected southern europeans as well (the climate shift). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zadeh79 ( talk • contribs) 00:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
for a country that has helped the civilized world such as the Persians have, it seems the pictures of prominent persians is lacking to say the least. -- GrecoPersian ( talk) 12:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The underlying component of Iranians is Elamite, or at least Proto-Elamite. The Elamites were a, Proto-Semetic, Proto-Aryan, group of primary Caucasoids (cold adapted peoples). The are represented by Y-chromosome haplogroup J, which later flooded Europe and the Middle East with the Neolithic (agricultural) movement. Haplogroup J, in turn, gave rise to HG J1 (Semetic) in southern Arabia. J also gave rise to J2 (in either Eastern Turkey or the Zagros mountain range). HG J2 (along with R1 derivatives, which may exhibit spatial correlations with HG J2) is often assumed to be IE, by population geneticists.
In the opening paragraph, a sentence states "Significant colonies of Persians reside overseas in North America and Europe." What is that suppose to mean? That there are actually COLONIES of Persians in the North America and Europe? I hope you guys know the word Colony has many political implications. The population of Persians in North America and Europe are immigrants to their respective countries, not Colonists in service of a foreign nation. I suggest replacing the word "colonies" in that sentence with "populations" or "numbers" etc. Akaloc ( talk) 16:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Guys, i put a link in the main page,about Iranian/Persian inventions, if anyone wants to Add anything more to it, please go ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.142.110 ( talk) 04:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. Keegan talk 04:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Persian people → Persian speakers
I'm proposing that this artcile (Persian people) be moved to "Persian speakers". The reasons behind the proposal are as follows: 1)Persian speakers don't call themselves "Persian" as a distinctive term or subbranch of "Iranian". 2)"Persian" is equivalent to "Iranian" in English.
I suggest that the article be started with something like:
"The Persian speakers of Iran are the amalgam of Iranian peoples and indigenous inhabitants of Iran before the migration of Indo-Iranians."
and continues with mentioning and describing the heritage/descent of Persian speakers that include: Tappeh Sialk, Jiroft culture, Shahr-i Sokhta, Elam, Medes (which contains Hamedan, Tehran, Lorestan, Esfahan), Persian Empire, Parthia, etc.-- Raayen ( talk) 17:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.The new "Persian people" article is ready with all its deficiencies to be improved by you. Please people, speak out, what is your view about the name for this present article:
1)Persian-Speaking people,
2)Persian-Dari speaking people.
or anything else?--
Raayen (
talk)
15:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I'm OK with either plan: making this article more general and then creating another article for Persians of Iran OR just doing it all in one article with somewhat more discussion about the Persians of Iran in this article. As a supra-'ethnic', the Persian-speakers are interesting testament to the Persian language as a lingua franca of the past that assimilated people who at some point knew it as a 2nd language etc. (not unlike the Poles or the Germans before Nazism). So what plan does everyone prefer? I know Khoi khoi's with the 2 article plan so a quick show of hands will suffice. This seems like a good solution to this problem. Tombseye ( talk) 03:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it would be better if we just made this article more general without renaming or creating any new pages. Britannica's article on Iran for example ( [22]) says "The predominant ethnic and cultural group in the country consists of native speakers of Persian. But the people who are generally known as Persians are of mixed ancestry, and the country has important Turkic and Arab elements in addition to the Kurds, Baloch, Bakhtyārī, Lurs, and other smaller minorities (Armenians, Assyrians, Jews, Brahuis, and others)." Yes it is true that the term "Persian" as an ethnic group is not used in contemporary Iran. People in Iran typically identify first by nationality and second as the province they come from. But I don't think that renaming this article "Persian-speaking people" would help in articles such as al-Khwārizmī. Khoi khoi 07:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, so I was reading some of the votes regarding the article's name change and at least 3 people ( WikiPersianHistorian's among them) are against it. So how about as Khoi khoi says, we just keep this article's name and expand its scope further to include groups that are historically viewed as 'Persians' in the past (with the usage being clear that it is from the Greeks) and explain its proper designation and how it does not coincide with local usage and then create a new article on Persian-speakers in Iran? We can explain that 'Persian' is not a precise ethnic designation nor is it one that is used by Persian speakers who simply view themselves as 'Iranians' or in terms of their localities. Everyone agree with this approach? Tombseye ( talk) 18:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear 07fan, if you follow the discussion, it seems that is nearly what we have finally decided to do.