Request Information

Request made by: Khoikhoi 04:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Where is the issue taking place?

Talk:Persian people

Who's involved?

User:Aucaman

Against other editors:

User:ManiF

User:Zmmz

User:Gol

User:Kashk

User:Amir85

User:Tajik

User:Aytakin

User:Kntrabssi

User:Paul_Barlow

User:SouthernComfort

and me, I guess. -- Khoikhoi 04:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

What's going on?

It all started when User:Aucaman got into an edit war with an anon over a disputed tag on the the Persian people page. The page was protected, but since then there's been a huge dispute between the two parties, the Iranian editors and Aucaman mainly over the term Aryan. Aucaman maintains that it should not be used in the article because it is racist, but the Iranian editors say that it is not racist in this context, and the term is a part of their culture. I've tried to come up with a solution, but Aucaman refuses to compromise whatsoever.

Personally, I see myself as a neutral user, or at least I try to be. I have researched the word Aryan myself and have concluded that it has many meanings. The Iranian term has nothing to do with the Nazi "master race". -- Khoikhoi 05:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

What would you like to change about that?

I would like it if

1. Aucaman would be willing to compromise
2. This dispute would be over

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

discretion is not necessary on my side, but you can reach me through my talk page. -- Khoikhoi 04:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Would you be willing to mediate yourself and accept an assignment as a mediator?

I do not wish to work in a different meditation case - I'm still pretty stressed out about this one. -- Khoikhoi 15:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Mediator response

Evidence

Aucaman requesting page protection against vandalism

-- Fast e n ^{talk/ med} 13:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Compromise offers

I've made this initial suggestion and Aucaman has indicated consent to use the following or a similar phrase:

Proto-Indo-Iranians, historically also referred to as Aryan (arya-), a name still in modern use in Iran and India ...

somewhere in the article. Please comment. -- Fasten 19:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply

See also: #Compromise_offer (Sorry for duplicating this section)

Comments by others

I sincerely hope it is OK that I am leaving these comments here, but hopefully it gives a clearer idea of what to expect to the future mediator. I hope that user Aucaman may be banned from reverting that article. This is taken from the Persian people article discussion page. The Mediation Cabal cannot deal with disciplinary issues. i.e. banning a user from a page. KnowledgeOfSelf 05:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

“The original word Aryan [1]is from Iran, and it still represents those people. Later the Aryan invasion theory was adapted by the Nazis. This is the first time that I have heard from you yourself that states that this article is ``racist``. First of all that is an insult to an entire race and country to equate them to Nazi, Germany. Second of all it shows how biased your complaints are. So much for assuming good faith. Others tried to warned me, but I said I feel bad, let`s hear his voice as well. At this point, you honestly have no buisiness being here”. Zmmz 05:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for looking into this. Zmmz 06:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

It's good to start by reading some of the stuff on Talk:Persian people, including the personal attacks (there were put there for people to see, right?). As I have indicated, the use of the term "Aryan" today is highly ambiguous and is discouraged by most dictionaries and some encyclopedias (I'll post more sources confirming the fact that the term is outdated). The fact that it was used in ancient times is also not related to the discussion here. People here are trying to say that "Aryan" means "Indo-Iranian" (read the article). The word "Indo-Iranian" was not known to ancient people and does not even exist in the Persian language today, so the two meanings are totally different. This is a simple factual accuracy dispute. The term Aryan does not mean "Indo-Iranian" - it was used in the 18th and early 19th century to mean "Indo-European" and "Indo-Iranian", but the usage has been dropped. Today it is sometimes used by Indian scholars to refer to Indo-Aryans, but this is not related to this article (Indo-Aryans are a totally different people who invaded northern India in the 2nd millennium BC). Aucaman ^Talk 16:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Update: User:Zmmz also has this bad habit of using my signature to post comments not approved my me (I'm taking it out but it's in history of this page). Aucaman ^Talk 16:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree with Aucaman. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, the term Aryan is now used in linguistics only in the sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages [2]. Heja Helweda 17:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Article begins.. "a people who, in prehistoric times, settled in Iran and northern India" does it not?! Thank you :) -- Kash 00:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

If we want to mention personal attack please mention those of Aucaman. Some of them extremely nasty and illogical.

He called us racist because we wanted to mention this term which is very commonly used in our country. More than once he compared the entire group of people to Hitler!

He says that ancient usage is not related to discussion here but in fact, he was the one who very passionately questioned the legitimacy of the archeological evidence. Those sites are proof that the word Aryan was being used by ancient Iranian kings but his logic was that Germans scholars were in charge of research!!! (British scholars were in charge of initial research not Germans! And these sites were examined by scholars from all over the world)

He said the Iran government uses this term because of their animosity toward Israel!!! Obviously trying to bring politics into the issue. (No Iranian official has EVER used Aryan identity in order to create animosity toward Israel, they use Islamic identity for this issue.) Before I used to disagree with him but I considered him a logical person. Not any more. Anyone who questions the legitimacy of famous archeological sites by saying that it was German propaganda is not a logical person.

Gol 20:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The term "Aryan" is used by many authoritative sources in the context of Persians' heritage. Aucaman is refusing to accept this fact, and is pushing his POV. The issue has been discussed over and over and over but Aucaman is not interested in any compromise. He's already made up his mind based on his own personal interpretation, accusing other editors of being "racists and anti-Semites" which is itself a breach of assume good faith policy of wikipedia:

"why don't come down to the Persian people article where a lot of users are trying to add racist, sometimes anti-Semitic propaganda into the article. Aucaman 07:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)"

Regards. -- ManiF 20:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Aryan is an older, deprecated term. Archaeologists user Indo-Europeans and sometimes Kurgan culture; linguists use Indo-European; physical anthropologists talk about blood types and DNA analysis in terms of statistics and populations. Groupings based on linguistics and genetics don't necessarily match up. Then there are cultural practices, and variation therein. Present day social-scientists wouldn't assume that all these variations (history, genetics, language, cultural practices) coincide and uniquely define a group of people who could be called "Aryan" -- it's much much more complicated than that.

