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.

This link should be deleted because the account has been suspended. http://ili.ir/ 4.249.63.100 ( talk) 15:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What would be the correct English translation of Bazargan's 1956 book: ترموديناميك انسان? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Humanthermodynamics (Human Thermodynamics) or Thermodynamics of Man.-- Strabismus ( talk) 05:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible to create a new, separate article about the whole Persian-vs-Farsi mess? This should extend beyond the language itself and also cover the subtext of why so many people seem to get their panties in a twist about this; I gather that the Islamic Republic prefers "Farsi" while the exiles prefer "Persian"... Jpatokal ( talk) 09:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You are correct in your observation that many people "get their panties in a twist" on this subject. It touches on such subjects as national and ethnic identity, and as well as people's understanding of linguistics, this language, and English. It is a complex subject that many people feel emotional about. I agree that this subject in itself does deserve a neutral and well-referenced discussion, so that outsiders on this subject can get a neutral and informed understanding of this.

The problem is, I don't think Wikipedians are ready quite yet to create a neutral, balanced, and well-sourced article on this subject.

In the past there have been many many lengthy discussions, disagreements, and all-out flame-fests. Many people (both Wikipedians and AC's) will automatically delete any mention of a name for this language that they don't like, regardless of it's appropriateness in the context.

As an example, the official Unicode name for this letter "ی" is "ARABIC LETTER FARSI YEH" (not to be confused with alif maqsura). Like it or not, that's what Unicode currently calls it, and that's what it is labelled in a few WP articles that describe the official Unicode name for this letter. However, very frequently this string gets renamed in articles to something that people would rather have it called.

Another example is the ISO 639-3 name for identifiers 'pes' and 'prs', in this article.

Another example is the etymological explanation of the the word Fingilish.

However, the disagreement is not really between the Islamic Republic and exiles, but rather between prescriptivists and actual colloquial usage in the English language, by speakers of both languages. The situation somewhat parallels Bengali vs. Bangla (but see below).

Most people have grown tired of the debate, and what's in this article is a sort-of compromise, for better or worse. If you really feel strongly that you would like to tackle creating a new article on this subject, feel free. I would not be opposed to it, but I would caution you that you will be flooded with many emotionally-charged edits. (but maybe you would be more willing to deal with this).

I guess I should mention my position, as sort of a disclaimer. I do not feel strongly for "Farsi" nor "Persian". I really don't see it as "Persian" versus "Farsi". The best reasoning about this that I've read comes from professor Simin Karimi, a well-known scholar in this field, in this short paper. – jonsafari ( talk) 04:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good (and concise!) paper. Badagnani ( talk) 04:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That's all very nice, but it's, um, irrelevant. Wikipedia hasn't given up its articles on abortion or George Bush or Takeshima even though they're subject to continual edit wars, and there are some pretty good articles like Sea of Japan naming dispute about topics where naming itself is a major bone of contention.

And oh, I personally have zero stake in the naming. I was just sidetracked here when somebody started removing the word "Farsi" from a pointer to Fingilish in the article Finglish (about Finnish+English), and then was a little surprised to not see any discussion of why this is so hotly debated in here. Jpatokal ( talk) 07:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I know you've had pretty serious debate here, and there is a longstanding conflict between the two uses, but I'd like to see the English language Farsi in the lead, per the MOS and in recognition that there are people who may not have heard 'Persian language' before the redirect. Mostlyharmless ( talk) 06:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As the user alidoostzadeh pointed out Ferdowsi called the language Pârsi-e-Dari or Pârsi-ye-Dari. Different dialects of Pârsi-ye-Dari are mainly different in the way vowels are pronounced as the language is a language primarily based on consonant (as opposed to being vowel based such as Chinese or Vietnamese languages). We refer to vowels as accents and we write them as such. The word پدر PDR can be pronounced as PeDaR or PaDaR in different regions. Which is the same word as PaDRe in Spanish and Portuguese or PèRe in French. When Arabs attacked PRS (Persia, Perse, Persien) they started calling Pârsi, Phârsi because they did not and do not have the sound denoted by the letter "P" in Arabic language. Since they could not pronounce "P", they replaced the letter "P" with either "F" or "B". So Pârsi became Phârsi. The words پدر PDR in Phârsi, “Pater or Vater” in German and “Father” in English, all have the same roots. Other examples or words that went through similar transformation are PaRDiS پردیس in Phârsi, Paradise in English and Pherdos فردوس in Arabic. Similarly Palestine became Phelestin فلسطين in Arabic. -- Msiya ( talk) 16:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"Farsi" is native name of Persian language. It's usage in English is quite wrong. Persan language scholars also in various articles have pointed out as well. This article is very helpful:

http://payvand.com/news/05/dec/1063.html Thanks. Shayan7 ( talk) --Shayan7 09:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There's an article on the CAIS-SOAS website that decries any and all usages of the term "Farsi" to refer to Modern Persian as spoken in Iran (i.e., as distinguished from Dari and Tajik). Also, google "Persian not Farsi" and read all the intense fury this five-lettered word is causing. Good grief. :S As for me, "Farsi" and "Persian" are too closely allied etymologically for me to blow my top over.-- Strabismus ( talk) 23:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

(1) If there's two or more names in actual use for one thing in a language, neither of them is wrong. Welcome to modern linguistics. (2) I'm getting very tired of people whose mother tongue is not English telling me what is and isn't right in my language. A language is defined by its native speakers, not outsiders.-- Prosfilaes ( talk) 02:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

As an Iranian-American, I've never heard any debate about this, either in the diaspora community or in the Persian and Middle Eastern Studies classes I took in college. However, I constantly hear Iranian-American people use "Farsi" when they're speaking English, not because they're trying to make a point, but because they don't know any different (read: any better) -- it's called "Farsi" in Persian, so they just naturally transfer that word into English when speaking English. This is, of course, incorrect, and I often correct people in conversation by explaining that the language is called "Persian" in English. But it's hard to correct people effectively when seemingly "official" sources use the word "Farsi." For instance, Rosetta Stone calls their Persian software "Farsi" instead of "Persian," which (a) blows my mind, and (b) doesn't help the situation any. And to my mind, this Wikipedia page, which I consider a pretty official source, isn't making the distinction clearly or forcefully enough. I think it would make sense to just insert a sentence on this page explaining that, regardless of the ideological debate, the current situation is that "Farsi" is the name of the language in the language, and Persian is the name of the language in English -- meaning that you would no more say "I speak Farsi" than you would say "I speak Español" or "I speak Deutsch." When you type "deutsch" into Wikipedia, the first sentence of the page that comes up says "Deutsch is the German language word for German (adjective)." Perhaps something similar could be included on the Persian language page? Naseem19 ( talk) 13:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll repeat my statement you seem to have ignored: If there's two or more names in actual use for one thing in a language, neither of them is wrong. Welcome to modern linguistics. If Rosetta Stone calls their Persian software Farsi, if seemingly "official" sources use the name Farsi, then that is a valid name for the language in English.-- Prosfilaes ( talk) 17:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I really don't want to escalate anything here, as it looks like people are already getting a bit touchy, but I feel like two things are worth mentioning here: first, just because I don't agree with something doesn't mean I ignored it, and second, repeating something doesn't make it true. It looks like scholars disagree about this issue and there seems to be a significant amount of talk on this page about it -- to say nothing of all the heated debate on the rest of the internet -- so I daresay a seemingly final pronouncement from one user isn't going to resolve the issue. (Incidentally, assuming Prosfilaes' statement is correct and/or universally accepted, I question what "actual use" means -- how many people have to use an incorrect word before it becomes accepted and correct in a language? And how would we know whether that threshold has been reached in this case?)

In any event, I think it might be helpful for someone to insert a statement explaining that "Farsi" is the name of the language in the language, but that some people also use it when speaking English. This would seem to be a pretty neutral and informative approach. Naseem19 ( talk) 03:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You did ignore it; you said "This is, of course, incorrect" without rebutting the argument that that is wrong, or taking on the concept of descriptive linguistics at all. If you use a word in English and other English speakers know what you mean, it's a perfectly correct word. In this case, Google Books [1] shows us a number of professionally published books that use the word Farsi; Describing morphosyntax: a guide for field linguists, or Not Without My Daughter.-- Prosfilaes ( talk) 03:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

sorry about the change, but it is necessary . I'm the amateur nastaliq calligrapher the previous image: farsi.svg was in Pakistani nastaliq style not Iranian style. so i dare to change that with the Iranian style that is more appropriate.-- Mohamadriazi ( talk) 12:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me that your version is the Pakistani Nastaleeq, not the earlier one. The way "faa" and "rey" have been written does not look like the original Persian one. I reverted your edit. Cabolitæ ( talk) 17:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This article seems to include no basic information on writing system! I've heard that Persian is written from right to left, although Persian people write mathematics from left to right. I've also heard that negativity of a number is also shown by a minus sign to the left, although the number is still written in Eastern Arabic numerals.