-- Raayen ( talk) 14:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Persian speaking people was created. Please help to modify and improve the content of both articles.-- Raayen ( talk) 01:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This article is not about citizens of Iran, this article is about the ethno-linguistic group, which according to the CIA Factbook, account for 51% of Iran's population today. For an article about citizens of Iran, please see Demographics of Iran. Pejman, if you want to change the title of this article, it's best to go to WP:RM in this case. Your move is simply too controversial to be done without discussion. Khoi khoi 01:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
"Persian-Speaking people" is more exact title for this entry. CIA also is not a reliable source. -- Pejman ( talk) 17:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Could it be noted in this article that the term "Persian" (ethnicity) is known as "Parsi" or the latter "Farsi" in the Persian language? ( Gta40 ( talk) 21:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC))
The Achaemenid Kings referred to themselves as "پارسي" "Parsi" (Latter "Farsi"). I'm assuming you know why the "P" was changed to "F" but for the sake of consistency I will just use it with the "P".
For example Darius the Great:
"I am Darius the great king, king of kings, king of countries containing all kinds of men, king in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenid, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage." [1]
Here, Darius is clearly referring to himself as Persian. [Line 13, Old Persian "Pârsa" = New Persian "Parsi"] ( Gta40 ( talk) 06:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC))
Well I am not saying who is or who isn't Persian (ethnicity), I'm simply saying "Parsi" is the equivalent of the word "Persian" and that this should be noted as other terms have been noted as well. ( Gta40 ( talk) 20:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC))
Detailed modern genetic analysis makes quite evident that modern day Persians are a Lost Tribe of Israel. Common words in the Persian language with Hebrew and also common names Jewish names such as Sulaiman, Daud, musa are to found in modern day Persia. Also Israel and original home of the Jewish people Babylon is next to Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.168.82 ( talk) 20:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the table be moved to Persian-speakers of Iran?! This article is a general overview, including other Persian groups such as Tajiks and Hazara. All of them also have their own separate articles. Tājik ( talk) 14:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Judging from the introduction of this article, perhaps it should be renamed Persian identity, and have the link Persian people redirect to Persian-speakers of Iran? The naming of the articles, as it stands, could confuse readers. IranianGuy ( talk) 02:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Why aren't there any women in the picture? All I see is a bunch of muslim leaders, and Cyrus; there are no photographs either. This picture isn't representative of Persians. 75.164.107.139 ( talk) 23:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted unjustified deletions. Tājik ( talk) 08:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear Raayen and all. There are no Persian Speakers in pakistan and China. Sources which say this are confused. In Pakistan there are considerable Persian speakers from Afghanistan and in addition in Pakistani held Northernb area live some Pamiri ethnic groups. The same is true about China. The so called Tajiks of China are in fact Pamiri people. They are not Persians but East Iranians. It is sad that there are still sources that do not/ cannot distinguish between Iranian languages and Persian. -- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 13:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The current title is incorrect. This should be renamed to Persian ethnicity. Persian has historically been an adjective to describe Persia, one of two possible names for Iran. Likewise, its people were referred to as Persians. See Iran naming dispute Magemirlen ( talk) 14:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that the article changes focusing on Persian speaking people and stops defining Persian ethnicity on the basis of linguistics because this approach is nonsensical. Firstly modern Farsi spoken in Iran can not be considered the same as the Dari, they use a different grammar and Farsi contains much more Arabic works than Dari, although they are mutual intelligibility.
Secondly the aim of the article is to describe the word Persian, a word intended to denote an ethnic group; That is a group of human beings whose identify with each other mainly, through a common heritage and ancestry. The Hazara people of Afghanistan are of related to Mongolian people and the Uyghurs of China rather than the Indo-European Persian people of Iran.