Aryan means noble, and it was used by Indo-European groups in Iran and the Indian sub-continent to refer to themselves, as opposed to "those other guys", the original inhabitants. Sassanids called their core territory Eranshahr, land of the noble, and the term survives in the recently revived country name Iran. The term definitely has a meaning now in terms of nationalist ideology, which ignores the complications discussed above and postulates a group of people who are "Aryan" by history, genetics, language, culture. This is a concept which should be described in neutral terms. However, it is POV to declare that this concept completely describes the fuzzy reality that scientists see. It is incredibly POV for defenders of the "Aryan" theory to dismiss peer-reviewed scientific papers as "student projects" and keep insisting that their mental construct defines reality. Zora 23:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Aryan is not a 'deprecated' term, when referring to the origins of Iranian people, scholars refer to the Aryans. Genetic experiments ofcourse do not 'necessarily match', as samples are usually small and since there are many ethnicities in Iran, and most of them have mixed together, it would definately not be easy to get a 'pure' and representitive sample to support or deny the "Aryan" theory as you call it. It is also a POV to dismiss the fact that in Iran and everywhere else where history of Iran is discussed, academics refer to the origins as the 'Aryan' migration. There is absolutely no evidence against this idea, the current genetic studies which you have mentioned, are only comparing the current Iranians to other Central Asians. -- Kash 23:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment: My two cents. Aryan might be a racist term in Europe, but it's a highly respected concept in Iran and India. Arya is almost a sacred word in India, just like the Swastika is a very sacred symbol in India. So meanings depend on contexts. That's all I want to say. deeptrivia ( talk) 00:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

More users are against Aucaman: This user is trying his hardest to get help from Pan-Turks, Jews, etc. I do invite everyone to have a look at here: Talk:New_anti-Semitism#Examples, where Aucaman has called Iranian wikipedians racist.. and from which I would like to quote a reply by another neutral Wikipedian who talks sense:

The "repeated attempts of some Wikipedians" to re-introduce the use of the word "Aryan" have very little to do with Anti-Semitism, and a lot to do with the increase in Indian and Iranian contributors, for whom the word labels an important aspect of their culture. Many of them, especially Indians, resent the association of the word with Nazism and wish to emphasise their "ownership" of it (to a lesser extent the same applies to the swastika). They also resent having to apologise for words and symbols used in their culture just because some people thousands miles away used them once for their own purposes. These users rarely have racist intentions in my experience, though they can sometimes be highly nationalistic. The Nazi use of the term Aryan was certainly anti-Semitic, because it functioned as a synonym for "non-Jew", but strictly speaking the specifically racist aspects of Nazism concerned their claims for the superiority of the Nordic race. Yet no-one gets worried about the use of the word "Nordic" on Wikpedia. Paul B 19:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Dear admin, it is important that you yourself kindly look up the word Aryan, and Iran as well, in the major encyclopedias and dictionaries, rather than get caught inbetween a he said she said war. Please look into this, and see if there would be anyway to ban the two users from reverting that article for refusing to compromise and being perhaps politically motivated, specially, user Aucaman for implying the article and its editors are `racist`. However, no matter what the decision, please get involved and do make one, so over-editing and inserting exessive comments in the discussion page would end. That page needs to be rescued. Zmmz 01:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• In my honest opinion, I am against Aucaman. Aryan is not a racist term, no more than "Jew" or "Japanese" is. It is simply a term to describe a race of people who live in a certain area. Hitler may have changed public perception of the term, but the textbook definition has nothing to do with World War II, thus, there should be no content dispute. Kntrabssi 02:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Recent Study on Arya: The use of the word Arya or Aryan to designate the speakers of all Indo-European (IE) languages or as the designation of a particular "race" is an aberration of many writers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and should be avoided ( [3], p.3, last paragraph). Heja Helweda 04:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Please do read the article, it says it in the begining paragraph of page 3: "Both peoples [Iraniand and Indians] called themselves and their language Arya" then it goes on to saying that Kurds were part of the West Iranians who came from the Aryan tribes. I think sourcing this article contradicts all your efforts on Talk:Iranian peoples saying Kurds are not Iranian?! The article is not a scientific research, it is full of an individuals opinions such as conclusion that Aryan theory is wrong, because British used it to invade India!

To source an article in a debate, use a trusted source such as Encyclopedia, [See below] -- Kash 10:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Britannica very clearly mentions that '"Persians, Kurds, and speakers of other Indo-European languages in Iran are descendants of the Aryan tribes that began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the 2nd millennium BC."'

He still refuses to accept it and says that it is confusing and we should replace aryan with something else.

Gol 08:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Mini essay on the fair use of the word: The term Aryan has a number of complex overlapping usages. Aucaman is right that the term is often avoided these days, but this is not essentially because it is "racist" but because its multiple uses, especially in the West, make it confusing. We try to detail this in the Aryan article. We use the Aryan article as a kind of central clearing area from which to point up the history of the meanings and to direct the reader to other articles in which specific usages of the term are explored. Obviously these other articles have to have different names, so we use Arya for the social/spiritual usage; Aryan race for the Nazi usage; Indo-Aryan for the language-group; Indo-Aryans for the people who speak these languages; Indo-Iranians for the larger grouping in ancient history; Iranians for the modern people...etc. These distinctions are somewhat artificial in a sense. There have been several Indian contributors who have objected to what they consider to be the illegitimate Western use of the word, and wish to assert ownership of its "true" meaning on the "Aryan" page rather than be sidelined, as they see it, onto the "Arya" page. Only very recently the section on the Aryan page dealing with the racial meaning was deleted by Indian contributors who objected that this was a corruption or misuse of the word, so it should not be featured at all. These pages are certainly contested territory. In contexts where the specific usage is clear, and not attempt is being made to link it to the Nazi usage, I see no objection to the term. Terms like "Indo-Aryan" and " Indo-Iranian" are essentially Western constructions, invented for technical purposes. They were never used in these cultures historically. In English the equivalent to indigenous usage is Aryan, and I can well understand if Iranian contributors object to having a rather clumsy Western invention like Indo-Iranian forced on them just because of Nazi connotations to a word of importance to them

On race, this is even more ambiguous, because the word "race" can simply mean a human population group or ethnicity, so if Iranians say they are of the Aryan race, they don't necessarily mean anything more by it than that they have a distinctive population history, just as other groups may assert the distinctiveness of their "race" in this sense without that being automatically racist (e.g Laplanders/ Sami). Perhaps the word race should be more carefully used, but then perhaps we shouldn't be over sensitive about it. It's just a word.