But how true are these? Any citations? Fleet Command ( talk) 01:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This article includes a whole section labeled Orthography, which links to Perso-Arabic script if you want even more details.-- Prosfilaes ( talk) 02:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Clear as mud. Fleet Command ( talk) 14:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The article as it is has the following

The fact that almost all current native speakers of the language do understand ancient texts of the Persian language and the grammatical differences of the ancient language are acquainted by today's speakers simply by reading and memorising those ancient texts gives a special status to the Persian language as a whole.

This is quite simply absurd. There are plenty of languages where modern speakers can understand ancient texts relatively easily, depending on what you mean by "ancient." But since New Persian cannot with any reason be said to date more than a century or two earlier than the turn of the 1st millennium, you could just as easily replace the word "persian" in the above sentence with Arabic, Hebrew, Koine Greek or Icelandic- with Spanish, Italian, Dutch and several other languages no more than a century or so behind.

It's true that Persian speakers tend to stress the mutual intelligibility of Classical and Modern persian more so than most others. But, really, who cares? There are a great many sources, particularly for Arabic, Icelandic and Hebrew, which discuss the mutual intelligibility of the modern standard languages and the "classical" predecessors. Hell, even the Wiki articles on these languages say as much. So I'm deleting it. Szfski ( talk) 11:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess, using your word, it "is quite simply absurd" to dispute the source provided. Please read wp:point before trying to give us lecture about Hebrew language. Your example are unrelated. Arabic is itself a new language and had no "stages of change" and therefore your example is not good one. Xashaiar ( talk) 12:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The earliest texts in Classical Arabic date from the 6th century. The earliest texts in New Persian are hundreds of years afterward. Arabic has undergone several stages of change comparable to those of Early to Late New Persian. I do not know what you mean when you describe Arabic as a "new" language. In any event, the source used mentioned the ostensible special status of Persian mainly in passing while focusing on the intelligibility of Classical texts to modern speakers. It is, however, not an authoritative source if you're using it to make a case that the source itself was not attempting to prove. It is an EOI entry on the diachronic stages of persian, not the relative cross-linguistic uniqueness of diachronic intelligibility in Modern Persian. But then, since you mistook my mentioning Hebrew in passing for an attempt to "give a lecture," I can see how you probably did mistake Jeremias' passing mention of special status for a weighty statement on the subject. Szfski ( talk) 12:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong on your attempt to make a point on Arabic and Persian: the sentence "Arabic has undergone several stages of change comparable to those of Early to Late New Persian" is wrong. At least if you accept that one example of early Arabic is Koran (with unknown date of writing) and one example of early New Persian is Rudaki/and or Ferdowsi. The latter was connected to previous stage of a spoken/written language and the former was not (This is important because the sentence you changed used the word "ancient" which, obviously but not explicitly, tried to indicate a connection between NP and MP. If this is not what the article in EI is supposed to mean and which you are seemingly trying to say, then I will agree that addition of the sentence on "special status" does not help much). The point is that you can not remove a source just because you dislike it. If there are "authoritative sources" that disprove the statement which was explicitly taken from the source EI then we can discuss removal of the sentence. Xashaiar ( talk) 14:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind adding a correction, Quran's dates of writing is exactly known. Its transcription was started exactly 1402 years ago. It was eventually published in its wholesome form 1374 years ago. (When I say a year, I mean a standard year, that 365 days, not that Arabic year.) From that date forward, it was never altered. Fleet Command ( talk) 14:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Persian is the second-most used language in the blogosphere." I find that claim highly doubtful. Even the source cited doesn't say exactly who calculated this number. I'm not sure which language is first, but I'd say English is one of the most used languages, definitely larger than Persian. If you now look at China, where QQ/Qzone (Chinese chat/blogging service) have hundreds of millions of users, this alone surpasses the number of speakers of Persian. I will remove the statement until a more reliable source is found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.25.94.97 ( talk) 09:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, some script reverted my edit and called it vandalism. No offence, folks, but I'm not sure that's the right way to motivate occasional users to contribute :-) Since I'm not a registered user, I'll leave it to someone more savvy to make the change.-- 178.25.94.97 ( talk) 09:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Honestly folks, that statement is utter nonsense. Could someone please remove it? I'm really just trying to improve the article.-- 79.244.108.32 ( talk) 09:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a citation? Sure, chat services have billions of users, but they're aren't part of the blogosphere. Show us a reliable source giving a breakdown of the blogosphere by language, then I'm sure it will be discussed.-- Prosfilaes ( talk) 10:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

According to http://www.blogherald.com/2010/09/20/state-of-the-blogosphere-in-2010/ , Persian/Farsi is ranked about 11th. I'll take it out of the article. Paxsimius ( talk) 15:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

To me this is largely unheard of inside and outside Iran. Most Persian-speakers of Iran aren't even aware of the fact that the original ethnonymic name for their language was actually "Parsi"/"Parsee". Tajiks for the most part either refer to it as Tajiki ("Tojiki" as transliterated from Cyrillic) or "Tojiki Farsee". Afghans refer to it under a multitude names depending on the geographic region, i.e. Dari, Harzagi, Herati, Aimaq, Darwazi, etc... "Farsi" in Afghanistan is used to specifically in reference to the dialectally-differing version spoken in Iran.

I think it's important to make a distinction between current usage and proper usage. The historic and undoubtedly correct term for the language is "Parsi" (derived from the Sassanid-era term "Parsik" or "Parsig", which morphed into "Parsi" after the Arab conquests for a brief period of time before the Arabs adopted a stricter policy of Islamization; also sometimes erroneously referred to as "Pahlavi", which is not appropriate for the spoken language but rather the writing system).

However, the majority of speakers, official governing bodies and institutions all rule that "Farsi" is the modern, self-designative name for the language (the majority also support "Persian" being used abroad).

I think this should be stressed much more heavily, as it is very confusing for such a prestigious and widely spoken language to be referred to under two names within the opening sentence, particularly when the Persian vs. Farsi debate is invoked instantaneously when discussing the correct nomenclature for the language, which only further mystifies the average reader. Farsi, Parsi, Persian, Dari, Tajik, etc... the list of sobriquets goes on and on.

It should simply be stated in the introduction that "Parsi" is the ancient, historical term for Middle & New Persian, that was in wide usage prior to the Arab Conquests, but which has now largely fallen out of use and the Arabic-derived "Farsi" is the predominant self-designative name. Gamer112(Aus) ( talk) 15:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

According to Bo Utas and Lars Johanson Modern Persian is not the continuation of Middle Persian and is very distinct from it (loss of declensions and cases...) and is the result of the symbiosis between Arab and Iranians in Khorassan and especially the Balkh (area to an extent that it's said that Balkh is the motherland of the modern Persian language) resulting in a new language with most of its vocabulary Arabic, vernacular Arabic and other Semitic as well as Morphologic,Literary and Grammatical influences from Arabic besides Persian became being written in the Nabatean script of the Arabic alphabet (before that middle Persian too was written in the Arabic alphabet but in its Arabaic/Aramaic version)

Please include this to the article and thanks for your works

Humanbyrace ( talk) 19:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Script is irrelevant; some Turkic languages went through Arabic, Latin and Cyrillic scripts in the 20th century. Your first sentence does not follow; Modern Persian is certainly the continuation of Middle Persian, and many languages have lost declensions and cases without creolization. What influence Arabic had on Persian, and how that should be portrayed in the article, is up for question, but it's hard to judge your claim without a URL or a exact citation; Bo Utas and Lars Johanson seem to have wrote a lot, and finding what you're referring to is impossible.-- Prosfilaes ( talk) 16:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be somewhat surprised to hear Johanson actually using the term creolisation to refer to what happened to Persian under contact with Arabic. Stretching the definition of "creolizsation" to such wide limits has been rather out of fashion in the relevant literature for quite a while. BTW, the description of the writing systems above ("Nabatean script of the Arabic alphabet", "Arabaic/Aramaic version" of the "Arabic alphabet") seem to be rather confused. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.turkiclanguages.com/www/Johanson2006.pdf

Last page Bo Utas "a multiethnic origin of new Persian"

Humanbyrace ( talk) 11:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The article properly sources the undisputed fact that OP and MP are the parent and grand parent of NP. The sources are arguably the best sources available. If you need more sources please ask for it, I will provide as many as you want. Xashaiar ( talk) 13:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Not true! An Arab can understand 90% of ancient Arabic (Ugaritic) of 2000 bc and around 75-80% of proto Arabic (Akkadian...) of 6000 bc but a Persian can not understand much of Dari let alone middle Persian let alone Old Persian!!!

