Talk:Ethnic minorities in Iran/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Persian Jews and Persians

are ethnically the SAME - actually some muslims and jews in Iran are even more ethnically similar in some regions than jewish and muslim Persians in other regions (strop trying to separating the people by religion) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanchen34 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sectarian, not ethnic

Often times different groups of people (primarily Kurdish, Arab and Azerbaijani Turk) groups attempt to portray Iranian goverments (mostly Pahlavi and the Islamic Republic) as being Persian chauvinist (in the case of the Pahlavi dyansty) or carrying on a policy of Persianization (as some claim the Islamic Republic does). Iranian ethnicity is two fold: religion and culture. Since the Safavid dynasty took control religion has been the primary definition of Iranianess. That religion is Shia Islam. There is no doubt that Sunnis are a discriminated minority in Iran. The ethnic groups that are primarily Sunni (Kurds, Baluch, and Turkoman) are routinely left out of the economy and politics. However, distinctly Shia groups (Azeris, Lurs, some Kurds, and Persians) are well integrated into the economy, politics and the military. Most of the ruling elite in the country (whether it be Pahlavi or Islamic Republic) are of ethnic minority origins. The Azerbaijani Turks seem to be the most prevelant amongst the ruling classes; most notably, Khamanaei, the Supreme Leader of Iran.

Can anybody explain why the article refers to Arabs as a tribal, rather than ethno-linguistic group? And is their inclusion this way part of the attempts to Persianise the Khouzestan page on this site? Thanks - AMcD

This is a small attempt to salvage what was important in the silly article on Persian Chauvinism. It is haphazardly written and needs much change + plenty more detail. Refdoc 21:05, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I moved it today from "Policy towards ...", thinking teh subject deserves a broader treatment than just from the policy point of view. Refdoc 23:40, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Beware of correctness of this article

I am an Iranian of Bakhtiari origin. This article makes it sound like I am an ethnic minority in my own country. It talks about 67 ethnic groups in Iran --something that I have never heard before and I really doubt if it is true, and where you draw a line between groups who are so close in many ways-- but it doesn't mention that of all Iranian groups (those who are of original Iranian tribes, not non-Iranians such as Arabs and Jews) each one of them feels they are just as much Iranian as other Iranian groups. We marry among each other we share the same culture and we feel we belong to the same origin. I am surprised to see how this article makes it sound like various Iranian groups view one another as if they are from different origins. -213.176.80.98

First, as mentioned above - the article was written haphazardly and needs editing. I do not agree though fully with what you write , Roozbeh. I think Iran is unique in several ways - it is probably more ethnically diverse than many other countries of similar population size and yet - so much unlike many failed experiments e.g Soviet Union or Yugoslavia - a strong common cultural identity is obvious throughout Iran. I struggled to capture this in a short article but I think the current article is hinting in this direction. It will obviously need +++ work. What I would really like to know - is this common identity the product of recent (i.e last 100+ years) history or much older? Also the common identity is not always equally strong and there are separatist tendencies - have always been and it would be surprising in a country of the size of Iran if not. Even a cultural monolith like Germany had attempts in Bavaria and in the Rhineland to become independent at various times in the 20th century. The question is what to make out of them. One response would be to refuse even mentioning them - and being by result being somewhat economical with the truth, the other would be to overstate them - to paint Iran as a country full of struggling minorities, desperate to shake of the central yoke - wich would absolute nonsense. - Wrt to Bakhthiaris remove them, if you like. I added them as I thought rural/nomadic Bakhthiaris are so distinct in culture/dialect that they are worth mentioning. Maybe I am wrong. Refdoc 11:05, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please note that I have not written the above comment. It was an anoymous comment that was written on the article itself, but I moved here. I'm fine with the article. roozbeh 11:38, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

I was astonished to see the comment unsigned. I see you have now added the IP address. Thanks Refdoc 12:00, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sentence rewrite

I propose changing "The current governmental policy can be characterised by a mixture of celebrating and furthering cultural diversity under a joint Iranian national umbrella, while holding down (occasionally violently) political separatism. Some ethnic minorities have reported racial or religious discrimination."

to "While the Iranian constitution clearly states that linguistic and cultural minorities have equal rights, some ethnic minorities, such as Jews, Arabs, Balochis and Kurds, complain of racial or religious discrimination [citation needed]. The government has also held down (occasionally violently) political groups that mobilise around ethnicity."

As I think it reflects on actual stated policy - as set down in the constitution - and also introduces themes explored in the rest of the section. I think the current wording is vague and POV and needs changing.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph change

This is, in my mind, original research and not a neutral point of view: "While, many of these ethnic groups have their own languages, cultures, and often literature, their languages and cultures are essentially regional variations of Persian and are all native to Iran, similar to the relationship between Welsh, Scottish, and English cultures, which are all similar and are native to Britain. Despite their overwhelming similarities, in modern times, their differences occasionally emerge as political ambitions, largely as a result of provocation from outside powers. One of the major internal policy challenges during the centuries up until now for most or all Iranian governments has been to find the appropriate and balanced approach to the difficulties and opportunities caused by this diversity, particularly as this internal diversity has often been readily utilized by foreign powers."

This plays down the cultural differences within the Iranian population and portrays them as some foreign-instigated unrest, which is the Iranian government's line. Iran is, in fact, a heterogeneous society. It would be unique - in fact miraculous - if Iranian society was naturally harmonious. In the current climate of political repression, I think it is accepted that ethnic unrest is more than just a British plot but a sign of underlying social, economic, political and cultural problems. Certainly, this is the basis for UN General Assembly [1] and EU Parliament [2] resolutions on the matter, which have all recognised that ethnic minorities are subject to persecution by the government. So I propose the deletion of the above paragraph and its replacement with something more objective, which recognises that Iran is a diverse country where there have been grievances and accusations of persecution based on ethnicity and religion.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Statistics

These statistics should be given in the article (at least the first category):

Ethnic groups: Persians 35%, Azeris 37.5%, Gilaki-Mazandarani 8%, Kurds 7%, Arabs 3%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2%, Lurs 2%, other 1%(based on CIA data)

Languages: Persian and Persian dialects 35%, Turkic languages 37.5%, Kurdish 9%, Balochi 1%, Arabic 1%, other 2%

Religions: Shi'a Muslim 89%, Sunni Muslim 9%, Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Bahá'í 2%
Badagnani 19:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dummy Statistics?

yes of course! I have just been on the CIA world factbook and it seems you "changed" some data... For example the proportion of Persians which here is 35% while their website states 51% approx. Strange, why did you do that??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.112.43.215 (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Template

This template: {{Asia topic|Ethnic groups in}} should be added to the article. Badagnani 19:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Houshyar - RV without review

Houshyar did you even look at what you're reverting? I reformatted all references that were already there to look properly with citations and added 1 more references. I removed that reference now, so please, discuss your edits now in here, exactly as you said in your previous revert. Here is the reference which I want to add, bring your preferrably scholarly arguments to oppose CSIS expert:

According to Edward Luttwak of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washigton-based think-tank:

"out of Iran's population of 70 million or so, 51 per cent are ethnically Persian, 24 per cent are Turks ("Azeris" is the term used by the regime), with other minorities comprising the remaining quarter. Many of Iran's 16-17 million Turks are in revolt against Persian cultural imperialism; its 5-6 million Kurds have started a serious insurgency; the Arab minority detonates bombs in Ahvaz; and Baluch tribesmen attack gendarmes and revolutionary guards... Persian nationalism is a minority position in a country where half the population is not even Persian." (Edward Luttwak, "The Middle of Nowhere", Prospect Magazine, London, May 2007, Issue 134)

Discuss your edits in detail here, otherwise, your reverts without discussion will require some attention from arbitration and mediation. Atabek 22:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Dont make POV edits (such as changing sentences to fit your POV, changing words to reflect your POV, etc...), and dont change the article drastically without discussion.Your quote from the Prospect magazine is highly POV, as it is written by a neo con in a neo con magazine, in a time when the neo cons want war with Iran. He is not a scholar and a non-biased one at that to make such determinations about Iran. He is a biased anti-Iranian government necon. It is his personal opinion and should not be included in Wikipedia, especially because he really has no credentials in this field (these are the same type of guys that said Iraq and WMD's).

Furthermore, Amnesty International mostly gets its information from seperatist groups, as it has no observers in Iran. It also frequently makes mistakes. just in the past year it claimed that Arabic is not taught in Iranian schools, yet anyone who has ever had an education in Iran knows that Arabic is taught in all Iranian schools. Amnesty International later apologized.Hajji Piruz 23:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why you're just blindly reverting the article without even looking at formatting that was done with the references that were there in first place. You can't even spell the name Baghirov properly and put the reference to the correct wikipage, and current version looks like grammatical and formatting disaster.

If you read completely what I wrote above, the source is CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies), not Amnesty International. The extent of Wikistalking and edit warring has, I presume, resulted in confusion of yours between the page on Ethnic minorities in Iran and the Azeri cartoon controversy in the Iran newspaper. This is a talk page for Ethnic Minorities, and there is no Amnesty International reference in this article. Moreover, for every reference to AI "apology" please, provide a legitimate source, preferrably from AI website, not from personal blog. Atabek 23:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about, this page is on my watchlist. LOL. Atabek, its amazing how at the same time your denying that an Arbcom between you and I is necessary, you continue to make comments like the above.Hajji Piruz 00:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The page is on your watchlist, but you did confuse two talk pages. Regarding ArbCom, I think the judges will make the right decision based on evidence, so I see no reason for your excitement, moreover, for your personal POV on this page, which has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. Atabek 12:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I support Atabek's changes. As it stands, this entry is highly oriented to a certain POV - that is, ethnic minorities in Iran are happy creatures and any unhappiness is the result of foreigners. NPOV entails stating all significant opinions without bias towards one or the other. There is a significant body of opinion that ethnic minorities are oppressed in Iran - including resolutions by the UN General Assembly and the European Parliament. This should be represented fairly in this article.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I merged the two versions, removing POV stuff like "current governmental policy can be characterized by a mixture of celebrating and furthering cultural diversity" while improving the wording and flow of the lead and "the current policy" section.AlexanderPar 05:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