I know of course that the subject of Anti-Semitism in Iran has been in the news recently, following well publicised statements by Iranian leaders, but I think it would be a mistake to confuse this with the use of the word Aryan. The "Aryan" Iranians are no more anti-Semitic than their "Semitic" neighbours in the Arab world. The problem arises from Islamism, not claims to Aryan ethnicity. It's just a coincidence that the Nazis also claimed to be Aryan and were also Anti-Semitic. There was a brief moment in the late 19th C when it was argued by some people in the West that Shia Islam was the racially Aryan form of the Islamic religion - that it expressed a link with the supposed superior qualities of the Aryan race, in contrast to Sunni Islam, but that's a very obscure and now wholly irrelevant concept.

It's also worth noting that the word Aryan to mean "gentile" was quite common in Germany before the rise of the Nazis. Freud, for example, uses the word to refer to non-Jewish psychoanalysts (he says in a 1908 letter that he wants to promote Jung's support for psychoanalysis because Jung is an "Aryan"). It was not automatically antisemitic, any more than "gentile" is. And the racial term that was equally important to the Nazis - " Nordic" - is used on Wikipedia without any problems. Paul B 10:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Great job with explaining the situation in such a detail. I think I agree with everything you said. Just made a minor spelling correction...hope you won't mind. deeptrivia ( talk) 10:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Very well said, Paul. SouthernComfort 13:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much. well said. Gol 02:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I must say that it is very unfortunate how the great history of a country which is from the Aryan root is tarnished by a facist dictator who runied the name and makes it racist to call our selves Aryan. Through being able to put a stop to these users and proudly puting the name Aryan in this page we will help bring very deserved respect to the term. (note: I know it sounds cheesy, but its true!) --( Aytakin) | Talk 02:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Offer Acuman cannot refuse!

Here is the deal: We keep the term Aryan and we add in parenthesis that this term has nothing to do with the German Master Race, and that in Iranic countries and to Iranic peoples, it has no racist meaning or intent.

How can you refuse that Acuman, you get what you want, we get what we want. So what do you say we end this dispute? Quit being so stubborn. Iranian Patriot 01:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Aryan in Indian/Iranian culture is just a title of honor not a racial/ethnic term

• Aryan as a race or language, By David Frawley, American Institute of vedic Studies: In Vedic literature, Aryan is not the name of the Vedic people and their descendants. It is a title of honor and respect given to certain groups for good or noble behavior. In this regard even the Buddha calls his teaching Aryan, Arya Dharma; the Jains also call themselves Aryans, as did the ancient Persians.
• India through the Ages: It is notable that in the Vedas, the word Arya is never used in a racial or ethnic sense. It is still used by Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Zoroastrians, as to mean "noble" or "spiritual". Heja Helweda 01:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply

On the contrary it is used in a racial or ethnic sense. The problem that started this whole dispute is that people who are not from Iran are trying to say they know more about Iranians than Iranians themselves. I'm sorry, but that is just not logical. The word "Aryan" is the race in which most Iranians are. In this page we are talking about "PERSIAN people" and the way it is connected to the word "Aryan". We are not discussing how Indians feel about connecting themselves to it. Over all, you should have by now realized that Iranians are Aryans and they will always call themselves Aryan and just because one person is 'trying' to change history, it doesn't mean it will work. --( Aytakin) | Talk 02:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Aryan is a linguistic term that refers to an ancient language group that was ancestral to the Indo-European family of languages. [4]

D iyako Talk + 02:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply

That is actually false, and taken out of context. I searched under Iran and also the word Aryan, but this time in the Columbia Encyclopedia, and saw the same things Gol mentioned. Here is what Columbia Encyclopedia said,“Early History to the Zand Dynasty Iran has a long and rich history. For a detailed description of the Persian Empire, see Persia. Some of the world’s most ancient settlements have been excavated in the Caspian region and on the Iranian plateau; village life began there c.4000 B.C. The Aryans came about 2000 B.C. and split into two main groups, the Medes and the Persians. The Persian Empire founded (c.550 B.C.) by Cyrus the Great was succeeded, after a period of Greek and Parthian rule, by the Sassanid in the early 3d cent. A.D” [5]. Zmmz 03:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Here is what the Merriam-Webster dictionary says, “1 : INDO-EUROPEAN 2 a : of or relating to a hypothetical ethnic type illustrated by or descended from early speakers of Indo-European languages b : NORDIC c -- used in Nazism to designate a supposed master race of non-Jewish Caucasians having especially Nordic features 3 : of or relating to Indo-Iranian or its speakers” [6]. Zmmz 09:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC) ” [7]. Zmmz 03:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 1 pp.738
• The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 2 pp.3,45,46,47,48,53,55,56,127,.......
• The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 3 pp. 747,825,866,.....
• The Seven Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World: The Seventh Monarchy: History of the Sassanian or New Persian Empire pp. 11,12
• Ruzgaran : tarikh-i Iran az aghz ta saqut saltnat Pahlvi pp. 37,38,39

All these books are specifically associate the word "Aryan" with "Indo-iranian" and refer to Aryans as a racial term. Again they all cite that Medians, Persians and Parthians are all descendants of Aryans. These comments come from "Cambridge History of Iran" the most legitimate book about history of Iran and its people from its 1982's edition. -- Amir85 06:25, Saturday 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand the concerns of Aucaman. But I think we can safely delineate that the Arya that "Iran" is named after is not racist, but has a separate meaning. Hijacking terms for political reasons is nothing new in history. Type in ARYA here to get a comprehensive article on the subject. I therefore support Khoikhoi and others.-- Zereshk 21:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Definition of Aryan According to Dictionaries and Encyclopedias