Humanbyrace ( talk) 13:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite contrary. I do not know about arabic world, but your statement "a Persian can not understand much of Dari" is hardly meaningful: If Rudaki and Ferdowsi are early NP (Dari) writers, then 101% of Persian speaking people do understand them. I guess you use some extra "0"'s in your statements about years or else by bc you refer to future. Also as I see from the talk pages of some articles, I think you should mind wp:forum. Xashaiar ( talk) 15:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's be so live in your dream world of wishful thinking and avoid reality WHY? because you are absurdely ethnicist puricist anti arab seeking a pure origin and developement of Persian where all the proofs are against that=>Persian get alphabet from Akkadians then Arameans then Arabs and did absorb huge amount of Semitic words even the word for milk shir from khshira is originally Semitic from akkadian kishru=milk and generally speaking around 75-80% of new persian vocabulary is Semitic origin

Humanbyrace ( talk) 13:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Once more please mind wp:forum. But just to answer one of your "claims": the NP shir is from MP "šir" coming from Avestan xshuudr- (and its equivalent Sanskrit "x*siir-") (you can find relevant info in this website). You can of course continue to believe in your own "original theory". Xashaiar ( talk) 18:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm an American; I've got no horse in this race. But you seem to have ignored that fact that where the alphabet comes from is irrelevant; Basque, Maltese and Turkish all use the Latin alphabet without being derived from Latin. Again, some Turkic languages went through three alphabets in the twentieth century, and stayed Turkic.-- Prosfilaes ( talk) 21:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Gernot Windfuhr, while accepting that "Evolution of Persian traces back to the Achaamenids whose offical language was Old and then the Sassanids, whose particular language was Middle, also remaks that none of the various known Middle Persian dialects is the direct predecessor of New Persian. Note the key word here is "Dialects" of Middle Persian, not Middle Persian language itself which gave away many dialects, one of them being New Persian. So he is not denying the relationship.

He clearly states

.

[2]. So he is not stating that modern Persian is not a continuation of Middle Persian. Rather, he is stating that the varities of Middle Persian dialects that are known, none of them are the "direct" ancestor of modern Persian. So that is two different things. It also does not belong to the WP:LEAD as it is not about the evolution of the language, but rather Middle Persian texts that have come down in a variety of Middle Persian dialects. So what Windfuhr states is nothing new..New Persian is one of the dialects of Middle Persian, but none of the currently attested Middle Persian dialects. However, he is clear new Persian is an evolution of Old and Middle Persian. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 19:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The important fact pointed out by Windfuhr is that Modern Farsi/Tajiki/Dari is not a direct continuation of recorded Pahlavi dialects. This is also reflected in Britannica. Farso777 ( talk) 19:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

He is stating that new Persian is an evolution of Old and Middle Persian, but also stating that New Persian is not a direct continuation of an attested and currently known Middle Persian dialect'. However, when we consider Middle Persian, we encompass its totality, not just all of its currently known dialects. That is we consider Middle Persian language rather than the attested known dialects of it. These are two very different statements. The same can be said of Middle Persian itself which might not be direct continuation of an attest Old Persian dialect. So there is no contradiction. However, for the WP:LEAD of the article, what is important is the evolution of the language, rather than attest dialects of its Middle Persian form. That portion about Middle Persian attestations is moved into the appropriate section. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 19:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Also Britannica is a teriatary source(unknown author), but it states: "Of the modern Iranian languages, by far the most widely spoken is Persian, which, as already indicated, developed from Middle Persian and Parthian (with elements from other Iranian languages such as Sogdian) as early as the 9th century ad" [3]. So one doesn't use Britannica 2002 when 2010 is available. Also the issue is not about the statement of Windfuhr, but rather the lead of the article. Windfuhr agrees that new Persian is an evolution of Middle Persian. That is what is important for the lead. The issue of dialects of Middle Persian should be discussed here: [4]. The lead has been stable and crsip for a while. You need a concensus or feedback at least to change the lead. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 19:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Your statement: "Either move whole of the sentence or let the two arguments stand close to each other", is not correct. Because for the lead, as the Windfuhr article's lead shows, it is evolution of the language that is important. The fact that according to Windfuhr, no known attestation of Middle Persian dialects are direct ancestors of modern Persian is not relavent to the lead because that is not about the evolution of the language itself, but a curious fact for the section of Middle Persian. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 19:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Even Iranica is a tertiary source. Worst of all, it is edited by Ehsan Yarshater. Relying on him on the sensitive subjects such as Kurds, or even Persian history is like relying on Dr. Ahmadinejad writing down history of Israel or the Islamic Republic.

You call it dialect or language, or anything you like, modern Persian is not a direct continuation of the recorded Pahlavi. Farso777 ( talk) 20:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Recorded Middle Persian dialects are few of the many Middle Persian dialects which are all part of the Middle Persian language. Modern Persian too is a continuation of one or some of its dialect per Windfuhr, however those dialects are not attested. That is the statement of Windfuhr. Britannica(2010) is also the source to use not 2002,. And no Iranica is considered secondary source, since its authors are well known Professors with academic backgrounds. It is specialist source for the area infact unlike general Britannica. Yarshater also is was a Full Professor. Anyhow, Britannica is clear. The reviews of Iranica by variety of Professors are well known. However, Britannica usually does not have an author for its article. As per modern Persian, it is continuation of Middle Persian but according to one source (Windfuhr) not a recorded one. That needs to be put in the Middle Persian section, since changing the lead of the article should be done with some discussion as well as the fact that putting the two statements. One does not put "According to Windfuhr, " in the lead. Overall, Windfuhr agrees that new Persian is an evolution of Middle Persian. The attestation of Middle PErsian or Old Persian dialect can go under the evolution section. Just like wwe do not quote Windfuhrs long agreement that new Persian is an evolution of Middle/Old Persian, one does not quote him in the lead for evidence of Middle Persian. I would read Wikipedia policy on lead as well as Battle. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 20:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

As stated on the talk page of another article, modern Dari/Farsi/Tajiki languages are not a straightforward continuation of the recorded middle southwestern dialects (Pahlavi). not a daughter, maybe a nephew or something else. You may try through your personal linguistic arguments to minimize (or censor) this, but the fact that remains is that at least from a cultural and even political point of view it is a very important reality, since it does not line up with the state propaganda Iran. Farso777 ( talk) 21:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is not about politics and I suggest if you are involved in it, do not edit articles in history. Modern linguists consider Modern Persian to an evolution and continuation of Middle Persian language. The recorded samples of Middle Persian according to Windfuhr is are not direct anecstors of modern Persian, which is fine. But he still states it is continuation and evolution of Middle Persian. Nothing will be censored but these two facts are very different statement. The first fact belongs to the lead since it is general evolution of the language. The second fact: "According to Windfuhr.." belongs to the section on Middle Persian where the dialects of it can be discussed as well. So you need to provide justification for inclusion in the lead, and you need to show "it is very important reality" that it belongs to the lead. I believe Middle Persian language belongs to the lead, not recorded Middle Persian dialects. In order to change the lead, you need to get a concensus here as the lead has been stable for a long time. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 21:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No I'm not interested in the politics, but it merits WP:NOTABILITY. For the time being I agree with the last edit by you. I'll try to provide more references in future. Thanks Farso777 ( talk) 22:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay but in terms of notability, what seems important is general Linguistic classification for the lead. Think "Language" (with many dialects) and not just few dialects. How the different dialects of Middle Persian continue to new Persian are details that are not yet agreed upon: "Research on the traditional phase from Middle Persian to modern Persian..has progressed little" (Windfuhr) [5] and does not belong to the lead. Windfuhr states some texts are hard to classify between either a Middle or new Persian(same source before). However, Windfuhr like all the rest affirms a phase from Middle Persian to modern Persian and that is clear by simply looking at Middle Persian dialects. Here I'll just quote Harvard Professor http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~iranian/OldPersian/opcomplete.pdf] "Old Persian and Middle Persian are the ancestors of New Persian ". That is a general statement agreed upon for linguists and belongs to the lead (evolution of the language). The individual dialects of Middle Persian, Modern persian and Old persian (just one dialect) belong to their own separate sections. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 22:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Farsi redirects to this article, and is a term in the English language for the subject of the article (OED etc), which remains in frequent use in English language sources, for example by the BBC and Newsweek in the last month. It should therefore be mentioned and bolded in the lead sentence in the normal way. This is very straightforward. That the term is not the preferred one and disliked by many Persians is beside the point. At present the term as an English word is not even bolded when it first appears in the next section, which is clearly against the MOS. This is basic stuff, but my addition or "or Farsi" has twice been reverted by User:Xashaiar, the second time referring to a policy on not bolding the foreign translations, which is clearly well beside the point. This is a clear breach of policies for POV reasons. Johnbod ( talk) 13:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be useful if you make a small effort: this discussion is one that you should look at. The point is "Farsi is not a synonym for Persian". Please see the definition of "synonym" in your favourite dictionary. Wikipedia is clear on Bold words right after the Bold Title: not equivalent alternative names do not come as "or ..." (that is in the link you misread as "well beside the point" does say "Abbreviations and synonyms" comes as boldfaced and after the title. Farsi is neither an abbreviation nor a synonyms. Persian language is the common name of several dialects of Persian the language. Only one of these dialects is called "Farsi". Your link to BBC and OED do not help much as they are not "scholarly sources to be used in an encyclopaedia in a manner/or place that very specialized sources do say different things" (see wp:rs:scholarship!!!). Having said this: Farsi is mentioned in the first paragraph and I wonder why you want it again and why in bold and why right after the title!. Xashaiar ( talk) 13:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You are talking about the situation in Persian; I am talking about the situation in English. Farsi should be bolded because it redirects here - see the policy. It is only in the first paragraph as an italicised foreign term. That Persian academic opinion has turned against the use of Farsi as the main term for the Persian language, after in fact a couple of decades where it was promoted as such (see OED 1984 quote), does not matter when it remains in use. WP:COMMONNAME is the over-riding policy here, and the OED and other similar sources provide perfectly adequate references. Johnbod ( talk) 04:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I see your point but the problem is you are Assuming the redirect is correct. I don't care about redirect what I care is "Farsi is not a synonym for persian". In fact "Farsi" needs a disambiguation page (iranian dialect of the language Persian, name of several "peoples", name of several historical figures, ...). And about your references, well what about looking at "encyclopaedias on languages". They are better than OED (wikipedia is not a dictionary) and NONE of them actually use Farsi. And wp:commonname supports what we argue: the most common name is the title and it does not say how to determine bold words in the lead. And if OED is your example to follow and if you look at it once more you see it does not "Farsi = Persian" (in fact it has a few entries for Farsi none of them is "=Persian language" but rather "cf. Persian" and one of them is "=Parsee" of India). In any case we have to follow the reliable sources and the leads of their articles. Xashaiar ( talk) 14:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What??? You are all over the place. Farsi exists as an English word, redirects to this article, and has the same meaning. Whether it is an exact synonym is not the point; it doesn't need to be, and in any case is an exact synonym for the narrower meaning of "Persian language" (ie excluding Dari etc). There is no other article covering either the English (or Persian) meaning for the same thing - clearly it would be wrong to redirect Farsi to Dari! I have no problem with the article's title or mentioning that that is the preferred term, but taking your dislike of Farsi as an English word to the level of ignoring the usual policies is unacceptable. Check the grammar of your last edit to the article too. Johnbod ( talk) 15:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but please tell me what does "You are all over the place" mean or supposed to mean? Also I am afraid "Farsi exists as an English word" is correct but not a reason for your request of having it bold after the title and I am afraid that "[Farsi] redirects to this article" is not a reason either (as explained that redirect is probably wrong and should be reconsidered, per sources and usages), and I am afraid your "[Farsi] has the same meaning" is just untrue:Farsi is the term in Iranian dialect of Persian for the Iranial dialect of Persian. Xashaiar ( talk) 15:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And is a term in English for the same thing. It certainly should redirect here - where else should it go? And as a redirecting alternative name should be bolded. You have not articulated any reason not to follow noemal policy on mentioning and bolding redirects that are not typos or variant phrasings etc - see Wikipedia:R#PLA.