And also there is lot more to be said about the Persian people if we are actually allowed to focus on the Persian people instead of regarding them as ‘an eclectic collection of groups with the Persian language being the main shared legacy’. This description is simply not true because Persians of Iran and the Dari speaking Tajiks and Hazaras do NOT share common hereditary traits, culture, tradition, identity nor do they identity with each other and consider themselves as the same people. And separate articles exists for Tajiks and Hazara people. Danz23 ( talk) 19:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that this article be revised and that its content focused on the Persian people as an ethnic group instead of the illogical description ; 'an eclectic collection of groups with the Persian language being the main shared legacy'. The description disregards several important facts, mainly;
1) Farsi and Dari are mutual intelligibility but not the same language.
2) Persian people do not share a common culture, tradition or identity with Hazaras or Tajiks they consider them to be 'Afghans'.
3) Persian people are racially different from both Hazaras and Tajiks.
4) There is no accurate way to describe any an ethnic group other than to regard them a distinctive and unique if you want to describe their cultural attitudes, costumes and practices, values and social norms, This articles does not allow that.
5) This 'article' completely disregard the ethnic geography of Persians and contains no statistics of their numbers because it refuses to acknowledge Persians as a distinctive ethnic group.
Rewriting the article focusing of Persian as an ethnic group (removing Hazaras & Tajiks) would make a far more accurate and descriptive article than the current revisionist piece of propaganda.
Having said that, I welcome creating a new article called 'Persian language' that focuses on the different variants of Farsi and geographical propagation. Although such an article should not be called 'Persian people'.
Danz23 ( talk) 23:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The definition of an ethnic group is as following according to Wikipedia:
'An ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or presumed. Ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness and the recognition of common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioural or biological traits, real or presumed, as indicators of contrast to other groups.'
Hazara, Tajiks and Persians do not identity with each other through common heritage, culture or identity. Tajiks and Hazaras have their own identity, culture, costumes and racial distinctiveness and do not consider themselves to be Persians, nor do Persians consider them as their own people.
Therefore Hazara and Tajiks can not be included in an article that tries to describe Persians People. I have already mentioned that speaking an accent of a language does not qualify membership
to any ethnic group, the notion that any racially pure 'ancient persians' is equaly absurd.
Both Tajiks and Hazaras have their own articles which refute the claim that they are Persians or identity themselves as such.
Here is one description of Tajiks:
Tājik' ( Persian: تاجيک; UniPers: Tâjik; Tajik: Тоҷик) is a term generally applied to Persian language speakers of primarily East Iranic (mixed Sogdian, Khorezmian, Bactrian, Tokharian and Parthian)[1] origin living in Central Asia. The traditional Tajik homelands are in present-day Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and southern Uzbekistan.
There is no way to write a factually correct and descriptive article about any ethnic group another than to consider them distinctive and unique. The notion of 'an eclectic collection of groups with the Persian language being the main shared legacy' does not allow the description of their cultural attitudes, costumes and practices, values and social norms or any statistics of their actual numbers.
Why do you insist on denying the existence of Persians?
Why my message of disputed neutrality removed before any real discussion have taken place?
Danz23 ( talk) 22:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Further Response'
The question is very simple,
There is no point in digressing, disregarding and pushing for your political point of view.
Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research.
You are trying to pose your values and opinions as facts, A fact is a piece of undisputed information. There is no reliable source that claims that 27% of the Afghan population are Persians or that the terms 'Persians' and 'Tajik'can be used interchangeably to describe the same ethnic group.
It is a undisputed FACT that the CIA factbook states Tajiks as one distinctive ethnic group and Persians as another.
I have already stated the definition of ethnic groups, members of ethnic groups need to identity with each other and recognize each other as the same people, Persians do NOT identity with Hazaras and Tajiks trough common heritage, history, culture and therefore they are different ethnic groups and different terms are used to describe them and must be used in order to avoid confusion.
You can not manipulate the definition of an ethnic group by using confusing and dubious semantics, If ethnic groups could be defined in such a fashion I could claim that Persians and German people are the same people because both have used the term 'Aryan' to describe themselves.
Tajiks and Hazaras must be removed from this article, and they should have pride and confidence in their OWN ethnic identity.