Here is one the definitons of the word Aryan by Oxford dictionary, “The restricted use rests on the ground that only the ancient Indian and Iranian members of the family are known on historical evidence to have called themselves Aria, Arya or Ariya; the wider application rests partly on the inference that the name probably belonged in pre-historic times to the whole family, while this still constituted an ethnic and linguistic unity; and partly on the ground that even if it did not, it is now the most convenient and least misleading name for the primitive type of speech from which all the languages above-mentioned have sprung, inasmuch as Indo-Germanic is too narrow, and Indo-European too wide, for the facts, while Japhetic introduces speculations of which science has no cognizance”. Zmmz 03:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The Merriam-Webster dictionary says, “1 : INDO-EUROPEAN 2 a : of or relating to a hypothetical ethnic type illustrated by or descended from early speakers of Indo-European languages b : NORDIC c -- used in Nazism to designate a supposed master race of non-Jewish Caucasians having especially Nordic features 3 : of or relating to Indo-Iranian or its speakers” [8]. Zmmz 03:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Columbia Encyclopedia says,“Early History to the Zand Dynasty Iran has a long and rich history. For a detailed description of the Persian Empire, see Persia. Some of the world’s most ancient settlements have been excavated in the Caspian region and on the Iranian plateau; village life began there c.4000 B.C. The Aryans came about 2000 B.C. and split into two main groups, the Medes and the Persians. The Persian Empire founded (c.550 B.C.) by Cyrus the Great was succeeded, after a period of Greek and Parthian rule, by the Sassanid in the early 3d cent. A.D” [9]. Zmmz 03:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Dictionaries and encyclopedias are not reliable guides to contemporary academic standards. They are inevitably behind the times. Zora 04:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The 2004 Editions of the Merriam-Webster dictionary, or Columbia Encyclopedia for example, are outdated? Zmmz 05:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Mediation process copied from the talk page

It's good to start by reading some of the stuff on this page, including the personal attacks. As I have indicated, the use of the term "Aryan" today is highly ambiguous and is discouraged by most dictionaries and some encyclopedias (I'll post more sources confirming the fact that the term is outdated). The fact that it was used in ancient times is also not related to the discussion here. People here are trying to say that "Aryan" means "Indo-Iranian" (read the article). The word "Indo-Iranian" was not known to ancient people and does not even exist in the Persian language today, so the two meanings are totally different. This is a simple factual accuracy dispute. The term Aryan does not mean "Indo-Iranian" - it was used in the 18th and early 19th century to mean "Indo-European" and "Indo-Iranian", but the usage has been dropped. Today it is sometimes used by Indian scholars to refer to Indo-Aryans, but this is not related to this article (Indo-Aryans are a totally different people who invaded northern India in the 2nd millennium BC). Aucaman ^Talk 16:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

If its usage in ancient time is unimportant why were you so eager to prove that the archeological sites were misused by German scholars and express doubt that the world Aryan was ever used by ancient kings? If it is not related to our discussion right now?

Take a look at this article

http://www.chn.ir/en/news/?Section=2&id=5611

obviously united nations does not consider this term to be racist or ambiguous or it would not agree to the proposal.

Gol 19:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

We're not talking about racism here. That was just a minor divergence. I'm saying "Aryan" does not mean "Indo-European". What does Aryan mean to you? Aucaman ^Talk 01:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Indo-Iranian. -- Khoikhoi 01:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Well then see this. That's not enough evidence for you? You're saying American Heritage, Britannica, and Columbia are all wrong when they say the word is no longer in technical use? Why do you think they're saying it's no longer in technical use? Aucaman ^Talk 01:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

As I said before, it is in use Iran and India. -- Khoikhoi 01:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

And like I said, it never means "Indo-Iranian" in Iran (the word "Indo-Iranian" doesn't even exists in Persian). Do you have any Iranian sources that say it means "Indo-Iranian"? I've given you plenty of sources that say it is NOT "Indo-Iranian". So, again, who says it's Indo-Iranian? Aucaman ^Talk 01:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Aryan#Indo-Iranian. -- Khoikhoi 02:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

What exactly are you referring to? Where does it say Aryan means Indo-Iranian? The way it's used by Iranians it just means "Iranian". Like I said the term "Indo-Iranian" doesn't even exit in Persian. So, for the third time, who says Aryan means Indo-Iranian? Aucaman ^Talk 02:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

In the section about the Indo-Iranians, it says clearly:

The most probable date for Proto-Indo-Iranian unity is roughly around 2500 BC. In this sense of the word Aryan, the Aryans were an ancient culture preceding both the Vedic and Iranian cultures. Candidates for an archaeological identification of this culture are the Andronovo and/or Srubnaya Archaeological Complexes.

-- Khoikhoi 02:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

So now Aryan means Proto-Indo-Iranian? You changed your mind? Aucaman ^Talk 05:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

No, I didn't change my mind. I thought the source said that it meant Indo-Iranian. *Sigh*. -- Khoikhoi 05:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Here is a further source that says the term has fallen into disuse and has never been well defined: de:Arier -- Fasten 20:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, it's true that it has fallen out of use in the West, but it is still used by most people in Iran and India. That's that Aucaman is refusing to accept. -- Khoikhoi 20:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply

To quote Indo-Iranians: The term Indo-Iranian includes all speakers of the Indo-Iranian languages, i.e., Indo-Aryans, Iranians and the speakers of the Nuristani languages. The historic term for these cultures is Aryan.

Is it used by people in Iran when using the english language or when using the persian language? If we are talking about the persian word maybe it should be clearly marked as a persian word (provided that this information is correct) -- Fasten 21:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Both. See this article for an example. -- Khoikhoi 21:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply

A possible wording could be:

Proto-Indo-Iranians, historically also referred to as Aryan (arya-), a name still in modern use in Iran and India.

(I have no knowledge of the modern use of this word in Iran and India, I'm merely suggesting a wording) -- Fasten 21:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply

This is similar to what I suggested to Aucaman, but he simply said, "why can't we just not use the word Aryan"? -- Khoikhoi 22:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The words are still used in Iran, atleast, as well as every academic place where they discuss and study the origins of Iranians, so we will not settle for one or two users who are pushing their POV. -- Kash 23:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Administrator's noticeboard

Two incidents have been reported on the Administrator's noticeboard:

1. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#.5BUser:Aucaman.7C.5D (submitter: Zmmz)
2. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Aucaman_and_User:Heja_helweda_and_User:Diyako (submitter: Kash)

Can somebody provide evidence for the accusations? -- Fast e n ^{talk| med} 14:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The evidence are there. Also see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aucaman (I am losing the count of the pages we have to report to, just to get some admins on to this!) -- Kash 23:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

There are many false accusations among what you call evidence. -- Fasten 18:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Aucaman is accused of removing admonitions from his talk page

Comment by Aucaman in the history of the talk page:

Vandalism - Stop posting this here unless you have a reason

I know that user Diyako erased a warning from his talk page [10]. Zmmz 01:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply

It should perhaps be noted that the "warnings" being erased are not warnings from administrators, but threats from Zmmz and others to ban the user if he/she doesn't stop opposing Zmmz. Zora 18:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply

No, in good faith, instead of, waiting for him to make another mistake like breaking the 3rr, as suggested by Wikipedia policies, we warned him first. That is standard procedure. Unfortunately, you Zora, and user Acuaman do not seem to get along with anyone here, and are chronic violaters of some of Wikipedia policies. Aucaman just broke the 3rr again in the Parsi page today. Zmmz 22:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Please provide a link under #Evidence if you consider it worthwhile. -- Fasten 18:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Aucaman is accused of having vandalized this page

Please provide diff links. -- Fast e n ^{talk| med} 14:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Here are some of evidence of disputed behavior by Aucaman,

• Civility infractions

Ex: “You don't know what you're talking about Kash. Aryan now means "Indo-European"? Is that really what you want to say? Or do you mean "Indo-Iranian"? Do you even know the difference?”, Line 906: [11]

Line 793: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Persian_people&diff=42628069&oldid=41862241 “OK let's forget about the school thing. You brought it up. The new regime has kept the word in the texts because it supports its anti-Israeli agenda”.