And I would like to note that I removed that same exact quote in my edit, which was reverted without review before. It sounded like an old Communist slogan about happiness and friendship of nations. Atabek 12:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a good improvement, particularly the removal of the first paragraph of the current policy section. However, I disagree that governors are appointed from the province they originate from. I can't think of one governor of Khuzestan who was from the province or who was Arab.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That maybe the case in Khuzestan and Kurdistan, but most provinces have local governors. While on the subject, this article lacks pictures, can you find and upload a free image of an Arab Iranian? We also need pictures of Azeris, Kurds and Gilakis or Mazandaranis. --AlexanderPar 10:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have my own pictures, but how do I prove they are mine?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Use {GFDL-self} with a short description about the photo. Is the quality any good? AlexanderPar 10:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a pic of two Ahwazi Arab boys [3] and some other children [4]--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A picture of an old man.[5]--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice, but do you have a picture with subjects dressed up in local costumes?AlexanderPar 11:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of something like this? Average people? An Ahvazi wedding perhaps?AlexanderPar 11:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

These are "average people". I have family pictures but don't want to upload them. This should be OK.[6]--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Last one is good, but the quality is poor. Do you have more? If not, let me see if I can find something free online.AlexanderPar 11:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It was part of a larger photograph, so cropping led to a deterioration in quality. I don't think it is worse than the blurry Kurdish wedding photograph you linked to. As it will be reduced in size for this page, the quality won't matter too much. I have more, but don't have time at the moment to resize and upload. I will do something later.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The quality is really poor, please upload the other pictures soon, so if there no good candidate, I'l start looking for a free picture on the net. AlexanderPar 11:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the Kurdish picture is a lot worse. You can't see the costumes and it is blurry. Perhaps finding a better example of Kurdish culture should be a priority.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really, the kid's picture is not just blurry, it also lacks the right angle and composition. Please upload the other pictures soon. Thanks. AlexanderPar 12:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Hamid for improvements. I made a minor modification, there is no such thing as Russian-held Azerbaijan, it was called Azerbaijan SSR or Soviet Azerbaijan. There is a Wiki page on the topic. Also, I think the first paragraph of the article has a certain POV:

"However, historically the terms "Iran" and "Persia" have refereed to a confederation of all groups native to the Iranian Plateau, or the speakers of Iranian languages, whether located in Iran or not (e.g. Tajiks, Ossetians, etc.)."

Not all people on Iranian plateau speak Iranian languages, in fact, this form of definition, which I removed in my prior version, automatically excludes Azeris, Qashqais, Arabs, and Turkmens from the definition of Iranian nationality. Atabek 11:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is Hamid? My name is Alexander, and I made the improvements. It says "or", so there is no definitively on the definition, the first definition covers those who do not speak an Iranian languages, and are native to the Iranian plateau.AlexanderPar 12:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just scroll above to find out who Hamid is, it's not hard. About your change, Baghirov was not a commander, just look at the link [7] that is referenced, which says: "Decree of the CC CPSU Politburo to Mir Bagirov CC Secretary of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan, on “Measures to Organize a Separatist Movement in Southern Azerbaijan and Other Provinces of Northern Iran”". What's commander? :)) Atabek 13:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Iranian languages and "or" usage, saying Iranian plateau already includes all peoples who live there. Unless you want to specifically outline those who speak "Iranian languages". Well then perhaps, it's not unreasonable to assume that Azeris, Turkmens, and Qashqais are not Iranian, right? Atabek 13:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

What "improvements" are you thanking Hamid for exactly? Regarding Iranian languages, Tajiks don't live on Iranian plateau.AlexanderPar 13:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

True, Tajiks haven't lived on Iranian plateau, but then the area that they live in actually was never known as Iran either. So that makes the sentence even more OR. Just look at my definition, which was much better, and was reverted without reason: "Iran is an ethnically diverse country, with Persians forming slightly over a half (51%) of the population. However, historically the term Persian referred to a confederation of all ethnic groups native to the Iranian Plateau." Again what's there in this definition the reverting users disagreed with? Atabek 16:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia or favourite quotations?

This article appears to be a collection of various quotations, used to promote one POV. This is meant to be an objective encyclopaedia, not a list of sayings and quotations. Please try to discipline yourself to writing objectively, with links to sources where appropriate.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have placed a POV tag on the relevant section, since there appears to be no attempt by the author of this section to clean it up and ensure neutrality.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No its not, its a legitimate section as it talks about foreign interference in trying to stir up ethnic conflict in Iran. Its fact, its been confirmed already.Hajji Piruz 16:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

They are not facts, they are a collection of opinions and unnamed "sources" quoted by journalists. Moreover, you are trying to promote the opinion that ethnic dissent is due to foreign influence, which is a point-of-view promoted by the Iranian government. Please try to write a balanced section that is not just a collection of opinions and journalism.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 17:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

They are facts, evidence has already proven US involvement in Iran. The US even confirmed that they did covert operations in Iran.Hajji Piruz 18:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

They are not facts, they are opinions and unnamed sources in newspapers, which are a long way short of verifiability. Show me one official statement from the US that they are behind ethnic unrest. Then add it to the article. In addition, rewrite the section into proper text and not just a list of quotations. I've never seen any encyclopaedia simply list quotations like this.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Your argument works both ways Ahwaz. What you call evidence can also be called "selected opinions". Was it not the opinion of the Bush team that Iraq had WMDs? Regardless, Haji Piruz is not off the mark: [8][9].--Zereshk 12:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I have selected opinions from newspaper columnists and journalists quoting unnamed sources for this article. But if you are happy that these are verifiable and that an encyclopaedia article can simply consist of a collection of selected quotations to support a POV, then perhaps you will permit me to extend the "current policy" section to include allegations of ethnic cleansing of Ahwazi Arabs and the bombings of Balochi villages. There is plenty of informed comment in the media on this, which is far more verifiable than the "evidence" provided by User:Azerbaijani.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 14:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that descriptive texts should be added to these quotes to improve these sections. That can be done. I have plenty of sources to corroborate these quotes. It's not a secret that western countries highly favor the splitting of ME countries along ethnic lines as a guarantee for controlling them. They did it to the Ottomans and Yugoslavia, are doing it in Iraq ([10][11][12][13]), and are planing it for Iran. --Zereshk 16:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If you have proof that all ethnic unrest is due to a US policy to split up Iran. Instead of portraying opinion and unnamed sources as fact or stringing together a series of unrelated events to form a novel conspiracy theory, try finding a government document or official speech. Incidentally, for all the atrocities committed by the Serbs, we've seen a Yugoslav state ruled by Serb chauvinists replaced by five new democracies. Also, Iran is very much in favour of a federal Iraq, even though it would oppose such a federal system on its own territory.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 16:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Get your facts straight:

• Wikipedia doesnt require govt policy statements as evidence. That's why we have journalism. To report things.
• Is there an official policy statement calling Guantanamo Bay torturing as "torture"? No. Likewise, there never will be an official policy statement regarding the instigation of ethnic unrest in Iran, because it would constitute an official violation of the UN charter. The UN specifically mentions "any recruitment, in particular mercenaries, against sovereign States to be completely inadmissible".
• "Iran is strongly opposed to all attempts to partition Iraq or impose a federal system that allows for regional autonomy.". Iran simply doesnt want to have a Republic of Kurdistan next to its borders.[14]
• Bringing democracy to Bosnia with "200,000 casualties and 1,326,000 refugees and exiles" is hardly a model worth following.
• It is you who has been staunchly advocating "conspiracy theories" against Iran left and right by throwing around POV terms like "ethnic cleansing" and "Arab Hurriya". Wikipedia is not your political platform, Ahwaz. Go make a website, and post all your anti-Iranian hatred there.--Zereshk 18:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There is Journalism and there is journalism. You should know the difference from your own personal background. I don't think idle speculation and unnamed sources - which probably have a political agenda - are good journalism. An official or authoritative statement is necessary, or we can fill out the whole of Wikipedia with political gossip and choice quotes. I understand that it is your POV that all ethnic minorities in Iran are happy and equal members of Iranian society, others would object. For an NPOV article you need all viewpoints, not just Western apologists for the chauvinist regime in Tehran. Please try finding these. Oh, and please try to avoid your baseless personal attacks.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 19:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And who's to judge what "speculation" is? You? That's why WP:V clearly states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It's important to note that verifiability in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research." But we've had this discussion before Ahwaz.--Zereshk 01:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

But I didn't speak about truth, I spoke about verifiability. The may or may not be any truth in political gossip, but the opinions and unnamed sources quoted in this article are just that. Hajji Piruz calls them "facts", but his sources include an article by Seymour Hersh (!) who quotes a "consultant with close ties to civilians in the Pentagon" (which could mean anything), a POV assertion that Richard Armitage issued a "veiled threat" when he was simply talk of Iran's demographics (what threat?), an op-ed piece by a freelance Greek journalist who claims to have spoken to an unnamed CIA operative who reveals all the details of CIA operations to him (why would a secret service agent go around revealing these details) and a similarly vague Sunday Telegraph article that quotes yet another candid yet unnamed CIA agent who says it is "no great secret" that the US funds separatists. I am sure that if I added such sources to this article to back up my POV, you would be the first calling for its deletion. No-one has gone on the record, there are no authoritative statements, there is nothing but fluff. At the very least, counter-posing arguments should be put and the text made into a more encyclopaedic style.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

But that is exactly what youre doing: Passing judgments on the veracity or truthfulness of what Seymour Hersh or the Sunday Telegraph are saying. And that is against WP policy rules.--Zereshk 12:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If I am breaking WP rules, then report me to an admin. In this article, opinion is being paraded as fact and in my mind this breaks WP rules. Seymour Hersh is clearly voicing an opinion, which Hajji Piruz calls "fact". Opinions are strung together to lead the reader into making a certain conclusion: that ethnic unrest in Iran is the result of foreign governments. This happens to be the same POV as the Iranian government. Another viewpoint is that ethnic unrest is primarily due to the Iranian government's policies of ethnic discrimination and cultural repression. In order to achieve NPOV, opinions should not be represented as fact and all significant opinions must be represented. At present, the section in question is a mess. But as I said, I would prefer to deal with Hajji Piruz than you as an intermediary or his advocate.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to hear from Hajji Piruz in order to resolve this issue. I find it easier to deal directly with users instead of going through a third party or advocate.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed some misquotations and POV assertions from this section, but it cannot remain as a list of quotations to construct a POV. This section could be reduced substantially, with links to sources instead of quotations of entire paragraphs.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, so my attempts to make the article more concise and reduce the size of the massive quotations has been reverted by multiple users, despite the fact that all the points made are kept in the article. So, please tell me what is actually wrong with my edits. Or should this article be a collection of lengthy quotes? You want a debate on the editorial issue, so please engage in one instead of reverting everything I do to the article.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

john bradley

There is no excuse of removing John Bradley quote. It is well-respceted expert published in well-known journal. --Dacy69 19:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Prove it!--Pejman47 19:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It is Washington Quarterly - we don't need prove its notability. All information in the source. What I will prove however during upcoming Arbcom case is what you are dioing is disruptive editing without discussion and removal of referenced info. --Dacy69 19:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

you didn't answer my question, Washington Quarterly (note the red!) and John Bradley, --Pejman47 19:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

as I know it is not at all a prestigious magazine, maybe just an article found it by searching and handpicking in Google, I have bookmarked this threatening behavior. --Pejman47 19:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm. You have mistyped Washington Quarterly - I hope it is by mistake. One of the biggest e-library database MUSE list WQ as "an essential source of incisive, independent thinking about our changing world." [15] This Wikipedia page contain a lot more questionable sources, indeed. WQ is much more reliable source rather than some listed in this article. One of the issue which I requested to address during the Arbcom case where you are involved as well, the use of sources. Bookmark this as well--Dacy69 19:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I copy paste it from you!, look above, and still you didn't show any indication that it Johan Bradley is "well-respceted expert"--Pejman47 19:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Pls. be more specific what you copy pasted from me and where. Anyway, with WQ we sorted out. It one step forward. Now your question about John Bradley. He is well known expert - published several books, including on the Middle East [16], published in Asia Times which are amptly quoted in Wikipedia [17], WQ, gave interview to CNN, and other publications. His book in amazon.com [18].--Dacy69 21:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