Your link to the wikipedia policy you want states: "If the redirected term could have other meanings, a hatnote...". The point is that "Farsi" has other meanings (as I mentioned by using your own OED source) and please note that redirect is wrong and we should first correct that. Xashaiar ( talk) 15:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Farsi in English has no other current meanings; the redirect is correct & should be bolded. You can add a hatnote if you like, but it seems excessive for an obselete spelling of " Parsee" etc (that article does not bother to mention it). Johnbod ( talk) 15:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you made your opinion clear and mine is: I reject having Farsi as bold because the term does have several meanings ( disamb) and "Farsi is not a synonym for Persian" and by wiki policies we are not forced to make it bold. Lets see what other editors have to say, if they do not reject, do what you want with this article. Xashaiar ( talk) 15:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate Johnbod's arguments, I don't think we need a bold 'Farsi', as we already have an italic one in the first sentence, and I don't think we should be encouraging its use as an exact synonym for 'Persian'. Rothorpe ( talk) 16:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The italic one (two in fact) obviously cover usage as a Persian word, which is different. I don't mind a sentence explaining it is not the preferred term, but it should be in the first para, as the usage is still easy to find in English. At the moment it is not even bolded when finally mentioned lower down. There are a lot of English-speaking people who are confused on the matter, & the page as is does not do enough to help them, serving instead the Persian-speakers who already know all about the name issue. Johnbod ( talk) 16:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've made some changes that I hope are helpful. Rothorpe ( talk) 17:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's an improvement! Johnbod ( talk) 04:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

So what script did the Persians use between the times of Artaxerxes III with his Cuneiform, and the introduction of the Arabic alphabet? I see only these two mentioned, and they are separated by 8 centuries. Rwflammang ( talk) 18:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

What irks me about the current state of this article is how many times totally divergent and often historically unrelated names are used to refer to the Persian language, interchangeably, when in fact different names often refer to different dialects or have different historical connotations attached to them.

To quote the article:

"The Persian language, whose native names are پارسی pārsi, Dari or pārsi-ye-Dari (Dari Persian),"

(While these are all native names for Persian (in differing geographical areas), you can't lump Parsi and Dari together as they do not refer to the same dialectal form. In modern usage, Dari is an exclusively Afghan designation, and while Afghans are native speakers of a form of the Persian language, they are not speakers of the specific, standardized dialect of Persian that this article explicitly governs. Which is precisely why there separate articles concerning the Dari dialect.)

... the above quote is then seemingly contradicted by:

"Native Iranian Persian speakers call it Fârsi.[17] Fârsi is the arabicized form of Pârsi, due to a lack of the 'p' phoneme in Standard Arabic."

(This should be in the lead paragraph)

... and made even more unclear by:

* Dari (from دربار‎ /dærbɒr/ "court") is the local official name in Afghanistan, since 1964[14][15] * Farsi (فارسی ‎—transliteration: Fârsi) is the local name of the language in Iran, and is sometimes used in English when referring to the language there

* Tajiki (тоҷикӣ in the Cyrillic Tajik alphabet) is the local name in Central Asia, especially in Tajikistan

All of this is just utterly redundant and confusing.

Firstly, most of these purported "native names" are totally unheard of inside and outside Iran. Most Persian-speakers of Iran aren't even aware of the fact that the original ethnonymic name for their language was actually Parsi/Parsee. Tajiks for the most part either refer to it as Tajiki (or "Tojiki" as transliterated from Cyrillic) or Tojiki Farsee. Afghans refer to it under a multitude of names depending on the geographic region, i.e. Dari, Hazaragi, Herati, Aimaq, Darwazi, etc... as the term "Farsi" in Afghanistan is used to specifically in reference to the dialectally-differing version spoken in Iran.

I think it's important to make a distinction between current usage and proper usage. The historic and undoubtedly correct term for the language is "Parsi" (derived from the Sassanid-era term "Parsik" or "Parsig", which morphed into "Parsi" after the Arab conquests for a brief period of time before the Umayyad Caliphate and Abbasid Caliphate adopted a stricter policy of Arabization/Islamization; it is also sometimes erroneously referred to as "Pahlavi", which is not appropriate for the spoken language but rather the writing system).

However, in the modern world, the majority of speakers, official governing bodies and institutions all rule that "Farsi" is the modern, self-designative name for the language (the majority also support "Persian" being used abroad rather than "Farsi").

I think this should be stressed much more heavily, as it is very confusing for such a historical, prestigious and widely spoken language to be referred to by a plethora of names within the opening paragraphs, particularly when the whole "Persian Vs. Farsi" debate is invoked instantaneously when discussing the correct nomenclature for the language, which only further mystifies the average reader. Farsi, Parsi, Persian, Dari, Tajik, etc... the list of aliases goes on and on.

It should simply be stated in the introduction that "Parsi" is the ancient, historical term for Middle & New Persian, that was in widespread usage prior to the Arab Conquests, but which has now largely fallen out of use and the Arabic-derived "Farsi" is the predominant, self-designative name.