• Not assuming good faith; accusing others of vandalism

[12], accusing user Woohookitty [13]

Accusing user with IP address 69.196.139.250 of vandalism, and threatning the user [14]

Accusing another user of “Anit-semetic behaviour”, while complaining to user Irishpunktom [15]

Accusing another multiple users who do not agree with him of vandalism [16]

Accusing a fifth user of vandalism, and other policy violations, even though many admins and other users repeatedly informed him the user never did such a thing, [17]

Accusing a sixth th user of vandalism, and other policy violations, because that user agree with Aucaman, even though many admins and other users repeatedly informed Aucaman the user never did such a thingCleared as filed http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Aucaman&diff=42363770&oldid=37462965

Being repetatively warned about violating the 3rr policy by admin ESkog to no avail [18]

Random inserts of disputes, e.g. 'POV': [19] In here he actually see's Iranian revolution as a POV!! -- Kash 23:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Personal attacks, mostly due to political activism

Repeatedly attacking others, despite warnings, using harsh language such as,“Hideous nonsense. Jews have been living in Iran longer than a lot of other Iranians. Armenians have only been living in (proper) Iran for the last 100-200 years. Not even comparable. Most Jews have been persecuted and discriminated against simply for political reasons that have very little to do with Iran or Persian Jews. The ones left in Iran (not that many) are kept in such horrible conditions that they can't even network against the country even if they wanted you. You're just giving into Islamic Republic's propaganda” [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29],

Line 883: [30],

Line 906: [31]

More quote examples: “Instead of discussing obvious stuff why don't come down to the Persian people article where a lot of users are trying to add racist, sometimes anti-Semitic propaganda into the....” article” [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]

• Abuses of editing privileges, and disruptive behaviour; violating the Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point policy by constently inserting banners, writting excessive amounts of texts in discussion pages, Disruptiveness etc., examples:

[37] [38] [39] [40] [41]

• Breaking the 3rr policy close to 12 reverts in one day,

[42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]

Breaking the 3rr policy [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]

Breaking the 3rr policy [56] [57] [58] [59]

• Refusing to Compromise, i.e., hinting of some sort of biasness, even after a third opninion first attempted by user Amir85, and then after upon request from the neutral user Khoikhoi who tried to mediate the Persian people article and the one who set-up Mediation Cabal,

[60] [61]

Other examples of refusing to compromise: Line 883: [62], Line 906: [63], Line 777: [64], Line 701: [65] Zmmz 00:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Heja helweda is accused of having vandalized page(s)

Please provide diff links. -- Fast e n ^{talk| med} 14:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Recently, an article about Turkish-Kurds was put up for a vote by some users, as a vendetta--then User:Heja helweda attacked many articles that have to do with the politics or the culture of Turkey [66] [67] [68]. Zmmz 01:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Aucaman, Heja helweda and Diyako are accused of racism

The links provided under (2) refer to the following texts: -- Fast e n ^{talk| med} 14:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• An example of only [one] diff , among many others, to user Diyako`s quot and racist personal attack saying; “In fack I am discussing with a racist turk qashqai pasdar terroris pro ahmadfinejad turk whho even can do ne recognoze UN emblem and think it is PDK” [69]. Zmmz 00:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Personal attacks, by user Aucaman.

Repeatedly attacking others, despite warnings, using harsh language such as,“Hideous nonsense. Jews have been living in Iran longer than a lot of other Iranians. Armenians have only been living in (proper) Iran for the last 100-200 years. Not even comparable. Most Jews have been persecuted and discriminated against simply for political reasons that have very little to do with Iran or Persian Jews. The ones left in Iran (not that many) are kept in such horrible conditions that they can't even network against the country even if they wanted you. You're just giving into Islamic Republic's propaganda” [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79],

Line 883: [80],

Line 906: [81]

More quote examples: “Instead of discussing obvious stuff why don't come down to the Persian people article where a lot of users are trying to add racist, sometimes anti-Semitic propaganda into the....” article” [82] [83] [84] [85] [86]

Reference: Article on ethnic variety

Talk:Persian_people#Article_on_ethnic_variety

There are counter accusations by Kash and Zmmz but not evidence of racism I recognize. Please explain what constitutes racism in this paragraph. -- Fast e n ^{talk| med} 14:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply

With all due respect, there are some misrepresentation as of now. Please take time to read the comments, we or at least I, never linked the article above to racism, and the article you mention below as well, yet, we did request at least one authoritative sourcere that was not provided. We then asked that such sections, or texts to not be inserted into articles, unless the editor discuuses it first. And, due to their refusals to delete such studies, and due to their constent attacking of the editors who had come to a previous consensus, and as now rushed to defend themselves, we stated they [are] pushing a POV. In fact, user User:Heja helweda seems to repeatedly put banners on articles, because other users do not agree with him or her, and all of his or her edits, as well as, comments are politically charged. Recently, an article about Turkish-Kurds [87] was put up for a vote by some users, as a vendetta--then User:Heja helweda attacked many articles that have to do with the politics or the culture of Turkey [88] [89] [90]. Surely, that hints of some activism, and certainly not possesing an NPOV, while violating Wikipedia`s policies such as, Neutral point of view (NPOV), Wikipedia etiquette, Verifiability. We believe this behaviour tranlates into excessive edit wars and excessive questioning in the discussion pages of Persian articles as well. Thanks Zmmz 00:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Reference: Estimation of mixed populations