John Bradley's website is here: [19]. He is well known for his Arabic language journalism. He is interviewed here [20] and here [21]--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If mere quotational format was your concern with the article, you wouldnt be deleting half the article and expunging all the sources, especially while I was adding sources and fixing the text. Your disregard of other editors is not appreciated at all.--Zereshk 15:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete half the article. I took out the quotes, replaced them with a more concise description and left the links (I also did this with the claims made my Amnesty), although I did take out a clear misquotations and removed a POV claim that Richard Armitage made a veiled threat when all he did was describe Iran's demography. I was blind reverted, of course.

I asked an admin about the format of quotations and he agrees that there are too many and that some could be removed, although he doesn't say which.[22]

If you think I am disregarding editors and disrupting the article, then report me to an admin.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 15:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If you wish.--Zereshk 18:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's up to you. If you want to make serious allegations about my conduct, then complain to an admin or don't make the allegations.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Im not in the business of reporting users to admins, like some people are. That's childish. And, I have proof for my "allegations": You almost deleted an entire section without any consent from me, Haji Piruz, Azarbaijani, and the rest of the "gang". And it wasnt a condensation. e.g. Patrick Clawson's sources were all expunged.

If you are insinuating that I have reported you to an admin, then you are absolutely wrong. By the way, Haji Piruz is Azarbaijani; he changed his username.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No you did not. You deleted all the sources I had added, and did not replace them.--Zereshk 16:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You added this [23]. But you seemed to confuse the policies of Imperial Russia with the Soviet Union. There was not pact between the British and the Soviet Union for the spheres of influence, this related to a previous agreement. As for "Soviet tentacles", it was the October Revolution that brought the Bolsheviks to power not the Octopus Revolution!

Aside from my edits to your edits, please state your objections to my other edits, which were intended to cut down the massive quotations that make this look more like an under-graduate essay than an encyclopaedic entry.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 16:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that you claim that Bernard Lewis proposed the "Balkanisation of Iran" long before Yugoslavia broke up. Is the use of this word intended to be emotive?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 17:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahwaz, just look up the sources I gave. Dont argue with me what is and is not correct according to your education.--Zereshk 17:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by Dont argue with me what is and is not correct according to your education?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 17:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It means that the "under-graduate essay" has provided proper citation to references. LOOK THEM UP instead of arguing with me why Patrick Clawson uses the word "tentacles", or why Bernard Lewis said what he said. It's not your or my business to judge Lewis' statements.--Zereshk 18:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

All,

Just FYI, I only expanded the section, inlined some quotations so that Ahwaz's concern would be alleviated, and edited some sentences to be more concise. And I did this without any deletion of sources, as Ahwaz tried to do. Hope that works for all. Please, do not delete anything without first discussing it.--Zereshk 16:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My proposed changes

Here is a list of the edits I made and the reasons I made them:

1. This [24] refers to a "veiled threat", but there is no threat in the quotation or the original article. It is a statement of fact about Iran's demography. It doesn't need to be in this article. The link doesn't work either.
2. The division of Iran into "spheres of influence" was an aspect of the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1907, which was signed by Imperial Russia not the Soviet Union. This section either needs to be deleted or reworded.[25]
3. This is a misquotation of James Woolsey. [26] He did not say the things attributed to him; the author of the article made the statement about paying attention to ethnic fissures.
4. The Amnesty quote can be shortened. This is my suggestion.[27]
5. Most provincial governors are not necessarily members of the relevant ethnic groups of the provinces they are appointed to.[28]
6. The Bradley quote can be radically shortened without losing its original meaning.[29]
7. The same is true of the Frye quote[30]
8. I don't know what could be the problem with this edit.[31]
9. This was my attempt to make the foreign influence section shorter by removing excessive quotations and putting their content within the text. If you read it, you will see that it still contains the unnamed CIA sources (with links to the Athanasiadis, Hersh and Sunday Telegraph articles), the Russian policy towards Southern Azerbaijan and Kurdistan, the Scott Ritter claim and the meeting between Pentagon officials and an Azeri rights activist. [32] There simply isn't any need to quote large paragraphs since the meaning can be stated more concisely. However, even after these edits, I think there is a POV problem.
10. I thought the historical section should precede the current policy section for the sake of chronology.[33]

I would like feedback on each of the 10 edits and why there is an objection to each of them. If the problem is only one or two, then the rest can go in without controversy.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 16:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Item #1: The link is now fixed. Armitage's statement is significant. Such statements are considered by many states (such as China) as violating United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2131(XX). Also, it shows how obsessed American officials are with Iran's ethnic minorities, which is very unusual.--Zereshk 17:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you tell me where the threat is in his statement? It seems so veiled that it is invisible.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's invisible because I took the word "threat" out.--Zereshk 18:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Item #2: Reworded.--Zereshk 17:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Item #3: Incorrect. Woolsey actually said that: [34].--Zereshk 17:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, it was not clear in the original link.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Item #5: I dont think this claim can be verified one way or another. Nonlocal officials are appointed in many places. It's not a government policy. For example Ata'ollah Mohajerani represented Shiraz in Iran's parliament, even though he was not a local of the city. Being a Persian is not a criteria for appointment. You can be an Arab and be governor, as long as you support the official stance of Tehran.--Zereshk 17:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I agree, but it is equally not true that all governors are appointed from their own ethnic group. This is what I have a problem with in the article.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Iran's top leader is not a Persian either. So? Why must you blow this ethnic thing into stellar proportions?--Zereshk 18:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Item #7: Your version is way too short, and it does omit very important sentences. I too propose a shortened version, but not as short as yours. I propose the quote say:

"Although many languages and dialects are spoken in the country, and different forms of social life, the dominant influence of the Persian language and culture has created a solidarity complex of great strength. This was revealed in the Iran-Iraq War when Arabs of Khuzestan did not join the invaders, and earlier when Azeris did not rally to their northern cousins after World War II, when Soviet forces occupied Azerbaijan. Likewise the Baluch, Turkmen, Armenians and Kurds, although with bonds to their kinsmen on the other side of borders, are conscious of the power and richness of Persian culture and willing to participate in it."--Zereshk 17:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I still think this is unnecessarily long. It seems that Frye is trying to say that Iran's ethnic groups believe that Persians are so culturally superior they could not live without them.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

He doesnt use the word "superior". That's your take on it. I think it's very clear in what it says.--Zereshk 18:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What is he saying then?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

He's saying: "Although many languages and dialects are spoken in the country, and different forms of social life, the dominant influence of the Persian language and culture has created a solidarity complex of great strength. This was revealed in the Iran-Iraq War when Arabs of Khuzestan did not join the invaders, and earlier when Azeris did not rally to their northern cousins after World War II, when Soviet forces occupied Azerbaijan. Likewise the Baluch, Turkmen, Armenians and Kurds, although with bonds to their kinsmen on the other side of borders, are conscious of the power and richness of Persian culture and willing to participate in it."--Zereshk 18:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Item #8: agree.--Zereshk 17:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Item #9:

• "removing excessive quotations" to you is getting rid of supporting evidence that you dont like to us.
• "Sometimes the only way to get a story is to promise confidentiality," says Lucy Dalglish, executive director of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.[35]
• Athanasiadis, Hersh, Sunday Telegraph, Scott Ritter - are completely legit sources. What's your problem? WP:V: Youre not supposed to judge what they say, as long as the source you provide from them is verifiable. IOW, it's not your position to judge the veracity of their claims. That is up to the reader. As editors, we dont make decisions for them.--Zereshk 17:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not suggest removing the allegations, I suggested removing excessive quotations. The links to the sources were retained along with the allegations. I actually recommended the same treatment for quotations that support the other POV: Amnesty and Bradley, for example. Stop misrepresenting me.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Youre still evading the question: why "remove" direct evidence such as quotations? How can removing evidence make the article any better? Especially since it pertains directly to the topic of the section: Foreign interference.--Zereshk 18:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If this is about providing "evidence", then we'd have a 10MB article on this issue. My argument is that the key points can be made clearly and concisely with links to the "evidence". Quoting entire paragraphs from sources is unnecessary and is simply an attempt to give undue weight to a particular POV.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahwaz, we're only talking about 4 quote blockas here. That's not "too many". In fact according to WP:V: "attribution (i.e. evidence) is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". Condensing, I agree. And yet the article is legally under WP's specified article length limit, and it is not the "10MB" you mention. But deleting sources, I do not agree. e.g. you deleted every mention of Patrick Clawson. You did not shorten it. You deleted it.--Zereshk 18:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not the meaning of attribution. Attribution is not evidence. Attributing information is about saying where you got it from, not quoting large amounts of it as evidence. See Journalism_sourcing. What you have to think about is: how can I ensure that the point comes across to the audience in the most concise and clear manner possible? If there are three sources saying the same thing ("CIA is recruiting ethnic minorities to destroy Iran"), then state what they are saying in one or two sentences and then attribute the claims with a footnote. It's quite simple really. In fact, one admin has already said there are too many block quotes. In my mind, the only quotes that need blocking are those from the Iranian Constitution.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The word "attribution" is actually used under the section called "burden of evidence" on WP:V. I suggest you read it carefully. And 4 quotes is not "too many", especially for a controversial article as this one. Besides, I already said I agree with condensing it, but without deletion. What still seems to be the problem?--Zereshk 18:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think attribution means what you think it means. Attribution is about providing details of a source. What the rule is saying is that you cannot make statements without proving there is a verifiable source. You don't need to illustrate every statement you make with a lengthy quote, eg you can say "Some believe the world was created by an inter-galactic octopus[footnote: Seymour Hersh, "The Great Octopus in the Sky", New Yorker, 10 February 2006]" You don't need to quote an entire tract from the source. I don't see the problem with this as you are still able to make your point, but without having to quote at length - as you have done in your recent additions.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 19:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Quotations states: "Quotes provide a direct source of information or insight. A brief excerpt can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to do so ourselves. a contributor should use quotations when dealing with a potentially controversial statement." And Im sure you agree this is a controversial topic. Otherwise you wouldnt peresistently be here.--Zereshk 19:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That page - which no longer appears to be policy - says that "editors should try and work quotations into the body of the article." It also cautions against the use of too many stand-alone quotations. Moreover, these quotes - particularly the Russian memo - are not brief, although it is unclear how brief and numerous quotations should be. The page you cite states " a contributor should try to avoid quotations when a summary of a quote would be better. This may be due to lack of importance, lengthy articles, etc. On lengthy articles, editors should strive to keep long quotations to a minimum, opting to paraphrase and work smaller portions of quotes into articles." See Wikipedia:Quotations#When_not_to_use_quotations One admin has suggested that there are too many of these block quotations.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 19:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's because there are other sections too that have quotations. The foreign intervention section only has 4 quotations: 1)Armitage 2)Athanasiadis 3)Russian Memo 4)Sunday Telegraph. I can condense the 2nd one. Hows that?--Zereshk 19:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think each quotation can be summed up in a sentence or two. I also think that this section looks like an op-ed piece rather than an encyclopaedic entry. The section needs reordering as it is difficult to follow - the flow is not right and it leaps around without any direction.