I am not claiming that they can not be counted as Iranian people; many different ethnic groups can be counted as Iranian people or Iranic people, such as Kurds and Lurs but only as Persian.
Danz23 ( talk) 15:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Reponse
I think that you are showing a clear contempt of the wikipedias standards as I mentioned earlier and keep repeating the same nonsensical arguments which I have already addressed and refuted
There is no debate about the existence of a distinctive Persian ethnicity. Persians are Iran's largest ethnic group, they constitute 51% of Iran’s population according to the CIA factbook and they are one of the oldest, their existence and distinctiveness acknowledged in assyrian inscription as far back as 800s BC which calls them the Parsu and mentions them alongside another Aryan group, the Madai (Medes).
Secondly if you think that Tajik people are Persian people because some use the wrong name of the language they speak (Farsi instead of Dari) to denote the ethnic group Tajiks among other names such as Farsiwan then you need to learn the definition of an ethnic group.
I think that the denial of an ethnic group and the attempt to delude their distinctiveness is more than just racist, I see it as a crime: Ethnocide
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007):
Article 7
1. Indigenous peoples have the collective and individual right not to be subjected to ethnocide and cultural genocide, including prevention of and redress for:
(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct
peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;
The declaration was passed on 13 September 2007 by 144 member nations
I see little point on further discussion and will contact a senior editor regarding this issue
Danz23 ( talk) 17:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
My response'
I said it is racist to deny the existence of ethnic groups or to dilute their definition, not that you or anyone else is racist. Can you make the distinction? I have however claimed that this article violated the standards of wikipedia and is written with a political agenda, and I stand by my claim.
You have not presented any scholarly works that support your claims to my knowledge, you keep mentioning The Encyclopaedia of Islam which it is not an ethnographic encyclopaedia and does not make the same distinctions ethnographers make.
And from what I can tell only claims states the following: Tajik is the general name of the Persian-speaking population of Afghanistan.
Here is one source which addresses the Issue of Tajik ethnicity:
Tājik' (Persian: تاجيک; UniPers: Tâjik; Tajik: Тоҷик) is a term generally applied to Persian language speakers of primarily East Iranic (mixed Sogdian, Khorezmian, Bactrian, Tokharian and Parthian)[1] origin living in Central Asia. The traditional Tajik homelands are in present-day Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and southern Uzbekistan.
• [1] Krader, L. 1963. Formations of the Peoples. Indiana Uralic and Altaic Series v. 26- Peoples of Central Asia: 54-57, Hirth, F. 1917. The story of Chang K'ien, China's pioneer in Western Asia. Journal of the American Oriental Society. v. 37, no.2: 89-152; Shiratori, K. 1902. Über den Wu-sun-Stamm in Centralasien, 103-140.
Other sources claim the same; Persians and Tajiks are separate ethnic groups although Persian can be counted to one of the several ethnic groups that trough ethnogenesis gave raise to the Tajik people, I don’t object to this. I can list more sources if you want.
Tajiks today by both Western scholarship and national defintions (Such as the CIA Factbook) are not just considered Persians. They are considered a separate ethnic group. For example, under Tajik statistics, we have the amount of Tajiks in Iran, that alone implying Tajiks in Iran (Afghani refugees) are not the same as Persians, and therefore they should not be mentioned in the article regarding Persian people, because it creates confusion and dilutes the meaning of the term Persian.
I don't feel it relevant to address Issues not related to this article, such as the ethnicity of individuals or to argue against your personal opinions and values because they have no relevance.
We are not getting anywhere and maybe it is best if we stop this discussion. Danz23 ( talk) 19:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
rumi cant become persian because he lived in konya why you fearing to show him as Turk? why didnt you look at map about where is konya? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.179.27.56 ( talk) 16:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
چند شهر است اندر ایران مرتفع تر از همه
Some cities of Iran are better than the rest,
بهتر و سازنده تر از خوشی آب و هوا
these have pleasant and compromising weather,
گنجه پر گنج در اران صفاهان در عراق
The wealthy Ganjeh of Arran, and Esfahān as well,
در خراسان مرو و طوس در روم باشد اقسرا