Talk:Persian_people#Estimation_of_mixed_populations

There are accusations of original research and callous disregard for valid refrence offering and biased allegations by Kash and Zmmz but not evidence of racism I recognize. Please explain what constitutes racism in this paragraph. -- Fast e n ^{talk| med} 14:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply

What does constant attack on both Iranian wikipedians and Iranian articles mean to you? The guy has called one of our well-respected Wikipedians a 'terrorist' for crying out loud! For full account please read both the mediation page and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aucaman. -- Kash 23:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

First and foremost, we would like to invite the admins to look under Iran in a later edition of Columbia Encyclopedia, or any other major encycloipedias; it does not convey, confirm, or mentions anything that would suggest the specific mixing of populations claimed by users who inserted that info into the article [91]. If it had, or if it remotely hinted of such studies, we would have not requested the user to erase that section. Secondly, evidence of personal attacks were already provided in the above sections, however, the article mentioned bove certainly seems to be of original research, at best not universally recognized, and not backed-up by [one] major dictionary, or major encyclopedia. Regretablly, the provider`s of the article seem to infer that the 2004 editions of most dictionaries we researched in, or encyclopedias are, “outdated”. Because of such statements, and the fact that users such as Heja Helweda, repeatedly inserting a `Genetics Test on Kurds`, that is not backed by [one] major source such as an encyclopedia, into articles such as Iranian people, and many, many other articles, we conclude that the user along with user Aucaman, Diyako, and Zora who back-up each other in every single article, are not adhering to the NPOV policy. In fact, such reverts reveal a certain biasness from these users` part. Again, back to the example, not only original research like that should not be put into an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, at least not yet, but also you had made 3/4 of that entire Iranian people article, flooded with some info about the Kurds, and that Genetics Test. When others tried to request that valid references be provided, and/or to kindly move that section to an article about the `Kurds` perhaps, you and these three users teamed-up again, and an edit war ensued on almost [all] articles that have anything to do with Persia. Despite requests for a third opinion, which we did on many of these articles, despite setting-up a Mediation Cabal, and despite providing numerous references to you Zora, user Aucaman, user Heja Hlwelda, and user Diyako, all of you four users refused to compromise, and instead started almost vandalizing other articles. Zmmz 00:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Reference: Semitic-Turkic people

User_talk:Heja_helweda#Semitic-Turkic_people: Quote by Mesopotamia. What's Mesopotamia's involvement? -- Fast e n ^{talk| med} 14:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Personal attacks by Kash

• personal attack (reported under (2), by Heja Helweda) -- Fast e n ^{talk| med} 14:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment: They were in responce to being called a 'nationalist extremist' everyday, after defending Iranian articles day after day from attacks reported here. I would apologize if I could remember who exactly I was referring to! -- Kash 23:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Accusation of helping out western information agencies preparing for war against Iran

How that? -- Fast e n ^{talk| med} 15:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply

What is that? I certainly agree that, this is an off-the-wall statement. Maybe that was used as a last minute effort by Aucaman or others to divert attention, or perhaps a misunderstanding, but I will [guarantee] you they cannot provide any evidence for that. We certainly did not imply anything remotely close to that. Zmmz 00:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't remember such a thing neither..perhaps you misunderstood something -- Kash 01:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply

No, this is something that happened with Diyako and Zereshk a long time ago, before this conflict started. I can't find the message right now, but I think Zereshk said that Diyako actions, along with Heja's, were just like what the CIA is trying to do. He then gave a link to a news article that said that the US is trying to make all the minorities in Iran angry at the government because the US wants to take over Iran. I think Diyako somehow misinterpreted this as accusations of him working for the CIA. If I'm mistaken please correct me. -- Khoikhoi 01:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Request for comment: Aucaman

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Aucaman

This is not part of the mediation case, it is merely a reference since it is related to the case. -- Fast e n ^{talk| med} 21:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Home of Aryans

Here is an article about Aryans written very recently from one of the greatest Professors of Indo-Iranian languages: Home of Aryans. So the claims of Zora and others that such a term is not used is actually wrong and after seeing so much proof, it is up to them to show honesty and end this discussion. Also see my short posts.

No the word is used in very specific situation when talking about Indo-Iranians in general. It is not used to refer to Persians, although Persians are Aryanic peoples. The problem is that people here are confusing the term with an "Aryan race" and they talk about descendants and ascendants. Just because people speak the same language it does not mean they're of the same race. The whole discussion of race is very unscientific and should be avoided. This is all I've been trying to say. Aucaman ^Talk 23:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I am sure you know that the Persians are a sub-group of Indo-Iranians! Plus Darius the Great and many other sources I already mentioned refer to Persians as Aryans and you may read this article [92]. But about the racial discussion, I agree to an extent. When we say Aryan(Iranian), we mean Iranian(Aryan) ethnicity, language, culture and descendant/ascendant. But not race, as racially Iranians are classified as mediterranean of Irano-Afghan type. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irano-Afghan] But your point about the term Aryan not being used in Academia is wrong since as you can see it is clearly used. As per your opinion that the discussion of race is scientific or not, I am sure there are other enteries that battle this out. But to deny the Aryan heritage(Persians, Medes, Indo-Iranians, Parthians) of Iranians is clearly a historical forgery since we speak their language, practice their culture and throughout our history have known ourselves as Iranians (Aryan)(See Shahnameh) as well as others have used this title for us (Greeks, Armenians).

Um, you should read the article. The author uses the word "Aryans" in titles, referring to the long-sought "home of the Aryans". It's a historical reference. Otherwise he uses the term Indo-Iranians throughout the article. It's an interesting article, I'm glad you posted a link. The Bryant book I'm reading keeps referring to Witzel. Zora 10:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

What's wrong with this statement?