Here is my suggestion. Put an introductory paragraph. This paragraph beginning with "Iranian governments, both before and after the revolution ..." would do as a starting point. Then introduce the allegations regarding broad strategy, eg "Both the Soviet Union and its preceding Russian Empire made many attempts ..." and the Bernard Lewis thing. Then provide an overview of specific allegations of the role played by CIA/Pentagon, with links.

Then perhaps we can deal with the POV nature of the wording of the section.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I dont think the quotations need to be summed up. In fact I am thinking of adding more pertinent quotations that are missing from the article. For example, Saddam's plans to stir up ethnic unrest in Iran is completely missing. Furthermore, I dont see no need for re-ordering. In fact, your proposed order has no particular order at all. The current style at least is chronological, and is thus better than the feel-good style you have proposed.--Zereshk 01:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I wait in eager anticipation for your list of quotations, which you will no doubt mix into the article with little regard for the readability or the rules on NPOV or even the rules you have quoted to me, as per usual.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats exactly why we use quotations Ahwaz. So that nobody can accuse me or anybody else of being POV. :) Regardless, I "re-ordered" the section. I await your next batch of objections.--Zereshk 03:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Some more edits

I've been blocked by Alexander Par for these additions to this article. Please tell me what is wrong with them and/or why they should not be included:

1. British policy towards Iran's minorities under Reza Pahlavi - including assistance in the suppression of autonomous governments in South Azerbaijan and Kurdistan and the refusal to acknowledge Sheikh Khazal's bid for independence [36]
2. The Canadian government's response to claims that it is involved in ethnic unrest: [37]
3. Resolutions approved by the UN General Assembly and the European Parliament condemning discrimination of ethnic minorities in Iran: [38]

I fail to see how these are unverifiable or irrelevant.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 19:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

user:AlexanderPar removes blatantly neutral sourced information.--Dacy69 19:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As user:AlexanderPar has been blocked for edit warring [39], I guess we won't have any answers from him soon. Could someone explain why any or all of these edits should not be included in the article? I'll wait until his block is expired and see if he responds on the talk page when he is able to contribute. If no-one engages in some form of debate on the talk page, then I'll assume that my reasons for inclusion are legitimate.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahwaz, it's because of irrelevancy. You used Britain's subsequent support for Reza Shah (80 years ago) to try and refute the BBC quote that Britain is currently behind secessionist movements in Khuzestan. How are these remotely even related?

And the Canadian quote you pasted refutes the claims of involvement of the Canadian govt. The preceding quote however didnt even mention the Canadian govt. It refers to "Iranians in Canada".--Zereshk 13:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

British support for the Shah is related to the ending of the autonomous Soviet-backed Azerbaijani and Kurdish governments, which you raised in the article. If it were not for British and American support at a time when the Iranian army was fairly weak, Iranian Kurds and Azeris might now be ex-Soviet states like Armenia and Georgia. Consequently, foreign involvement in Iran cannot be regarded as simply a divisive force, but in some cases a force for supporting centralised government under a Persian monarch. I think the reader should be aware of this.

Secondly, on the issue of Canada, you pointed to a meeting between former Canadian prime minister Pettigrew and an Ahwazi separatist group as proof of Western government contact with separatists. The Iranian government responded to a Canadian-sponsored UN General Assembly resolution that condemned ethnic discrimination by accusing it of intervention in internal affairs and spying. I therefore included the Canadian government's defence. This is an attempt at ensuring NPOV by providing the denials of Iranian accusations against foreign governments.

Thirdly, I would like to know why my edit here cannot be included in full [40]--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahwaz, you are incorrect for two reasons:

1. If you posted the Reza Shah era material in response to "support for Iran's central govt", then you posted it in the wrong place, and as the link here clearly shows, in response to the current popular allegations specified in the BBC article:[41]
2. Britain's subsequent (i.e. "flip flop"ed) support for Sheikh Khazal happened in the early 1920s. The Mahabad incident happened in 1945, when Reza Shah was in fact deposed by the British govt.--Zereshk 15:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I could put it in the historical notes
2. The Sheikh Khazal and Mahabad issues are important to this article as the "foreign interference" section starts off saying "Foreign governments, both before and after the revolution, have often been accused of attempting to de-stabilize Iran through the formation of ethnic tensions ..." In fact, the situation is more complex than this, since Britain and the Soviet Union had very different ideas on the future of Iran. Reza Shah was, incidentally, deposed in 1941, five years before the Mahabad government.

Do you have any objections to the inclusion of this edit in this article: [42]--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 17:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you first tell what exactly you want to add, and where to. If you make it relevant, Im sure nobody will object if we add it in the right place. And dont get jumpy if I add in details or make changes for accuracy. We dont want to mislead any readers, Im sure you agree.--Zereshk 21:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've said exactly what I want to add and where and I am seeking a discussion on any points of disagreement - please see the diff links above, particularly [43]. I actually appreciate the fact that you are engaging in some discussion on the talk page, unlike some others.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case, none of your proposals are acceptable, because as I have shown, the text and links you have interjected, are completely off topic and unrelated. Khazal had nothing to do with Mahabad 15 years later, and the link on Canada's refutal makes not the slightest mention of Pettigrew's meeting with the Ahwaz secessionist leaders. Nevertheless I am willing to work with you, even so. Let us do this piece by piece. Let's just focus on one thing at a time, shall we? How about we start with your Bradley text/link? Fair enough?--Zereshk 04:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I am willing to drop the Canadian link. But we do need rebuttals of accusations of interference in that section to ensure NPOV. The Bradley quote should go in, although I did not originally include it.

Never mind. It's already in the article.--Zereshk 23:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, Khazal and Mahabad are unrelated in terms of a chain of events, but they do illustrate the fact that the British at least are not necessarily intent on ethnic division but at times have assisted in ending or preventing succession. But I agree that it is perhaps not an appropriate section to place this. Perhaps it is better to put it in historical notes.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Canadian link you posted has nothing to do with the Pettigrew meeting. It doesnt even mention it. The link is about Tehran's accusation that the Canadian embassy in Tehran is involved in spying operations. You forget, I can read Persian, you cant.--Zereshk 15:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I know that the BBC Persian link is not specifically related to the alleged Pettigrew meeting. The fact is that these Iranian allegations surfaced after the Canadians sponsored a resolution condemning Iran's human rights violations in the UN General Assembly. And I can read some Farsi; I never said I was a good translator.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 17:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The article isnt about Human rights. We have an article for that. And the link is about spying allegations. It has nothing to do with ethnicity. I dont know what youre trying to prove here.--Zereshk 21:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity touches on human rights issues, particularly if you are talking about government policy and allegations of foreign interference.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot of things touch on ethnicity. That's not a reason. Arent you the one whos trying to "condense" the article? Especially that in this case we have an Human rights in Islamic Republic of Iran article. So youre actually trying to expand the article your own way. Yes?--Zereshk 04:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I could say the same about your section on foreign interference. It might be worthwhile having a separate article on this (eg Allegations of foreign intervention in Iran and/or put allegations of ethnic discrimination/persecution in the Human rights in Islamic Republic of Iran article with their own section. This article has become politicised and overly focussed on recent events, while the history section is tiny and there is little on the cultures of minority groups. I can see that if we were to have a full article on all these areas, including lengthy quotations, the article could easily become unweildy and become the focus of multiple editorial disputes.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You went ahead and added back in everything. I guess discussing things has no meaning now. But thats fine. I will make the necessary adjustments to remove POV claims.--Zereshk 20:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't and you know it. Someone else reverted the content. Why do you evade discussion?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Youre right. It was Dacy. If I am absent for days at a time, it's because I have trouble to tend to somewhere. I have a hectic irregular schedule to work around with. Im trying my best to be here as much as Im allowed.--Zereshk 23:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I am open to discussion and particularly glad to discuss why reliable neutral sources are being removed from this page. Anyway, I am going to submit this content dispute and behaviour of editors for Arbitration but, in the meantime, the consensus text might be reached ahead of the Arbcom proccess.--Dacy69 00:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, am I to perceive this as a threat?--Zereshk 22:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

For user:AlexanderPar

It is essential to engage in discussion before removal of multisourced information. Come and discuss your edit.--Dacy69 14:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Soapboxing

Please stop soapboxing on this page, using selective POV material from governmental/political sources. Here is my rational for the revert:

1. US Congressional research center, European Parliament, or Canadian government are political entities with their own agendas, we do not quote political entities here. You don't see Iranian Parliament resolutions on "Ethnic minorities in America", do you? So those are simply unacceptable.

2. The main issue here is not about verifiability of such sources, it's about relevancy and neutrality. Sources that are affiliated with or financed by governments that have political disputes with certain other governments like Iran, are neither neutral nor appropriate for articles dealing with the internal issues of the opposing governments. United Nations or other neutral third-party sources are the appropriate judges, not the other governments. Governments and political parties have their own agendas, they're not reliable sources.

3. Likewise, we shouldn't quote Rodney Moore, the spokesperson of Canadian government or other foreign governments on an article about Iran, just as we won't quote the spokesperson of Iranian government on an article about USA or Canada, even if they're sourced, and verifiable.