Gamer112(Aus) ( talk) 08:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I stopped by here to find some general wiki-ish background on the language(s) of Persia historically and the surrounding regions more recently. That's all, just some general information. I'm an experienced wiki-editor and user, though not in this area at all, but even I was grievously annoyed. Who calls what language what? How about some references, citations, and sources for all of it? I really don't want to read your opinions, I really don't. Just who says what about the subject. Nice and simple. At the moment I'd give this article a minus 2 on a scale of 0 to 10. For example, in the lead paragraph alone, there's enough weasel-wording to sink a ship: "sometimes used in English"; "classified by most linguists"; "widely spoken"; "many contemporary European languages". What does any of THAT mean? For example, does the United Nations use one term or another for these languages, and why? If there are nationalist arguments about such issues, cite the parties, by name and source, and EXPLAIN what the issues are. Once again, these are the comments of a real-live user of Wikipedia -- I want solid information, well-sourced and complete. Timothy Perper ( talk) 15:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

At present, there is a section "New Persian", which contains an empty section "Early New Persian" and a section "Classic Persian". The section "Classic Persian" seems to treat the history of Persian right after the Islamic conquest, which marks the end of the Middle Persian period, basically (though Middle Persian is still written after the arrival of Islam, and can be called Late Middle Persian). My understanding is that the term "Classic Persian" is essentially synonymous with "Early New Persian", but the term "Classic Persian" doesn't seem to have much currency. If anything, it would have to be "Classical Persian", anyway (the article is itself inconsistent there), and I wonder where this "Classic Persian" term comes from. The more logical, and only current term in the literature, as far as I'm aware, is "Early New/Modern Persian". The article claims a difference between Early New(/Modern) and Classic(al) (New/Modern) Persian but doesn't explain what it is, and it cannot be recovered from the text, either. So the separate "Early New Persian" section seems to be redundant because it is entirely unclear what it is supposed to be for, and I propose to delete it and change the title of the section "Classic Persian" to "Early New Persian" or "Early Modern Persian".

I'll explain what I've learned about the history of Modern Persian. The relationship between Middle and Modern Persian is a bit complicated, and unexpected. Modern Persian essentially started out as the dialect of Late Middle Persian that was spoken in the cities of Central Asia, especially the Sogdiana area. (That is, the area along and north of the Oxus or Amu-Darya, plus Samarkand and the Ferghana Valley.) This area and Central Asia in general was conquered by the Muslims later than Persia proper, and was home to a great diversity of languages, scripts and religions, linked through the Silk Road. (Therefore, Central Asia also served as a refuge for pre-Islamic Persian and general Iranian culture.) Originally, the most widespread language and lingua franca of the region was Sogdian, though Persian had an increasing influence in the region, and there are important texts in Middle Persian which have come down upon us from Central Asia, texts which are important especially because they are written in other scripts than the default Pahlavi, scripts which give us a better understanding of Middle Persian phonology. Few people realise that Middle Persian, Modern Persian, Sogdian, Saka, Tocharian, Turkic and Arabic (and if I remember correctly, even Tibetan and Chinese) were all spoken and written side by side in Central Asia in the 7th and 8th centuries, and were written in various scripts, so that while certain scripts were primarily associated with a specific language, there was a lot of crossover. (Somewhere, I've got a table which shows which languages are attested in which scripts.) It is this heterogeneous, colourful environment in which we find the earliest samples of what can be called Early Modern Persian, in the 8th century. However, Middle Persian texts were still being written (and not only copied) in the 9th century (more precisely in the period from the 8th to 10th centuries). (In fact, what has come down to us of literary Middle Persian is chiefly from the post-conquest area. The pre-conquest corpus consists mainly of inscriptions.)

Basically, therefore, Early Modern Persian is Late Middle Persian – specifically the dialect of the Sogdiana, which was also influenced by Sogdian (which it eventually supplanted, evidenced by a couple of lexical borrowings) – written in Arabic script, and containing lexical borrowings from Arabic, both of which features serve to mark Early Modern Persian as Modern Persian. (Turkic and, from a later period, Mongolian lexical borrowings are also found in Modern Persian.) The linguistic differences (apart from the borrowings from Arabic and various other languages) between Late Middle and Early Modern Persian (which – to emphasise this point – were written at the same time and even in the same region) are actually fairly minor, the main difference is that Middle Persian is associated with Zoroastrianism and pre-Islamic culture, while Modern Persian reflects the influence of Islam and Arabic. The article correctly points out that the Shahnameh of ca. 1000 AD, while written in Early Modern Persian, is strongly influenced by pre-Islamic traditions, including pre-Islamic Persian, so viewing it as a bridge between the Middle and Modern Persian periods is not quite unjustified. Significantly, it was written just at the time when the influence of Zoroastrianism was in great decline and giving way to Islamic culture everywhere in Greater Iran but in a few refuges. (It is unclear to which extent Western Iranian dialects in Iran, some of them spoken by Zoroastrian communities, continue Middle Persian dialects. Persian and Northwestern Iranian have strongly converged, thanks to mutual influences throughout their history. Persian has been influenced by the Northwestern Iranian Median and Parthian, and by the Eastern Iranian Avestan and Sogdian, so modern Northwestern and Southwestern dialects are frustratingly difficult to tease apart.)

While the earliest samples of Early Modern Persian are from the 8th and 9th centuries, the new written language only really gets its start in the 10th century, under the Samanids, as they are the first to develop a new self-awareness as Iranian after several centuries of the dominance of Arabic, and dare write in their native language again, now in the new script, and which a liberal sprinkling of Arabic borrowings. Significantly, the Samanids were based in Central Asia, where the influence of the Arabs was more tenuous, and as already emphasised, Central Asia, rather than Persia, is the cradle of the Modern Persian language, in contrast to Middle Persian.

It's difficult to tell when this new, Arabicised, Early Modern Persian standard spread back to the Persian motherlands, but likely it wasn't before 1000, which is when the Islamisation of Persia began in earnest. Presumably, it was the first half of the second millennium BC when spoken Modern Persian gradually began to develop several variants, each characterised most strikingly by a distinctive development of the vowels. The western variant merged the long non-low vowels, the so-called majhūl and ma‘rūf vowels (and lowered the short high vowels), the eastern variants kept them separate, although the northeastern variant merged the long and short high vowels and the southeastern variant lowered the short high vowels like the western variant, see Persian phonology#Historical shifts. The western variant subsequently developped into the spoken dialects of what is now Iran, while the northeastern variant developped into the Tajik and the southeastern variant into the Afghan Persian dialects. (Recall that Tajik is also spoken in cities outside Tajikistan, mainly in Uzbekistan.) The Dari written standard seems to have retained the name of the Early Modern written language because the Afghan Persian dialects on which it is based preserve the Early Modern Persian vowel system essentially intact, and are conservative in other respects, as well (although the conservativity of the written language might be to some extent artificial and exceed the conservativity of the genuine, traditional spoken dialects). (Note that geographically, the Tajik group coincides with the origin of the Modern Persian language, not the Afghan Persian group.) Summing up, we have three Persian dialect groups, western, northeastern and southeastern Persian, and three written standards, of which the Iranian Persian (Farsi) standard is based on the western group, the Tajik standard on the northeastern group, and the Dari standard on the southeastern, Afghan Persian group.

The delimitation of Early Modern and Modern Persian (in the sense of Contemporary Persian) does not coincide with the split, which only concerned the spoken language and was not reflected in writing, and which certainly preceded the transition of Early Modern to Modern. The period where Persian was used as a cultured language in the Mughal Empire, i. e. as a second language, namely as the lingua franca of a large portion of Asia, and is connected with a new school of poetry, the "Indian style" of the 15th to 18th centuries (see also Indo-Persian culture), can be seen as heralding the advent of Modern Persian. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 03:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a particular edit or edits, it in incumbent on you to provide the diff/s of those particular edits here and fully articulate your reasoning. Lebanese 876 ( talk) 04:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I replied in my talk page. Please read it. Gazaneh ( talk) 04:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Now that you're here. If you have a problem with a particular edit or edits of mine, provide the diff/s of the edit/s in question and fully articulate your reason for opposing them. When you have done so, I will discuss the edits in question. Lebanese 876 ( talk) 04:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Parsi-ye Dari is one of the formal historical name and it has been added from here: [6], other interesting info .."The former, as represented by literary Middle Persian, retained most its ancient form; the latter evolved from the same Persian language, which had spread throughout the north, but evinced the influence of the dialects that it had supplanted there, particularly Parthian." [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.222.120 ( talk) 04:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Lebanese 876 did over 75 edits to this article and make big changes to the last revision (please see her/his edits). Most of the edits are not reliable and reasonable. So I decided to revert all of edits and reverting the article to previous revision before her/his edits. But she/he undid my reverting several times and says something like this: "I did a lot of works". It's her/his reason to undoing my reverting. Please compare last revision by 876's edits. I think reverting is necessary. I want users and administrators to judge about this to prevent (further) edit wars. Thanks. Gazaneh ( talk) 04:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I made a number of small edits. I spent several hours doing so. These were blanket reverted on a whim by User:Gazaneh. I asked him (both on his talk page and on this talk page) to provide the diff/s of the particular edits he has a problem with and articulate a reasoning for his opposition of them, but he is too lazy to do so. I warned him that failing to articulate a rationale for a mass-reversion is vandalism, he ignored me. I have now reported him for vandalism. Lebanese 876 ( talk) 05:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. You want to insult me by the words like "vandalism". But everything is here and everybody read my and your comments. Admins and users will compare our edits and specially both revisions (your edits and last revision before your edits). I didn't changed article content, I reverted your edits and restored last revision. Because your edits aren't reliable and I said you must discuss your edits in the talk page. Because you did a lot of changes to this article without any reliable source/reason/reference. You must responsible for your works and edits. If you want to report, report. But remember, Wikipedia is not a war zone. All of us want to improve articles and in general to help Wikipedia. Wikipedians see version history. my edits, and your edits. All of us decide together. Gazaneh ( talk) 05:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't got time for silly games and distractions. Either you properly articulate which of my edits you don't like and why, and engage in a discussion with me about them, otherwise I will continue to undo your mass-reverts, and pursue disciplinary action against you. Lebanese 876 ( talk) 08:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, nobody calls anybody a vandal anymore. However, Gazaneh, there is no requirement that a person discuss changes prior to making them. Please explain specifically and exactly what was wrong with all or part of Lebanese 876's edits. You don't need to pull up actual diffs, but you do need to specifically state what was wrong with the changes.