Before we move on (there are other things to discuss), I need to know what's wrong with the following statement: "Persians and Medians were part of Iranian peoples tribes who migrated to Iranian plateau in first millenium BC." The people were in fact Iranian and not Indo-Aryan or Nuristani, so why not just call them Iranian? Aucaman ^Talk 16:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Use of Aryan

Would you accept a wording similar to

Proto-Indo-Iranians, historically also referred to as Aryan (arya-), a name still in modern use in Iran and India ...

somewhere in the article?

see #Mediation -- Fast e n ^{talk| med} 19:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Well I still don't have an answer to the question I posed above. As for your question, the answer is yes, but I don't see how such a sentence is related to an article on modern Persian people and their culture. In most cases, people all talking about Iranians - not Indo-Iranians in general. Aucaman ^Talk 21:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't think saying " Proto-Indo-Iranians, historically also referred to as Aryan (Aryan-), a name still in modern use in Iran and India ... " is really a compromise, as we have provided countless sources that many western dictionaries and encyclopedias use the term "Aryan" in relation to Iran and Iranians. -- ManiF 06:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

They have to give the older terms because the readers consulting them might be looking up a word they found in an 1830 publication! The terms in use in academia today are Indo-Aryan (for the Sanskrit branch of the language}, PIE (proto-Indo-European) for the ancestral language, and by many scholars, Kurgan culture as the archaeologically verified culture most likely to have spoken PIE and spread to Europe and Central Asia. Not universally agreed, however. Aryan is deprecated in mainstream academic publications. That it is still used in India and Iran has more to do with nationalism as well as the state of academia in those countries. Zora 06:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

We have already given you numerous refrrences; please refer to the below section. With all due respect, stop filling these discussion pages with rhetoric, this is not a political platform. You are driving away some editors that have something legitimate to contribute to Wikipedia. Zmmz 07:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Aryan is NOT "deprecated in mainstream academic publications", numerous references have been given that the term is still used by the latest editions of many scholarly sources in reference and relation to Iran and Iranians. -- ManiF 10:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Mani, academics do not regard dictionaries and encyclopedias as the best references. Take a look at the article on Kurgan culture in this very encyclopedia. I don't think the word Aryan is mentioned once. You are generalizing from conditions in Iran to the broader international scientific community and the generalization does not hold. Zora 23:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Zora, what are you suggesting, that Encylopedias should not be used as reference?! You actually think one or two small-scale genetic studies here and there are important, but Encyclopedias are not?! you are wasting our time. As far as I am aware we have the right to provide such academic sources like Encylopedias here, and they are considered very highly important, so your argument is pointless -- Kash 00:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply

You may think that encyclopedias are the last word in wisdom, but academics don't. Please try reading some archaeology, historical linguistics, history, cultural anthropology, and historical population genetics. Zora 00:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply

You're dodging the question

Stop dodging the question. I'm the one who put in the dispute tag and I'm not going to remove it until my concerns are addressed. Aucaman ^Talk 11:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Since you have hopelessly confused everything and everyone, please explain again what it is exactly that you are disputing? SouthernComfort 11:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Again, not answering my question. I've outlined how the use of the term Aryan is discouraged by many sources and proposed very reasonable alternatives. Aucaman ^Talk 20:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Use of the word Aryan

Aucaman's position

The English term "Aryan" is highly ambiguous and its usage is discouraged by many sources (see above). The term has been used by various cultures and ethnicities to mean different things and this is exactly why it can be misinterpreted by various readers.

The term is still sometimes used in academia as a synonym for Indo-Iranians as a general linguistic group, but this is not the adopted usage in this article. Many here are claiming that the term is to be used when referring to ancient Iranians (and ancient Iranians alone), but they have yet to cite any sources that say the English word Aryan means ancient Iranian. Most of their arguments also seem to directly violate WP:V and WP:NOR.

The other side

Aucaman has indicated consent to use the following or a similar phrase:

Proto-Indo-Iranians, historically also referred to as Aryan (arya-), a name still in modern use in Iran and India ...

somewhere in the article. Please comment.

Warning : You are providing way too much evidence and I have verified many links that were plain useless. If you want to provide any evidence of misconduct put it in the Evidence section and use the appropriate templates. Don't provide too much evidence or I will discard it. A small number of appropriate and verified links are better than 100 links where 50% are useless. The latter will be interpreted as spamming the mediator. (Example: The alleged insult of an editor as vandal who was in fact a vandal, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Aucaman#Outside_view_by_Zora)

We removed the links to vandalism that showed Aucaman uses it as a tool to threatened newcomers. But, please aware that the page here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Aucaman#Outside_view_by_Zora contains a comment by an outsider stating that certain report of vandalism by Aucaman is legitimate, yet that particular report was never used in our evidence. Finally, the evidence page is now updated with relevant diffs, rather than the previous links, which were history links. Zmmz 18:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I was referring to that particular statement only because the link (added here) was among the links I verified myself and I was rather taken aback about its use as evidence of misconduct. I'd prefer not to draw outside views from the RFC into this mediation without any need. We should try to come to a conclusion for possible uses of the word Aryan in the article, not try to assign blame to each other, which is of limited use in mediation. -- Fast e n ^{talk/ med} 18:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes you`re right, unfortunately it seems the evidence page was a bit messy. Again, we cleaned-it-up, and took-off the section about vandalism reporting altogether. We hope there will be a compromise, yet, regrettably from experience over the past months it seems the user in question most likely will go back to initiate edit wars after some time. But, let`s give mediation a last chance. Zmmz 19:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Compromise offer

Proto-Indo-Iranians, historically also referred to as Aryan (arya-), a name still in modern use in Iran and India ..., which a sentence offered by Aucaman does not elaborate the description of an entire culture, and its people accurately. Proto-Indo-Iranians is mostly used to describe the language of the ancestors of Iran. Furthermore, in an article about Iranian people mentioning India is irrelevant; it should be used though in the article about Arya, and Aryan. Indians do not use it to describe their ancestors, such that today’s Hindis have a different ancestral lineage.

The word Aryan was and is very much used in India. Here's a quote of a quote, found in Bryant's 2000 book, In Quest of the Origins of Vedic Culture:

Raychaudhuri (1988) outlines this immediate, and more euphoric, level of reflexive popular response:

The Hindu self-image had received a moral boost from the writings of Professor Max Mueller. His linguistic studies stressed the common origin of Indo-European languages and the Aryan races. These theories, translated into popular idiom, were taken to mean that the master race and the subject population were descended from the same Aryan ancestors. The result was a spate of Aryanism. Books, journals, societies rejoiced in the Aryan identity…. Educated young men, in large numbers, affected a demonstrative reversion to the ways of their forefathers—with fasts, pigtails, well-displayed sacred threads, and other stigmata of Hindu orthodoxy. The name “Aryan” appeared in every possible and impossible context—in the titles of books as much as in the names of drug stores. (34–35)

Hindutva activists today are actively trying to prove that the homeland of the Aryans was India, India is the oldest civilization in the world, all civilization stems from India ... Zora 19:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply

In that sense, it is only used to describe settlers in the Iranian plateau, and what is today Northern India. In all, with all due respect to the user who disagrees with using the word Aryan, the sentence above uses a language that in a subtle way undermines the enormity of the word as it pertains to the Iranian culture and history. However, saying, ...the decedents of Aryan ancestors who settled in Iran around.... is more appropriate. We would also like to remind you that the over-whelming consensus agrees to the latter. Nevertheless, we could use Proto-Indo-Iranians when we describe the language. Zmmz 18:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Rephrase, please

So what is the exact compromise offer, please? You seem to insist on using Aryan without stating that it's use in academic publications is not undisputed (see Talk:Persian_people#This_article_should_be_read_by_everyone). -- Fasten 18:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Use of the disputed or totallydisputed templates

The edit war included in the evidence section was mainly about the inclusion or non-inclusion of a totallydisputed notice in the article.