4. UN statement is fine, but it's already there.

5. Abbass William Sami works for RFEL (US radio freedom), which is a biased US government-affiliated organization, that's not a neutral source.Investigative articles and reports are fine, as long they pass WP:RS, but random opinion pieces from random self-proclaimed "observers" or "experts" who are affiliated to governmental organizations like Radio Free Europe are not OK.

I invited you all to be balanced, fair, and reasonable and seek consensus for your edits, instead of POV-pushing and soapboxing.AlexanderPar 05:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If government sources are unnacceptable, then we should remove all sourcing to Iranian news agencies, including Press TV, which is sponsored by the Iranian government. In my mind, government sources are perfectly OK if they are relevant. Iranian accusations of "foreign interference" are fine as long as we can quote the defence of those governments to these charges. So when Iran accuses Canada of backing separatist groups and spying, we should have Canada's official response. I am in favour of including government statements when there is a dispute between governments. "The government said ..." is perfectly legitimate, so long as it is clear this is a government's opinion and not fact. But if you want to dispute this, then we have to seek a third party opinion through an RfC.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 14:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Alexanderpar - you shopuld stop pushing Iranian government POV. I second Awhaz.--Dacy69 15:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Government sources are neither fine nor legitimate as governments have agendas, especially when they deal with the internal affairs of an "enemy state". If we had quoted an accusation against Canada in this article, then a response from the Canadian government would be appropriate. But there is no mention of Canada in this article, so that's a moot point. AlexanderPar 19:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There is the claim in the article that the Canadian foreign minister met a member of an Ahwazi separatist group, in the section entitled "foreign interference". That's why I included a link to BBC Persian Service in relation to Iranian claims of spying intervening in its internal affairs following a Canadian-sponsored UNGA resolution that condemned discrimination and violence against ethnic minorities in Iran. Let me know what you think of the article's content: [44]--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Alexanderpar. When accusations are being made against the Iranian government, it is ok to use government sources to give their side of the story (as they are being accused, however factually incorrect the Iranian government maybe, since they are the accused, the only encyclopaedic thing to do is give the governments side of the story as well). However, baised sources in no way fit into this article. What you guys (Ahwaz & Dacy69) are doing is using clearly biased sources. This is like using Armenian sources with regards to the situation in Azerbaijan Republic, or using Kurdish sources with regards to Saddams Iraq, or using IRA sources with regards to the situation in North Ireland.Hajji Piruz 19:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that the Iranian government can be quoted, but other governments cannot be quoted in response to Iranian accusations. I am puzzled by your understanding of "neutral point of view" and verifiability.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is about the ethnic minorities in Iran, so the Iranian government POV should also be given (for example, statistics are always given this way. example: official statistics say there is 11% unemployment while unofficial statistics say there is 20%). But the Canadian government (or other biased sources with agendas) commenting on Iran's political or ethnic situation doesnt fit in.Hajji Piruz 23:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So, if the Iranian government accuses the Canadians that they are involved in ethnic unrest, you are saying we should not permit the Canadians' defence? Also, you appear to be saying that the Iranian government is a verifiable source on ethnic minorities when it has been repeatedly condemned by the UN and its agencies of discrimination and violence againsy ethnic minorities. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Could you clarify?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I took a quick glance at the article, and no where did I see "Iran accuses [insert nation here] of inciting ethnic unrest", so I dont know what your talking about. The UN source is mentioned.Hajji Piruz 00:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Look under foreign interference. There are claims that the Iranians blame the British, there is talk of "Soviet tentacles", accusations about the US military and the CIA, and even Azerbaijan. Some of these accusations relate to Iranian government claims, others are "unnamed sources" quoted by journalists. Take a look. Where the accused governments have denied these accusations, we should ensure NPOV and represent their denial here.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I see, those are non-Iranian government sources making those statements. I think your whole argument here has collapsed, because you were saying that if the Iranian government is accusing other foreign governments, then we should also have evidence from them posted, but that isnt the case in this article.Hajji Piruz 00:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think my case is wrong at all. If there is a denial of involvement, it should be published here. Otherwise, it is POV and against Wikipedia guidelines. As it happens, the Iranian government has accused various very different "enemies" of involvement in ethnic unrest, not just the US and Britain but also Saudi Arabia, Israel, "Wahhabis", Al-Qaeda, Canada and even some oil companies. Sometimes it accuses them all at the same time. Some journalists earn a living out of justifying these claims, while ignoring the issue of discrimination and persecution of minorities in Iran. Their POV is well-represented here. How about attempting neutrality?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I already told you, no where in this article (maybe I missed a part, point it out to me) is the Iranian government used to point a finger at foreign involvement. Are you saying Seymour Hersh and those journalists are connected to the Iranian government? Also the declassified documents from USSR archives are not POV.Hajji Piruz 01:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Mess

The article is a mess. There is simply no need for having these long long quotes when a reference would do. This article looks more and more like the casualty of (multi-directional) POV pushing and less and less like a encyclopaedia/ Could please all participants calm down and help in a concerted effort to get this off the ground again? This is not very difficult actually. Refdoc 09:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate your assistance in bringing this article in order. All those long quotes are indeed out of place here, this is not wikisource, this is a Wikipedia article. And it is not just this article, look what has been done to FA article Azerbaijani people. Its quality seriously deteriorated after it was flooded with irrelevant quotes and personal assumptions. Grandmaster 10:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried to shorten the quotes while keeping the original points and reorganise the structure of the article (eg putting history at the top of the article), but was reverted twice and accused of being disruptive.[45] Since then, more has been added to the "foreign interference" section, but there appears to be resistance to NPOV here as well. I don't think it is so much as "multi-directional" POV-pushing as one-directional POV pushing. I've tried to reach a compromise on this on the talk page, but it seems that some are just going through the motions.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny how I keep finding all the people involved in the anti-Iranian Azarbaijani Arbcom showing up here too. I wonder if there is a collaboration going on :)

Also, the quotes can be worked into the text of the article. There is no need to erase anything. We can simply word the quotes into the body of the article itself. That would easily alleviate everything.--Zereshk 23:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What's "anti-Iranian Azarbaijani Arbcom"? I never knew that arbcom was anti-something. Grandmaster 17:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Hajji Piruz and Grandmaster can be accused of collaborating as a group, unless I am missing something here.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And besides, any summarization that everyone does not unanimously agree upon should be quoted in FULL so that there is no POV interpretation.--Zereshk 01:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Zereshk, this is obviously doubly wrong. (1) lengthy quotes have no business here. That is a fact. Wikisource is the ploace. (2) encyclopaedic is not the same as everyone agreeing. The article is a mess and it gets worse by the day. Refdoc 23:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the second admin who has said there are too many lengthy quotations in this article. It wouldn't be hard to simply state the facts and the various POVs without requiring such lengthy quotations. Footnotes are there to cite sources.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Not true. One admin said it is preferable not too have long quotes, but only if there is agreement on their content. Some of the long quotes are already summarized. AlexanderPar 21:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

christian science monitor

quote from Christian Science Monitor should be restored. We can't throw away American newspaper references just because they are Americans. We have other quotes from Western sources here. --Dacy69 16:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that quote shouldn't be restored, not because the source is an American newspaper or Christian Science Monitor, but rather because the opinion piece is written by Abbas William Samii who is employed by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Inc which is a radio funded by Bush administration as part of their $75-million plan for Iran. So Abbass William Samii is not a neutral source. AlexanderPar 17:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how RFE/RL is any more propagandist than Press TV (perhaps less so), which is also quoted in this article. Press TV is Iran's answer to Radio Farda. I can see that a blog has also been referenced. And one editor has used himself as a source, to back up his POV in this article. So, judging by the standards currently in the article, Dr William Samii is probably more reliable. Anyway, the publisher is not RFE/RL, so his expertise is as relevant as Seymour Hersh.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, AlexnaderPar explanation is, at beast, very weak. We can dismiss a number of references on this and other pages just refereing that this or that media outlet supported by the government. Some references here like to Kaveh Farroh is just personal webpages or Iranian government sposnored which can be dismissed on the ground of AlexanderPar logic.--Dacy69 19:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Press TV is only quoted as a news item that Iran makes a certain accusation, it can be removed anyways, as there is another source for the same assertion from Guardian newspaper. William Samii's quote is not a news item, it's an opinion piece, and his personal opinions have no place here, as he's an employee of Bush administration, a benefactor of 75-million plan to topple Iran, and therefore not a neutral source. AlexanderPar 22:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We can just attribute the quote to him to make clear it is his opinion, just as other quotes have been attributed to individuals such as the John Bradley quote. Having an opinion, even the opinion of the Bush administration, included in an article is fine, just put "According to RFE/RL West Asia specialist Dr William Samii ..." There are other sources used in this article that are far more controversial than the Samii quotation, in terms of Wikipedia guidelines, notably the blog.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, Wikipedia guidelines require neutral sources. People affiliated with the US government are not neutral. Also what is your source that he is a Dr? And how many books has he written to call him a specialist?AlexanderPar 05:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, actually. Read policy please. Sources are not useless, just because one does not like their affiliation.Refdoc 23:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And dacy69, your argument is weak. What you are suggesting is to quote affiliates of the Armenian government with regards to human rights in Azerbaijan. We do not quote affiliates of hostile governments and Wikipedia requires NPOV, so stop with the soapboxing. AlexanderPar 05:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Finally, the other sources in the article are not affiliated with the US government or any other government including the Iranian government. If they are, they should be removed. John Bradley as far as I am aware is not affiliated with the US government.AlexanderPar 05:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Press TV is most definitely affiliated to the Iranian government [46].

Dr William Samii is described by Time magazine as "Dr. William Samii, a longtime Iran specialist currently with the Center for Naval Analyses"[47]. So, perhaps he is no longer with RFE/RL.

Government sources are relevant where there is a dispute between two governments. As foreign governments are accused, their denials should be included in this article to achieve NPOV.

The European Union is not a government but a multi-national body.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

William Samii still works for RFE/RL, his salary is paid from “the $75 million.”, a found set up to topple Iran. I will remove Press TV from the article, if that makes you happy. Yes, the government sources are relevant where there is bi-lateral dispute between two governments, in the bi-lateral pages of those two governments like Iran-USA relations, not on a page related to domestic affairs of an opposing government, we won't have Iranian government sources on minorities in America or vice versa. Otherwise, we'd have Armenian sources on Azerbaijani articles, Serbian sources on Bosnian pages, Pakistani sources on Indian pages....this is simply unacceptable. The European Union is no different, it's like the US government, a political entity at odds with Iran, with her own agenda. The UN statement is legitimate, but now that I am looking at it more carefully, that was a draft resolution, not a final resolution, the final resolution did not pass, so it cannot be attributed to United Nations, it's a few hostile nations adopting a draft resolution that did not pass in the general assembly.AlexanderPar 20:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

When you say we, you mean you. We will all come to a consensus agreement on this page. Where there is an allegation of British involvement in Iran's domestic affairs, then a British denial of the allegation is appropriate.

The EU is not like the US. It has no unified foreign policy, it has no unified government and is not a state. It is a multi-national body. While the French are busy investing in Iran, the British are at odds with the government.

The UNGA resolution did pass:[48][49]--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The source from CSM which I inroduced was related to Iranian government's claim about foreign interference. So, both views should be represented here to give balanced versatile picture.--Dacy69 21:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We means the community, the people who are interested in improving this encyclopedia, and not use it as a vehicle for propaganda, soapboxing, and activism. If you want to be an activist, go hold a protest outside the Iranian embassy in London, or start an online petition, this is not the place for it. EU is a political entity with her own agenda, so is CSM (part of US congress). Regardless, I don't see a US or British denial of involvement, what you've been quoting has been mainly government-affiliated sources making allegations against Iran, not refuting any allegations by Iran. AlexanderPar 08:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You are not the Wikipedia community. I will add denials by accused governments on this article because this is required to help achieve NPOV. As pointed out by neutral parties, the article is a mess and needs improvement. If you are serious about improving Wikipedia, then I suggest you take on these suggestions.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I support you. On references - If we quote Sunday telegraph, CSM can also be quoted.--Dacy69 14:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No , the Telegraph item is not an editorial or opinion piece. The CSM (Christian Science Monitor) item is an opinion piece from someone who is a full-time employee of RFE/RL (A US governmental organization). As such it is not a neutral source. As per Ahwaz's inequity, you don't have a consensus to do so, all of your arguments have been refuted, and Dacy69 is not a "neutral party", yes if we have Iran's government accusing foreign governments and the foreign governments denying it, we can mention this. But this is a separate issue than quoting biased opinions of RFE/RL employees with regards to Iran. Please read and follow the NPOV guidelines. If you seriously believe that your soapboxing will be tolerated by the Wikipedia community, you really should start a RFC and see what the community thinks. AlexanderPar 21:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You are not neutral party here either, you don't form consensus as well an dfinaly you are not one who establish rules here and have rights to speakn on behalf Wikipedia commmunity. Edit is based om Wikipedia guidance and not on opinion of individual editors. Once I submitted RfC where you involved and it did not work with you. I asked Arbcom to give their judgement about the use of sources and I hope we will have something--Dacy69 13:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Plus, we quote Richard Armitadge and some Pentagon officials. So, we can rightfully insert CSM whether author works for RFC or not.--Dacy69 04:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So what? Pentagon officials are quoted by neutral sources in a news item, not by government-affiliated sources, USA congress research center is not a neutral or third-party source, neither is William Samii who is a RFE/RL employee. Stop soapboxing. AlexanderPar 04:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Dacy stop soapboxing and using government sources.Hajji Piruz 04:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This sentence In some instance, Iranian government try use "foreign interference" as an excuse for repression.[Ethnic tensions could crack Iran's firm resolve against the world is biased. The U.S. has declared that she supports unrest in Iran and try to weaken Iranian government.

There is written The central government typically reacts to ethnic unrest with a combination of repression and scapegoating. For example, two men were executed in early March (2006) for their roles in fatal October bombings in the southwest. As you know calling bombing as ethnic unrest is funny.

Adding such quotation is unacceptable. Please try to be more reasonable and prevent POV pushing. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"The U.S. has declared that she supports unrest in Iran and try to weaken Iranian government." Show me one quote from the US government that shows that it supports ethnic unrest.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources I included neutral. We have other sources citing government officials. BBC, CSM are perfectly neutral sources. And for NPOV if we give opinion about foreign interference we should inlcude various perspectives. Nothing soapboxing here.--Dacy69 15:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeating the same thing over and over again wont change the facts. Neutral sources citing government officials are different from governmental sources like US congress research center. Those sources are not neutral, not third party, and in have inaccuracies. CSM source falsely claims that local languages are not used in the media when its a known fact that local languages are used in the media.Hajji Piruz 15:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has Iranian sources as well. Then we should remove them. Plus we should remove citation of Armitage and other official in this case. CSM and BBC whatever they state are neutral sources. I ca only agree on removal of first source which is report for US congress. But in this article we give one-sided opinion about foreign interference - so for NPOV we should have balanced information.--Dacy69 15:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There are no Iranian sources cited on this article, I already removed them days ago. The citation of the relevant officials is fine, as long it's from a neutral third-party source. As for CSM article, you were already told a dozen times that it's an opinion piece, full of inaccuracies, written by Abbas William Samii who is employed by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Inc, a radio funded by the Bush administration. He's neither neutral nor third-party. If we quote Abbas William Samii here, then that would be setting a precedent to quote government-affiliated Armenian and Iranian writers on Azerbaijani pages. Finally, the BBC link can be incorporated into the paragraph about the former Canadian foreign minster meeting some Arab separatist as a disclaimer that "However, Canada has denied the charges of interference in Iran's affairs...." or something like that. I'll fix that soon. AlexanderPar 16:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've no problem with quoting the Iranian government, so long as it is clear that it is the Iranian government's opinion. Likewise with the US government, although no-one has actually come up with a source that proces that "The U.S. has declared that she supports unrest in Iran and try to weaken Iranian government." What we have is journalists who are known to have a biased approach to Iran-US relations quoting vague statements and reports from unnamed people. The article is a synthesis of quotations designed to lead the reader into concluding that ethnic unrest is foreign-instigated, which is the Iranian government's claim. As for William Samii, I cannot see anything inaccurate in what he has written, even if he is employed by RFE/RL. Also, a lot of people may be against the Iranian government - many for very good reasons and many of them are Iranian. Being opposed to a government that leads the world in child executions doesn't make one anti-Iranian.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Iranian government maybe a lot of things, but Wikipedia is not the place to "oppose" or "promote" a government, that's what journals and web-logs are for.AlexanderPar 23:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I never said it was. I was making the point that just because someone actively opposes a government's policies doesn't mean what they are saying is incorrect or unquotable. There are few, if any, "neutral" sources on Iran. The point is not to quote what you deem as "neutral", but to state all significant points of view. If the Iranian government says something, then we quote it as its point of view. Likewise with the US or the judgements of multi-national bodies such as the EU or the UN. That is the objective of NPOV. We leave it to the reader to decide, we cannot restrict ourselves to "impartial" sources, because in judging what is "neutral", we could be making a subjective judgement.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Read my comment, I already pointed out the inaccuracy. What does child executions have to do with what we are discussing? This isnt about being pro or anti Iranian (I for one am no fan of the government either), its about using reliable neutral third parties as sources here, not biased ones. Please stop soapboxing.Hajji Piruz 17:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Can Hajji Piruz and AlexanderPar substantiate their qualification to judge CSM, RFE/RL and BBC Persian service as POV sources. Somehow, the opinion of Iranian government is relevant, and opinion of independent news agencies is not? Atabek 22:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has claimed BBC is a POV source, RFE/RL is not an "independent news agency", it's run by the current US administration, funded by the "75-million dollar" plan to topple Iran, and the writer of that particular CSM opinion piece, William Samii, is a full-time employee of RFE/RL. If we use sources written by the employees of an opposing/hostile government on this article, that would set a precedent that all sources written by employees of opposing/hostile governments are legitimate for articles dealing with issues of their adversaries, including Armenian sources for Azerbaijani pages. That's why we should stick with neutral and third-party sources. There are no Iranian sources on this article either, so please don't act coy. Re-read the section again to try to find what you missed. I can't repeat myself over and over again.AlexanderPar 23:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to read more about RFE/RL. It isn't set up to topple the Iranian regime. It broadcasts all over the world. If you had said that about Radio Farda or VOA Persian Service, then fair enough, although they are so bad I doubt that anyone in Iran listens to them. The money you are talking about is dedicated to these Persian language stations.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when it comes to SW radio, VOA is among the very top most listened to radio stations in Iran. I know this for a fact. We used to even model our broadcasting style on VOA, when I used to work at IRIB. Nowadays though satelliute TV has changed everything. I think Alex is right. There is no question that the US and UK are supporting ethnic tension in Iran as a method of cold war against it:[50] Thus caution is required on which sources to use.--Zereshk 00:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

See Radio Free Europe: funded by the United States Congress. and see this [51]: Bill Samii, who follows Iranian affairs for U.S.-funded Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty...

I'm sure you guys have all been following the news, what do you think a US funded organization would say? It would definetly be biased.Hajji Piruz 00:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That's your interpretation of the sources. Just because the source is U.S.-funded does not mean it's not acceptable. Haleh Esfandiari works for U.S.-funded institution, jailed in Iran, she is still an Iranian expert. Bill Samii, still is an RFE/RL expert on Iran. When you think source is POV, then you should cite it with "Bill Samii of U.S.-funded RFE/RL says ...", you should not just remove the source, that's called POV/OR pushing.

And you think rest of your sources are NPOV? This one [52], you reference an article of a Turkophobe from amateurish Iranian online magazine in a section devoted to Azerbaijani minority of Iran. Is this an encyclopedic source vs. CSM, RFE/RL or BBC? Even George Bush would give a more fair judgment of an Islamic Republic, than Turk-hater Kaveh Farrokh can about Azerbaijan. Atabek 00:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has nothing to do with Halef Esfandiari, stop soapboxing. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote hostile governments' POV about their adversaries, Bill Samii is not a neutral or third-party source, he's blatantly partisan, one of his papers is titled "The mad, mad world of Iranian foreign policy"[53]. If we quote such biased characters here, then we should also quote Armenian writers, even if biased, on Church of Kish, and other Azerbaijan-related articles.AlexanderPar 01:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And who is Kaveh Farrokh? If he is biased like Bill Samii, then the source should be removed from this article.AlexanderPar 01:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Kaveh Farrokh is biased as he is now an expert specializing in attacks on Azerbaijan and Turkey. A perfect example is this [54], the most blatant piece of anti-Turkism, ethnic hatred, OR, image copyright violations, which this "PhD" calls a book. And here [55], this "scholar" goes as far as doing racist comparisons of African American and white man.Atabek 02:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Mess (2)

This article is a mess. And it gets worse by the day.

1. Bulk quotes belong into Wikisource if they are useful, but not into this article. The article needs to be referenced, but not be overloaded with more or less irrelevant quotes.
2. The notion of "neutrality", espoused by editor AlexanderPar has little or nothing to do with NPOV. Particularly if you AlexanderPar set yourself up to be the judge of who neutral enough for your liking. Please give the relevant polices a good read, until you a) read them and b) understood them, please cease to delete other people's edits.
3. What is going on here is essentially edit warring and borders onto vandalism.
4. Accusations of "Soapboxing" etc are essentially attemps at undermining other contributing editors. Please stop!

Polices relevant for this article:

1. Wikipedia:Quotations
2. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view - you could also look here Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial
3. Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

Refdoc 21:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute of which you are now involved, so, even though you are an admin, I dont think you can order people around or make assumptions so quickly. Alexanderpar also already invited everyone to an RFC. Alexanderpar is 100% correct here and has made a very clear and good rational. Not all sources can be used, just because a statement is sourced does not mean its true. Sources have to be scrutinized and evaluated with relation to Wikipedia neutrality. He is not the judge of what is bias and what is not, Alexanderpar has actually provided facts and evidence showing the bias of these sources. The sources being used are not biased and not third party. You are another user like the rest of us, and being involved in this content dispute means that your word has no more weight than anyone else regarding the content here. This is a content dispute and you are on one side of it. Alexandpar is not alone here, I support what hes saying also, as he is correct here (based on facts and Wikipedia policies). If you dont agree, just open an RFC and follow a dispute resolution process instead of throwing around accusations and calling other editors vandals. Removing biased sources is not vandalism. Alexanderpar has also read the rules clearly, and you, being an admin, I'm sure know them as well, so you should know that Alexanderpar has not done anything wrong.

Just because a statement is not sourced does not mean its true. I can probably find a source saying that Hitler was a Jew himself, but this does not make it true, and this does not mean I can just insert it into the Hitler article, first the sources reliability should be checked. Another example would be if we used an Iranian government funded organization as a source about Human Rights in the United States, dont you think that would be biased? Its the same here, using US funded organizations as sources in this article violates Wikipedia's policies.

You are an involved editor in a content dispute, just because you have administrative privileges does not mean that you can just make blanket statements that one side is wrong and the other is right without first reading everything Alexanderpar has said. Again, he has proven that these sources are not reliable. Alexanderpar has my support and he is also backed up by Wikipedia's guidelines.Hajji Piruz 23:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand NPOV. It is not about quoting unbiased sources, but making clear that these are the range of opinions on an issue and stating them clearly. At present, the article is a collection of quotations intended to lead the reader to a certain conclusion: that foreign governments are responsible for ethnic unrest. I personally don't think the use of unnamed "intelligence" sources (which could mean anyone) by journalists with a certain agenda is factual, but I am still prepared to see these views represented on this article so long as they are seen as opinions rather than facts and are counter-balanced by other opinions on this issue.

Additionally, I have said this before and I will say it again, there is absolutely nothing on the history and culture of ethnic groups in Iran. Moreover, every ethnic group in Iran is a minority, including the various Persian groups. There are lots of Persian cultures that consider themselves unique and distinct, but are just lumped together with a Farsi mainstream. Instead of dealing with these issues, the article appears to be a loose polemic built around a series of lengthy quotations.

I would like people to at least take note of what Refdoc is saying and work towards creating a better article instead of thinking he is accusing any "side" of wrongdoing. He is the second admin to point out the problem of lengthy quotations, so isn't it time to make the article look at least more encyclopaedic, regardless of the issue of POV and sourcing issues?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Several corrections:

1. While I am an administrator, I have not made use of admin privileges.
2. Whether I am an "involved editor" is arguable - my last relevant edit on this article was sometime in 2005.
3. The discussion above and the revert history of the article shows that this is not a simple and ordinary content dispute, but that there is disruptive editing going on.

I personally do not wish to become involved in this article - neither as editor nor as administrator, but think what is happening just now is a shame, hence my admonishment. Refdoc 23:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should stick to Wikipedia's rules and policies, and I'm sure you do also. By Wikipedia's rules and policies, Alexanderpar is correct here, therefore, he cant be the one making disruptive edits. Thanks for your comment. He has clearly shown that the sources that the other parties are attempting to insert into the article are US funded or the authors are biased (come on, in these days with the US and Iran hostilities, is it really fair to be using US government funded sources in an article about how ethnic minorities in Iran are treated?), when he has shown this fact, what more is there to discuss. I think it would be better to talk to the people who insist on using bias sources in the article rather than the person who is trying to abide by Wikipedia's rules and policies, thats just my opinion.

Another point that you should know about, is that Alexanderpar clearly showed that one of the sources clearly makes false claims (such as claiming that there isnt media in local languages, which is false, see Azari (magazine) for example.)Hajji Piruz 23:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There is in fact nothing wrong with using US funded sources (or for that matter Iranian government), whether this is on Iran or on any other subject. The point is that under NPOV we should try and capture the whole (relevant) range of opinions and not try and discount some sources for their inherent bias. The way to handle is goes like this:

A says blahblahblah, B opposes this view, claiming that rhubarbrhubarbrhubarb. Various sources (ref 1-10) point out that A is fully employed/largely funded/receives sponsorship by C and D. Other sources (ref11-23) assert that these funding arrangements are not relevant in this matter, a view disputed again by others (ref 44, 47 and 49)

Refdoc 00:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been follwing this page and the related discussions since I am an Iranian Arab, and I have to agree with Alexanderpar, and thank him for trying to keep this article neutral. While this article is not perfect and needs a lot of imporvment, certain people here, who themslves are "pro-x" or "pro-y" ethnic activests, are trying to turn this article into an Iran-bashing orgy by quoting biased sources with agendas. this articles needs neutral sources and neutral editors. getting a range of opinions is good, but through neutral sources. - ahvazikaka

Interesting - the first Arab I have come across who uses the Farsi spelling of Ahwaz.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is that we are in no position to define what exactly is neutral, which source or which editor. What we can do is referring to the various POVs. Refdoc 00:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Refdoc, your condescending tone and attacks toward me are disappointing to say the least, but I'll address your points. You say "whole (relevant) range of opinions ", the keywords here are relevant and significant, the opinion of a biased ideologue like Bill Samii who makes no secret of his biases, and is employed by a US governmental organization, on Iranian affairs, is neither relevant nor significant, just as the opinion of notoriously anti-Semitic historian David Irving, on Jewish affairs, is neither relevant nor significant. By your logic, David Irving would be a legitimate source for Jewish pages, or nationalist Armenian writers would be legitimate sources for Azerbaijani pages. I will elaborate on this more, I am in a rush now. AlexanderPar 01:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, AlexanderPar has been POV pushing on Iran newspaper cockroach cartoon controversy, removing AI and HRW sources as "biased" too. From pattern of his edits, seems like the only reliable source is IRI media :) Another interesting revert is here [56], where Qajar family website says they're Turkoman, and AlexanderPar insists they're Turkmen not Turkoman. On Yeprem Khan, removing word-to-word quote taken from the book by Iranian Armenian writer, and actually calling it "Turkish POV" [57]. It seems that this form of prejudged removal of references (or simply POV pushing) by AlexanderPar is not only the case on this particular page. Atabek 02:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

More personal attacks and baseless accusations. Where have I ever endorsed or even quoted IRI media? I removed an Iranian government mouthpiece as a reference from this article[58], which makes your bad-faith accusations even more astonishing. My position has all along been that ALL government-funded sources should be avoided on this particular sensitive subject, and we should stick with third-party sources. AlexanderPar 04:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, the editing of Turkoman back to Turkmen is on good grounds - the problem does not lie with AlexanderPar, but with the English language. Turkmen describes a number of disparate and ethnically separate entities of Turkic origin. The problem is known and unresolved, but introduction of non-English terms to separate out one group from the others doe snot make sense either. Particularly if teh chosen term is little more than a new catchall. I am here with AlexanderPar. But this is actually beside the point inthis article. Refdoc 09:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

AlexanderPar, please, assume good faith. I don't see how you were attacked above, when diffs are provided along with analysis of your edits. The copy of this is presented in ArbCom as well. Regarding your comment on Iranian sources, you mean Mehrnews is not an IRI source? Thanks. Atabek 05:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You're the one making bad-faith assumptions, and making baseless accusations that I somehow believe that "the only reliable source is IRI media ". Mehrnews is actually an independent news agency, I haven't seen any proof to the contrary, but that's a moot point as Mehrnews hasn't been cited in this article. AlexanderPar 06:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Refdoc, thanks for your comments. But you have to understand the context here. It was agreed with users such as Dacy69, Atabek, and others, based on other articles and other content disputes, that only reliable, neutral, unbiased third party sources should be used. We have applied this rule to many other articles where the same editors are involved and the result has been successful. But for some reason, when it comes to Ethnic minorities in Iran, they want to use US funded organizations as sources. Thats like using a Greek government funded sources about Turkey or Turkish government funded sources about Greece...(as you may or may not know, Turkey and Greece arent exactly the best of friends, so it wouldnt be fair to either one to use the other as a source)Hajji Piruz 15:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Refdoc, look at this for example The U.S. and Iran struggle makes use of proxies, propaganda and economic pressure. Wikipedia should not be a battle ground for governments to attack each other. You cannot use two enemies as sources against each other, that makes no sense. This is like using Armenian sources in the Ethnic minorities in Azerbaijan article. If you think its ok to add US government funded sources here, can we use other government sources on other articles regarding other topics?

We might not be in a position to define "neutral" but we can certainly say that a hostile government to Iran and it's affiliate organizations are not neutral. This is an encyclopedia, not a platform for nations. We can't go to the Bosnia article and write the views of Serbian nationalists and present them as facts. Common sense tells us to use neutral sources. If parties disagree on the neutrality of the source, then it should be talked about. AlexanderPar took out Kaveh Farrokh, even though he is a highly reliable source and an acclaimed historian and linguist, just because he is half Iranian (infact, Grandmaster, Dacy69, and Atabek have all prevented the use of Kaveh Farrokh as a source on many articles, simply because he is half Iranian, even though he is a reputable person). We need sources that are not affiliated with the US government.Hajji Piruz 15:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with quoting someone who is half Iranian or half anything? I think the views of Serbian nationalists are highly important on the Bosnia article since people would want to know their justifications for their actions in Bosnia, and then draw their own conclusions. Similarly, it doesn't matter if a government hostile to another government is quoted when there is an evident dispute, providing we make it clear who is saying what and the various criticisms. There is a political debate over ethnic minorities - is there increasing unrest due to Iranian government policy or foreign interference, have minorities ever felt part of Iranian culture or are they always inclined towards secessionism? We need to put all significant POVs on this, particularly from governments accused of involvement in Iran's domestic affairs. If all views were presented fairly and in an impartial manner, without drawing our own conclusions, then the article is straight-forward to edit.

Refdoc's advice should be noted in order to improve the article: "A says blahblahblah, B opposes this view, claiming that rhubarbrhubarbrhubarb. Various sources (ref 1-10) point out that A is fully employed/largely funded/receives sponsorship by C and D. Other sources (ref11-23) assert that these funding arrangements are not relevant in this matter, a view disputed again by others (ref 44, 47 and 49)"--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Then we should be quoting Saddam on Ethnic minorities in Iran according to your logic. I am sorry, but Wikipedia requires impartial sources. The viewpoint of "analysts" affiliated with US government are neither impartial, nor relevant to this topic. On controversial topics like this, sources should be impartial, neutral and third party. AlexanderPar 05:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, why not quote Saddam? He is referred to in this article, so it would be good to have a quote from him on his policy.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we actually should. If we discuss foreign involvement and you find a Iraqi government reference quoting Saddam asking his "Arab brethren in Khuzistan to rise against their Persian oppressors" (I am making this up) then this is a highly relevant source as it offers a clear support to the thesis that some/much ethnic unrest in Iran has outside backing. A supposed sentence could go like this (all utterly and completely fictitious:

"In 1981 Saddam asked Khusistani Arabs to rise against the Iranian government and support his invasion(see Annals of Iraqi Parliament). Various sources claim (ref 7-11) that at the same time several million dollars were donated by the Iraqi government to Iranian opposition forces working from abroad, mostly Arabistan Front (ref15) and Hezb-e Shahparasti (ref17-20). A number of exiled Iranian politicans took up residence in Najaf (Ayatollah Poshtekuhi) and Baghdad (Admiral Biwafai). Several of the organisations supported by Iraq (ref 23-29) aqre organised along ethnic lines and demand either autonomy (ref6) or full independence for their clientele"

Most of the references in this sentence could be Iraqi government sources - absolutely nothing wrong with this. In fact a lot more immediate and useful then supposed third part sources. If you then want to discuss the actual impact of this foreign support you are obviously on safer ground if you look for neutral sources.

"The successful secession of Bakhtiaristan in 2015 was according to the majority of academic observers paid for by the Government of Central Nigeria (ref 23-40) though Bakhtiaristan government sources deny this. The final success of the revolution relied heavily on the presence of Indonesian voluntery militias (ref 41-56). According to various observeres (ref34-46) the revolutionary leadership of Bakhtiaristan was ready to capitulate in spring 2014, when the suddenly increasing outside support changed the situation."

So to summarise this - uncontentious facts can be just as well - and often better - be ascertained by primary sources, including hostile ones, while contentious analysis must rely much more on sourcing independent views. Refdoc 10:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Refdoc has come up with the most sensible advice to date on how to write this article. It is not a matter of making a case one way or another, but stating all the views and developments impartially. I don't see that there should be any controversy from any side on what he has said.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am commenting in response to the RFC. I think the best way to handle this is to acknowledge that outside parties have an interest in the internal disputes of Iran -- maybe have a paragraph on the history of this, especially the various foreign-sponsored coups d'etat. Then, have a subsection for each viewpoint that can reliably be attributed to an external sponsoring agency. --Marvin Diode 16:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There has been past involvement in Iran, but in terms of current events, it is a debatable issue whether ethnic unrest is caused by outside powers of government policies. I reject the idea that ethnic unrest is caused by foreign governments and think it is the result of ethnic discrimination and persecution, as outlined in various reports by human rights organisations and UN experts. So I am not prepared to "acknowledge that outside parties have an interest in the internal disputes of Iran" in relation to current ethnic unrest, because I think this is a certain point of view (one that is shared by the Iranian regime) rather than a fact. I don't mind their opinions being stated in this article, providing other opinions are also stated to counter-balance and achieve NPOV.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 17:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not true at all. Several times the US and others have been shown to support unrest in Iran. Canadian parliament members frequently met with Iranian seperatist organizations. Israel has a hand in training Kurdish rebels. The list goes on and on...You have to show evidence that foreign powers are not involved in Iran.Hajji Piruz 17:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The only "evidence" to support these claims is a few unnamed "intelligence sources" and a photo of a guy shaking the hand of a former Canadian minister, but even these sources do not support what you are saying about the extent of involvement. The foreign powers accused by the Iranian government have all issued denials. In contrast, there is plenty of evidence to support the claim that Iranian government policies are fuelling unrest.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Seymour Hersh published an article saying that the US had undercover teams in Iran. Plus, there is plenty of published material suggesting that the US helped overthrow Mossadegh, and that the British helped overthrow the Shah -- why would they change their behavior now? Do you think that they have suddenly become indifferent to Iran? --Marvin Diode 02:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That's Hersh's theory based on some pretty vague sources. There are also many sources saying that Iran is doing exactly the same in neighbouring countries. It is a trade in accusations, but the actual factual basis is not proven. We do know that there is ethnic dissent in Iran and that various reports by UN experts and human rights organisations indicate ethnic discrimination and persecution by the regime. It is not inconceivable that the two are related. This, at least, must be given equal prominance as the Tehran-backed conspiracy theories that vilify and dismiss grass-roots movements as foreign agents.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This article indicates that the US has contact with ethnic-based movements, but is not taking the relationship any further: [59]. It quotes a member of Komalah saying: We don’t know what strategy U.S. is following. They show sympathy [for us], they condemn violations of human rights, nationalities, women. This is said. But there is no strategy. We still don’t know what the U.S. want to do with this regime I hope this provides some reassurance, Marvin.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually "many sources confirm that the US has increased its aid to armed movements among the ethnic minorities that make up about 40% of Iran's population. ABC News reported in April that the US had secretly assisted the Baluchi group Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), responsible for a recent attack that killed 20 Revolutionary Guards." User:Ahwaz expects the US to openly admit supporting ethnic unrest in Iran (which would violate the UN charter), and only then accept that statement as a true source.--Zereshk 03:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I remember the ABC News report [60] - it said the US was giving support to the Al-Qaeda-affiliated organisation Jundullah, quoting unnamed "US officials". Doesn't it strike you as absurd that US officials would admit to funding Al-Qaeda? There are similar reports in the Kuwaiti press stating that Iran is facilitating the entry of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Iraq to stir up unrest there and assist in the trade in drugs[61]. I don't believe that either the US or Iran are funding Al-Qaeda as this would be completely against their own interests, but I do believe that some journalists can earn a lot of money out of sensationalising Chinese whispers. We should bear in mind the fact that these articles rely on unnamed sources making such incredible when assessing their verifiability. But if such conspiracy theories have a place in an encyclopaedia, let's put them all in Wikipedia and not just those who claim that ethnic rights movements are a US invention, including claims that Iran is supporting Al-Qaeda.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 09:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• It doesnt strike me as absurd that US officials would admit to funding Al-Qaeda, because we've already seen how the US has supported groups like MKO, when in fact they are internationally known terrorist organizations. Read my report. It's still on the web.
• Nobody isnt "admitting" anything. That's why theyre "unnamed". If they were officially admitting, they would be violating the UN charter.
• If you have a thing against un-named sources, take it to WP. Because WP has not set a mandate for you to verify unnamed sources. But remember, everyone is using it. Do you think HRW and Amnesty actually have named reporters in Iran? And even if they did, what makes you think they are any more reliable than Seymour Hersh or abc News?--Zereshk 14:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So, would you be happy with allegations of Iranian support for Al-Qaeda on Wikipedia? After all, Iran has a proven track-record of supporting groups involved in terrorist attacks, eg Hizb al-Da'wa's attacks in Kuwait. That is the logic of your argument. In fact, it would be easy for me to compile a long list of quotes to give credence to a conspiracy theory as strong (or as weak) as the one created in this article. I could also publish some articles on a blog on Iranian.com and reference them in this article.

Yes, I trust Amnesty more than any journalist, particularly those journalists whose livelihood depends on conspiracy theories. Unlike Hersh, Amnesty doesn't sensationalise and treats all governments equally. Also, UN officials and the UN General Assembly have backed its claims regarding the Iranian regime's racial discrimination.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 16:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A tit for tat? Sure, go ahead and post them. Knock yourself out. But remember this too:

1. Iran's alleged support of Al-Qaeda would be 100% irrelevant on this article. Youd have to post that stuff elsewhere.
2. I could also post a long list of articles refuting your claims. Here's for starters:[62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70]. So fire away. And be prepared. If theres anyone that supports Al-Qaeda, it's the Persian hating Sunni Arabs, and neocon infested British lackeys of the Buch Co that have an invested interest in seeing Iran fall. :)--Zereshk 17:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting tit-for-tat, but that there is an undue weight given to extraordinary conspiracy theories in this article that support the Iranian government's position. This could be dealt with quite easily by addressing the length and number of quotations.

You may believe that Sunnis, the British, the Americans and Al-Qaeda are co-ordinating some campaign against the Persians, but a better place for these theories are blogs rather than encyclopaedias.

I note that you have yet to respond to my earlier suggestions, although you said you would.

We have to decide whether this is an article about ethnic minorities or allegations surrounding Western foreign policy.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are for opinions, not sourced material. And if "allegations surrounding Western foreign policy" relate to Iran's minorities, then they belong here.--Zereshk 20:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And btw, I dont think HRW or Amnesty are any more reliable than abc or Newsweek. Ive already demonstarted once that HRW has lied about Iran. Everyone has an agenda, when it comes to Iran.--Zereshk 09:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I remember HRW getting into trouble for its report on the MEK, which relied on information from Iranian intelligence agents who duped their researchers. But journalists and politicians tend to be the least reliable sources in my experience, while HROs rarely get information wrong.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We all choose who to beleive in, dont we.--Zereshk 21:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hamid can you please explain (perhaps by examples) what exactly do you mean by Racial and Ethnic Discrimination in Iran? So we can underestand your point of view better. Arash the Archer 22:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fairly self-explanatory. It is discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity. There is plenty of evidence in reports by UN experts and human rights NGOs of discrimination. For Arabs, it mostly affects land rights and housing. See [71] for a good article on shanty towns in Ahwaz - it is written by Iranian communist Mehdi Kia, who cannot be accused of being either pan-Arabism or neo-conservatism.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

But he can be accused of being severely biased against Iran. Communists were allied with the MKO and Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. Just look at their emblem. It speaks for itself: [72]--Zereshk 06:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is disingenuous of you to portray him as an ally of MEK when you know nothing about him. This particular communist has been campaigning against military action on Iran as well as being against the Iranian regime. Many Tudeh members went on to support Khomeini. If being against the regime is anti-Iran, then many, many Iranians are anti-Iranian!--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 09:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)