Lebanese 876, the amount of effort you put into something has absolutely no bearing on whether or not your edits are kept. I know editors who've spent days or even weeks making new articles, only to have them deleted. Just because you worked hard, doesn't mean your edits get to stay. As a side note, this is actually a good reason why it's not usually a good idea to make such drastic changes to a previously stable article all at once. You're almost certain to get someone reverting, just because it is too hard for them to have to go through so many diffs to pick out the specific problems you made. How about you start with just one set of changes, make them, and, if no one objects, move on to the next one? This will be a far more successful approach to improving the article. Qwyrxian ( talk) 06:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I called no-one a vandal, what I did is characterize the mass-reversion of my edits while refusing to engage in discussion as vandalism. And yes, let me reiterate that point so Gazaneh might finally get it - there is no requirement to seek permission from anybody to make edits before making them. This assumption of yours runs counter to Wikipedia's raison d'être. You now have two people telling to what you are supposed to do in this situation, Gazaneh. @Qwyrxian, Sorry, but when I've spent a lot of time making edits to an article I will not accept someone mass-reverting them all at a whim while refusing to articulate why and engage in due discussion, and while I began this sentence with the word sorry; I make no apology at all for this stand. I had two choices, either to continue to undo his reversions - because he was not articulating what was wrong with them, or to report him for his disruptive behaviour; which I did. But I might as well have not bothered, because I got no support for attempting to do the right thing and attempting not to do the wrong thing. I might as well have employed the same couldn't-care-less attitude of Gazaneh. Lebanese 876 ( talk) 08:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thank you very much. I suggested similar idea to Lebanese. Your suggestion is very helpful. Thanks again. Gazaneh ( talk) 06:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

To Lebanese: If you want to help/improve article, please start by current revision. Please do small edits or section specific ones. Me and other users will review your edits. If reliable, will be accepted. If not, will be reverted/undone. Nobody wants a version history page full of edit wars or huge amount of reverting/undoing things. Gazaneh ( talk) 06:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I did small edits. I didn't do one large edit, I did many small edits. You, however, are obviously too lazy to either analyze them or to articulate which of them you have a problem with and why. Lebanese 876 ( talk) 08:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Lebanese 876, calling someone "lazy", especially when you are in the wrong, is a personal attack is simply not allowed. It is simply unfair to say "I changed about a third of a long article, including some very substantial changes in meaning and substance, now you have to work your way through 75 edits to find the ones that are specific problems, and only revert those individual problems. If Gazaneh can point out even one specific problem with those edits (please do so, Gazaneh), then reverting the entire batch is perfectly acceptable. It's simply non-collaborative to say--"You all have to sort through, step by step, which edit it was that caused the problem". Furthermore, that method wouldn't even work, because as soon as one change is made after to the article after your batch of edits, it will become impossible to revert individual parts of your big edit.

So, again: Gazaneh, do you have any specific objections? If everything Lebanese did is fine, and you're only objecting to process, then you're in the wrong and shouldn't revert. If you have even one concern, then the blanket revert is perfectly acceptable, and it's time to go back to editing by parts. Qwyrxian ( talk) 09:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Qwyrxian, I wrote my reasons about why I using reverting (See next section). Gazaneh ( talk) 09:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. I compare both revisions. Some good edits done by Lebanese (article improvements). But 4 sections must reviewed and certified by other users and reviewers:

1. Writing system (infobox) ==> Changed from Persian alphabet (primary name) to Perso-Arabic (alternative name). It's obvious that current Persian alphabet is an Arabic alphabet variant. But the name is Persian alphabet. Like many other alphabets it has its own name. Turkish alphabet, English alphabet, and many other alphabets are Latin variants. But the name of each alphabet is specific and unique. for example Urdu alphabet is a variant of both Arabic and Persian alphabets with its own unique letters. But nobody call it "Urdu-Perso-Arabic". See the other alphabet articles. The main name is Persian alphabet and this section must wikified (Perso-Arabic must replaced with Persian alphabet). This section must changed to previous revision.

2. Varieties: All of your changes must have reliable sources/references. You changed Persian to Western Persian, Dari Persian to Eastern Persian and unchanged Tajiki. These names must have reliable sources and references must mentioned. Also the previous revision must not changed. Because It's reliable enough. The name for this dialects/accents are obvious: Persian/Iranian Persian, Dari/Dari Persian/Afghan Persian, and Tajiki/Tajik Persian. If your sources are reliable (must reviewed by other users), You can mention them. But do not delete other information. Only well-sourced edits are acceptable by Wikipedians.

3. Dialects ==> Like Varieties.

4. Country list ==> Must discussed why you removed countries like United States. Country list need to be cleaned to represent good information. I saw your reasons and addition in the infobox. This article must wikified like other Wikipedia's articles about languages and dialects. If other language articles use same scheme. Your edits are reasonable, In the other hand, changes must reverted.

Other edits (your edits) are good enough (improvements). We need other users' collaboration. Gazaneh ( talk) 09:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

These are diffs that I think need reverting (back to previous revision but with other improvements except these edits). Gazaneh ( talk) 09:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding #1, fine, I agree with your point, it can be Persian alphabet.

Regarding #2, these are the names linguists use, taken straight from ethnologue. [8] In fact they use the names Western Farsi and Eastern Farsi, would you prefer to use those? [9]

Regarding #3, the dialects are those cited on ethnologue. [10] I fixed the section. Before it had accents, subdialects, and dialects mixed up. I just matched it with ethnologue.

Regarding #4, I removed diaspora countries. Persian is not native to the United States. There are Persians in probably every country around the world, are we to list every country where some Persians live? I think it's better to list native countries. Now some of them such as UAE, Qatar, I am not sure whether they are diaspora or whether some Persians have always lived there. See the Kurdish language article, it has the countries where Kurdish is native to, and below them it has a link to an article for countries by Kurdish-speaking population – this is ideal. Lebanese 876 ( talk) 10:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Very well. Then:

1. Writing system will be changed to the Persian alphabet (in the next edit).

2. Persian Varieties and dialects: It's better to write Ethnologue's classification names and other native names (all together). For Example Dari Persian, Afghan Persian, Eastern Persian. Also Ethnologue data must to be verified by the other editors. Compare with linguistic research books like Professor Gernot Windfuhr's book "The Iranian Languages" or other Indo-European related works.

3. Countries: I don't know that "we must only mention countries with native or all countries with Persian-speakers (enough population)". Other users must write their comments about this.

4. uses references for all of your edits (e.g. Ethnologue's links and articles)

Finally: 1. Writing system (back to previous revision ==> Persian alphabet). 2. I don't revert your recent edits anymore, but all of them must wikified and other native names must remain in the article. 3. Dialects and country list need other users' contribution. OK? Gazaneh ( talk) 11:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• 2. If you want to add other names you can do so, but I have no more time for this article. I will add ethnologue citations for the dialect names.
• 3. Well, other users can comment on that whenever, but I don't see why I have to wait for comments before I do the edit. It's either you list the native countries or you list all the countries where it is spoken; which will make a very long and confusing list. The Kurdish language article has the countries where Kurds are native to and below them a link to an article for countries by Kurdish-speaking population. That is ideal, don't you think. Lebanese 876 ( talk) 11:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I saw Kurdish language article. It's a good idea. we need a separate article and must be considered. If we'll create and use the same scheme like the Kurdish article's country list, It will be very helpful. Gazaneh ( talk) 12:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Are Persian Gulf countries such as UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, to be listed as native countries or diaspora countries? Lebanese 876 ( talk) 12:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

They better listed as native. Because Iranian people live in this countries (not diaspora). Many people in Bahrain can speak Persian. Also Oman have significant Baloch population they can also speak Persian. I think using the current list as native is good: Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Bahrain, Oman, UAE, and Qatar. Gazaneh ( talk) 13:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We have agreed on a solution. Good work. Lebanese 876 ( talk) 13:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Gazaneh ( talk) 13:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

All the linguistics knows that Dari (Eastern Persian), Farsi, Tajiki are the same language but different names and as every languages there are different dialects in each one ( such as English and other languages). I invite you to discuss about Merging these 3 languages in one with all the names we all called it and name each ones as a dialect with a separated page. So, in first step, I propose that Dari (Eastern Persian) be merged into Persian language with its name as Dari enlisted on the introduction info on this page. P. Pajouhesh ( talk) 09:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a merger is in order. We have separate articles on several national written standards of English, too. Also, Iranian Persian, Afghan Persian and Tajik (Persian) are each based on a different dialect group; Western, Eastern (Southeastern) and Northern (Northeastern or Central Asian) Persian respectively. The articles serve to describe those dialectal (mainly phonological and morphological) differences, even if they are relatively minor, besides other differences such as vocabulary and script. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 00:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The Parsi-ye Dari used historically is a wide encompassing term, and it is the term "Dari" which was adopted by the Afghanistan government. Parsi-ye Dari is one of the formal historical name and it has been added from here: [11], other interesting info .."The former, as represented by literary Middle Persian, retained most its ancient form; the latter evolved from the same Persian language, which had spread throughout the north, but evinced the influence of the dialects that it had supplanted there, particularly Parthian." [12]

Please re-add what I added to the article. The Full name is Parsi-ye Dari in Persian literature but most of the time, it is shortened to Parsi and sometimes to "Dari". Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.222.120 ( talk) 11:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That article is a historical account about Dari:

Your edit [13] saying Farsi is "also called pārsī-e darī" isn't supported by the article. Lebanese 876 ( talk) 11:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

See the intro.. it is an alternative name : "DARĪ, name given to the New Persian literary language at a very early date and widely attested in Arabic" and "Darī thus seems to have been a variety of pārsī, as is confirmed by the expression pārsī-e darī (Ar. al-fārsīya al-dārīya) frequently found in early text." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.222.120 ( talk) 03:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Both varieties and dialects require good work to get this article (or other Persian related articles) stabilized. To help improving content, both linguistic classifications (names) and main/native names mentioned. Specially classifications require reliable linguistic researches and books. Thanks. Gazaneh ( talk) 15:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I reported this ip address. See article version history for more information. Gazaneh ( talk) 05:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted a couple of his edits throughout the project, going through his contributions, but without more powerful tools it's just a hell of a lot of work to check (and, where necessary, undo) all of them. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 20:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

An image used in this article, File:Persian inscript-nast- farsi-khat e fasi nast..jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do Pakistani people come here and insist on inventing a Pakistani connection to all things Iranian and Persian on wikipedia? Pakistanis have no connection to Persian whatsoever. The only people to speak Persian in Pakistan are refugees from Afghanistan and the small Hazara community of Balochistan, who also originate from central Afghanistan. Pakistanis cannot wash off their subcontinental identity by vandalzing Iranian pages on wikipedia. Inserting links to "Pakistan" in Iranian / Persian pages is not just factually incorrect but is laughable too, if not disgusting as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.190.8 ( talk) 20:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That is not entirely true. The western half of Pakistan is part of the Iranian Plateau and many definitions of Greater Persia include parts of Pakistan. Pakistan also borders Iran and the Persian language has a historical legacy in the region. The national anthem of Pakistan is in Persian and it is spoken as a regional language in the country. According to [ this], there are 184,000 native Persian-speaking people in Pakistan (this figure excludes refugees or migrants). Also, not all Hazaras are Afghans, some of them have been settled in Balochistan for over a century and are native Pakistanis. I am going to revert the change, please discuss before making further moves. Thanks, Mar4d ( talk) 03:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Who cares if part of the Iranian Plateau extends into southwestern Pakistan? What does that have to do with the Persian language? The enitre Iranian Plateau is inhabited by dozens of different racial and ethnic groups. Persian is not spoken by Pakistanis. It is not the mother-tongue of any indigenous ethnic group to Pakistan, which is primarily made up of Indian peoples that speak Indic languages. Only some Afghan refugees and Hazara's settled in Baluchistan are native Persian-speakers and neither of these groups are indigenous to Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.190.8 ( talk) 18:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Only half of Pakistan is populated by Indic peoples, the western half is Iranian. Moving on the topic, either way, Persian is still spoken in the country. We have a listing of many Arab and other countries where sizable Persian populations exist, the same standards apply in this case too i.e. there is a large Persian speaking population in Pakistan. In some cases, many of these ethnic groups, such as the Hazara in Balochistan and some Tajiks in the north, both of whom number in the hundreds of thousands in the country, have been settled for centuries and are Pakistani citizens. I am going to revert your change because your argument does not stand and currently you are being disruptive by removing content without consensus. Mar4d ( talk) 03:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Only half? lol. More than 75% of Pakistanis are Indian ethnic groups if taken as a whole according to figures found even on this very website. The rest is made up of Pashtuns, Baluch and an inconsequential number of 'others' - none of which are Persian-speaking peoples and none of them are Iranians. You're just a wanabe, face it. Even those Persian-speaking Hazara's living in Quetta do not identify with Pakistanis. From a report in one of your own newspapers today: "Sajjad Changezi of the HSF said that the media and state authorities continue to depict the situation in Balochistan as a case of the “foreign hand”, falsely portraying the Hazara community as a proxy for the Iranian Shia regime. He said that it is misleading to depict Hazaras only as Shias without recognising that they consider themselves a separate race with distinct language, culture, and other characteristics that go beyond their religious identity." ( http://tribune.com.pk/story/371460/hazara-killings-a-systematic-genocide/) - Persian is NOT spoken by Pakistanis and the language has NO connection to Pakistan. Stop begging to be Iranian and trying to relate yourself to Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.190.8 ( talk) 13:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me just add i am a "Pakistani" and my grandparents, parents and myself, and others in my family all speak Persian, we have no connection to Iran or Afghanistan so that blows your claim that "Pakistani" people do not speak Persian, and why do you keep saying about connections with Iran and Iranian, seems like you have absolutely no clue at all, you do know that there are other Persian speaking countries such as Afghanistan and Tajikistan and millions of Persian speakers in Uzbekistan and a sizable number in Turkmenistan. Also the Persian language does have connection to Pakistan, as during the Mughal Empire Persian was the official, and main, and most spoken language in the region that is today called Pakistan. There are hundreds of thousands of native speakers of Persian in Pakistan and millions of more migrants from neighboring Afghanistan. Please stop making false claims just because the only Pakistani people you know speak Urdu or Punjabi, its like saying Iranian kurds are not Iranian just because they speak Kurdish, get a clue before commenting again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.42.86 ( talk) 12:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody cares about the rubbish you claim about yourself or your family. That is not important. None of the indigenous ethnic groups to Pakistan are Persian-speaking. Persian is a foreign language to Pakistan, spoken only as a mother tongue there by a segment of the Afghan refugees and by Hazara settlers in Baluchestan, none of which are subcontinentals racially or culturally like the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis are. Persian being imposed in the subcontinent as an "official" language by invaders does not make Persian any less foreign to the natives that had to live under subjugation, ie Pakistanis. Do you also think that English is a Pakistani language just because the British beat, ruled and imposed English on Pakistanis too?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.166.78 ( talk) 16:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

So neither English nor Spanish should be listed as being spoken anywhere in The Americas because it was not spoken by any of the indigenous peoples of the Americas but was instead imposed by conquerors? Where does current and historical reality enter into this little attempt to proselytize a non-existent racial and linguistic purity? Fat&Happy ( talk) 17:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The Americas were colonized by millions of settlers from Europe. The Indian subcontinent, was not. People in modern Pakistan are now as they always were, as evident from the languages spoken there (over 75% Indian languages). Spanish and English are the mother-tongue's of hundreds of millions of peoples in the America's. Persian is not the mother-tongue of any Pakistani ethnic groups. It is an Iranian language, the mother-tongue of Persians and Tajiks, national language of all Iranians, and the adopted language of the Hazara and Aimaq peoples in Afghanistan. Thats it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.166.78 ( talk) 18:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

calm down no body is going to die did you actually bother to write all of that get a life — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.244.195 ( talk) 19:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Urdu in Persian (Pārsi) means camp and " Urdu" language was the language of the camp. When Nader Shah invaded India he set up his camp in modern day Pakistan, here the Hindi speaking Indians and the Pārsi ( Persian) speaking Iranians (Persians) mingled together and a third language Urdu was born. It is bridge between the two branches of Indo Iranian languages. Today, Urdu has a lot of Arabic words in it.

So it "IS" laughable when Pakistanis claim everything for themselves.

Are you Persian (Iranian)? Class Avesta ( talk) 19:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Read wp:NOTAFORUM. The article dies not say Pakistanis speak Persian, it says Persian is spoken in Pakistan. Which BTW is reliably sourced. Do you actually have something constructive to add to the article orcarecyou just here to flap your gums? Darkness Shines ( talk) 19:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Civility and reconsider your last comment here.-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 13:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Darkness Shines isn't the problem here, Dthomsen - it's the person using the Talk Pages for a forum, and he responded just as I would have. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 11:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This phrase in the classification section in not same as the source: "The first poems of the Persian Language, a language historically called Dari, have emerged in Afghanistan."

Source says: "Afghan scholars claim that Dari was the language of Khorasan in which some of the oldest Persian poetry was written". [14]

Khorasan/Ancient Khorasan/Greater Khorasan is a historical region of Greater Persia mentioned in sources from Sassanid and is the medieval name of northern Afghanistan, including also parts of today's Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and eastern Iran. The current three provinces of Khorasan in Iran, refers to that area. So we should use Khorasan instead of Afghanistan. Because it's correct and mentioned in the source. It's not Afghanistan.

Then I edit this phrase and section. Also, I think this section has nothing with classification. I will move it to the New Persian/Modern Persian history section. Tochari ( talk) 20:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_alphabet has a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scripts_used_for_Persian which redirects to a now non-existant 'Orthography' section of this page. Is there a more appropriate page for this? It should be a page which covers the various scripts used to write Persian. What happened to that section anyway? Tweisbach ( talk) 01:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't researched the history of the article beyond finding what looks like a botched edit by an experienced editor. The last time the section occurred was in this version from early this year. Even then there was something wrong and the formatting was all messed up, but if you're interested you may be able to salvage something. Fat&Happy ( talk) 02:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the article needs this section. A short section with related wikilinks. Tochari ( talk) 23:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Why are editors removing Farsi from the intro sentence? The only reason given has been that Farsi is not an English word. That's not true, since Farsi is in the Oxford English Dictionary and other dictionaries that are cited in the article. Or does being in a dictionary not establish a word as being in a language?

And why put Farsi in a parenthesis separate from the one that contains the Persian translation and its pronunciation? It's bad punctuation to have two parentheses right next to each other. It's better to have it outside of a parenthesis, or perhaps before the Persian in the next parenthesis, with a semicolon after it. But whatever. That's my obsessive attention to detail. Never mind. — Eru· tuon 04:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't. Go see the Russian language article Russian language. If you know absolutely nothing about the subject...Why bother editing an article on it? The Scythian 04:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What's not what? You aren't speaking in complete sentences. Are you talking about the parentheses? I may not've explained clearly enough. By parenthesis, I meant a pair of brackets by metonymy with what's enclosed in them. I suppose that's rather confusing usage, since the word is usually used for one bracket, and indeed I use it that way too. I meant to say it's bad punctuation to use two pairs of brackets consecutively thus: ()(). Or at least it's unusual and looks clunky, and I avoid it on Wikipedia. The Russian language article doesn't have an example of parentheses used that way, except in the part on phonotactics, where optional elements of a syllable are placed in parentheses. Phonotactical notation doesn't follow the same conventions as punctuation of English prose. So, these consecutive pairs of parentheses need to be replaced by some other punctuational device.

You're right I know virtually nothing about Persian, but my right to edit this article in certain areas is granted by my ability to write clearly in English, punctuate, and pick up on stuff relating to linguistics. — Eru· tuon 05:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

In the Russian language article, the phrase russkiy yazyk is in brackets and italicized, the standard method for showing the original-language translation or transliteration for an English word. "Russkiy yazyk" is not found in any of the five English-language dictionaries cited in the opening of this article. "Farsi" is, indicating its incorporation into English as a commonly used loan word. As an alternative English-language word for the subject, it should be in boldface in the first mention in the lead, and not enclosed in brackets. Fat&Happy ( talk) 05:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"Farsi" clearly belongs as an alt name. You could even make a reasonable case for moving the article to that name. — kwami ( talk) 07:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The word has been considered incorrect for several reasons. This should be mentioned somewhere, if you're going to write that alt name. Moreover, the word is usually used for Iranian Persian, I don't think putting it in the lead is a good idea. -- Z 09:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah! Good point. I hadn't thought about this article covering Dari and Tajik as well. Farsi would clearly be bolded in the lead if it were specifically about Iranian Persian, but meanwhile I commented it out. — kwami ( talk) 10:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This has all been discussed before at great length - see the archives, most recently Talk:Persian_language/Archive_3#Removal_of_.22Farsi.22 and Talk:Persian_language/Archive_3#Separate_article_for_Persian_vs_Farsi, but there are many other sections, covering all these issues. The objections almost all come from people of Iranian origins. Farsi remains a perfectly respectable term in English, though less used now compared to a few decades ago. Just removing it is ridiculous. I think there may also be a British English/American English dimension to the issue, plus several editors clearly have some ax to grind that I don't pretend to understand. The term is always kept in some form, and including it represents the stable consensus version, so I will restore it. Johnbod ( talk) 11:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone suggested,

Persian (known locally as as Farsi, Parsi, Dari, or Tajik)

but ELL2 speaks of "Pashto ..., bounded by Persian (Farsi) (called locally Dari or Tadjik (Tajiki)) to the north..." [Afghanistan] and elsewhere has "languages such as Persian (Western Farsi)" [Arabic] and "In modern Persian (Western Farsi), the subjunctive has ..." [imperatives]

some of which suggest just the opposite, and in [Persian, Modern], they mention Dari and Tajik as dialects, but don't use the name "Farsi" at all. — kwami ( talk) 20:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Some people just decide to add "Farsi" to the intro as an alternative to Persian. Each one of them has their personal opinion (one says "it is the name for the language that I heard first"). However, none of people advocating this seem to be experts in this in any sense but still very persistent at a subject that have little idea about. If you are big proponent of term Farsi (and are knowledgeable enough), why don't you create its own page instead of messing with this one which is was adequately complete and comprehensive. The body of article adequately addresses the word Farsi usage in English. Apart from inaccuracies this has brought about, one being Persian language encompassing just more than Persian spoken in Iran which Iranians refer to as Farsi (as also adequately explained in the body of the article), it has messed the article flow and might need rewriting. For example, with Farsi in intro, the whole first sentence is wrong now: "Persian or Farsi[4] (فارسی [fɒːɾˈsiː]) is an Iranian language within the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European languages." Please look up "Iranian language" article and you see that Farsi is not mentioned there as an Iranian language. It's simply not on the tree. Persian is but not Farsi. Maybe if you would have written "Persian also refereed to as Farsi by some" in that sentence, it would have been less erroneous. My point here is you can not just add a new term to the article intro as you please because you feel like it is a common name for it. If you want to better incorporate Farsi into the article you might have to rewrite some parts or better as I mentioned add its own topic.

Also, I can see someone has also changed "Parsi" in Nomenclature section to "Farsi" without touching the Persian version of it: (پارسی‎[18] — translit.: pārsi ). Obviously, because they are not knowledgeable enough to even read what the Persian says. No fault taken with that (not everyone can read Persian), point just being stop modifying these if you do not have the expertise to do it right. It destroys the integrity of the article.

Further, I am disappointed at administrators here to allow these and then protect the article without undoing the changes. I thought when there is edit warring, it is suppose to be reverted to the most stable version before all started until changes are approved on consensus or expert input. This article was stable for longest before this new war over adding Farsi to the intro sentence started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.211.11 ( talk) 23:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

216.31.211.11 ( talk) 23:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. In any case, article is semi-protected, not fully-protected. When you have decided what the actual edit should be, please use {{ edit semi-protected}}. Thanks. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 00:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion:

Persian, sometimes incorrectly ^[1] reffered to as "Farsi", is a ..

what's your opinion, Johnbod and others? I think those people of Iranian origins are agree with this. -- Z 13:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No way! That's highly POV. The BBC (Radio 4) just broadcast last weekend a talk by an American correspondent of theirs on learning "Farsi" (in the US of course), so termed throughout. Farsi remains a widely used term in English and the article has to reflect this. It is not "incorrect"; it's just one of the words English-speakers use. Johnbod ( talk) 13:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I know it has become common in English, but there is a hell of difference between what name academic sources use and what an American guy uses. No academic and accurate source (which Wikipedia should follow) use the word "Farsi" to refer to Persian language and on the other hand, we have some sources stating the word is inappropriate for several reasons. -- Z 17:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm totally new to this and sorry for any wrong formatting. I just registered to support Z in this matter. Farsi is utterly wrong in English, it mostly spread after the revolution from Californian immigrants. Imagine calling German Deutsch and Turkish Turkce while speaking English (this is one of the four reasons we should stop with that). The renowned university SOAS (in London) has an excellent article why we should stop calling the language FARSI while not speaking Persian. I can't insert the link here (Wikipedia blocks it). Google "persian not farsi". Download the excellent PDF version Sgt.PeppersLonelyHeartClubsBand ( talk) 17:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI - on the American's NPR (national public radio) program this afternoon, an Afghan was startled to hear "Farsi" spoken in England when he visited London, referring to it as "my language." Sept. 25, 2012 - again, just heard it and decided to post here . . . HammerFilmFan ( talk) 20:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)