Since at this time there was a dispute about the content of the article Aucaman was right about demanding a disputed notice. The totallydisputed notice may have been an exaggeration. When there is a dispute that even leads to an edit war the demand to remove the disputed notice appears inadequate. -- Fasten

• Comment: I started by using the "totallydisputed-section" tag to mark the section in question. But some users have intentionally expanded the disputed language to other parts of the article, so I had no choice but to use the "totallydisputed" tag. Aucaman ^Talk 01:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment: User:Aucaman claims that he "had no choice but to use the totallydisputed tag" when other users "intentionally expanded" the disputed language to other parts of the article. That's a totally inaccurate description and chronology of events. The dif link User:Aucaman has provided [93] is only from today and User:Zmmz appearers to have unintentionally duplicated a part of the article which he thought had been removed and the change was immediately reverted by User:Khoikhoi with an explanation. [94] Days before any of these events took place, User:Aucaman intentionally expanded the dispute tag from a section to the entire article without any valid reasoning except that "he can", which is only another indicator of his intent to disrupt the entire article. -- ManiF 17:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• You're wrong. Here's a much older revision. Far older than any totallydisputed tag I've placed. As I explained in the talk, the phrase " Indo-European lineage" does not make any sense. Indo-European is a linguistic categorization. It was after this edit that I started using the totallydisputed tag (and justifiably so). Aucaman ^Talk 06:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment: With all due respect, User:Aucaman claims that he "..Had no choice but to use the totally disputed tag" is another off-the-wall claim that some editors have some sort of weird conspiracy against him, not assuming any [good faith] about my accidental revert, which was a mistake, and pointed-out as such by user Khoikhoi. User:Aucaman--to this date--breaks the 3rr (for the fourth time) [95] [96], initiates, and engages in multiple article disputes to push a POV, and still not only there is no sign of compromise, but his activities and efforts to erase every single section relating to the Persian ancestry being that of Aryans have in fact increased. I’m not sure why one user proceeding to tell an entire civilization, and culture what to call themselves, or how to, still seems to be an unresolved dispute. How much more time and effort, and energy of editors that seem to agree to an over-whelming consensus has to be devoted to this dispute, initiated by one user? As early as today 03/11/06, User:Aucaman tried to change the `History` section of the Iran article to something so out of the mainstream, that I’m not sure if it even belongs to the discussion pages of an article, nevertheless, the article page itself. It shows how biased, controversial, and extremely offensive User:Aucaman`s edits can be [97]. Yet, we are still writing, discussing, and responding to these disputes. Fasten, where has all this mediation gotten us so far? What progress have we made? You are the third person who tried to mediate this, when is this going to end? Please respond. Thank you Zmmz 01:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• I've provided another diff. Was this one accidental too? You want one more? Aucaman ^Talk 06:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• There is no other diff, originally I had copied and pasted the `Origin` section into the introduction section. That was not done on purpose. User:Aucaman makes very misleading comments; I`m not sure, but in this case he is most likely using it as some sort of excuse. After the edit he made to the Iran article [98], I am convinced that he is an unreasonable editor. Also, the hypothesis he gives for Indo-European usage is so that the word Aryan would be eliminated from use in all articles. It`s a repetitive argument. The user gives very politically motivated reasons for each edit he makes. And, unfortunately experience shows any editor who is that biased about his or her views cannot properly work with others. I`m not sure when will the admins step in and put an end to this. Zmmz 08:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Reply to "I am convinced that he is an unreasonable editor." by Zmmz
  • Do you imply that the source http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Iran/persia_or_iran.htm is inadequate. If that is the case please elaborate. -- Fasten 19:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Reply to "What progress have we made? You are the third person who tried to mediate this, when is this going to end? Please respond." by Zmmz
  • This is an attempt at informal mediation. This is the first mediation that is part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. To resolve a dispute at least one side, preferrably both, must be willing to accept a compromise and change their position. Mutual accusations are not going to solve the dispute. It is especially useless if you keep providing evidence that Aucaman makes useful contributions. If you want to provide evidence that Aucaman is causing a problem don't provide links that look like he is making useful contributions. -- Fasten 19:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Reply to "I`m not sure when will the admins step in and put an end to this." by Zmmz
  • It still looks like a lot of fuss about a minor disagreement in wording to me. Taking this to further dispute resolution would be a wast of time. I suggest you rather work on your compromise offer. -- Fasten 19:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Please explain the demand to remove the disputed template during a dispute

In ancienet times before the establsihment of nations. Language developed alongside racial lines. The Proto-Indo-Europeans or Aryans were a real racial group not just lingustic. 69.196.139.250 20:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I'll admit that this is massive, and I have not read it all. The more narrowly Aryan is used, the less objectionable. I think that it is reasonable to say that in an Iranian/Persian context, the term is generally acceptable; the moment one gets deep into India or into the Caucasus, it is generally another matter, and begins to smack of a usage that has been very discredited by association with the Nazis.

I would suggest that the best way to move forward would probably be to try:

1. to delineate the various ways the term is used.
2. to see which usages both sides can agree are unencyclopedic. (For example, I presume that using "Aryan" as a synonym for "gentile" can be agreed by both sides to be unencyclopedic.)
3. for each side to propose its wording to talk about each potentially acceptable use.
4. to nominate someone whom both sides trust (mediator) to come forward with a proposed compromise once the two wordings are there.
5. to agree to abide by what that mediator comes up with unless something can be arrived at which both sides consider to be an improvement over that wording.

Jmabel | Talk 00:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply