Jump to content

Talk:Ethnic minorities in Iran/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

An idea

I addressed some of your concerns on the talk page of Ethnic minorities in Iran. But I have a better idea, why don't you do a complete re-write of the article yourself, the way you think the article should be, and upload your re-write on Refdoc/Ethnic minorities in Iran, then the rest of the editors, from both side, can throughly discuss your preferred version of the article on the talk page and point out specific issues/problems to be amended, in order to reach a compromise and find a common ground. AlexanderPar 08:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC) ('moved from my talkpage Refdoc 09:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC))

Thanks, but this is not a useful approach:
  1. I do not want to edit this article, I want that you work together to make it work.
  2. I have actually not seen anyone yet addressing my concerns. Instead I see more and more people here accusing each other. The concerns I raised were
    1. use of quotes,
    2. treatment of 'biased' sources and
    3. uncivil behaviour.
  3. I have realised in the meantime, by looking around that several of you are involved in at least one ArbCom case about a related subject. I would therefore strongly suggest that all those involved in the ArbCom case - which mainly appears to be about bad editing practises - take a good hard look at their behaviour on this article.
Refdoc 09:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not several, almost everyone involved with this article is a party to a new arbcom case. Ahwaz, Zereshk and you are the only ones who are not parties to the arbcom case. I would prefer more third party editors getting involved with this and other region related articles. Grandmaster 10:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

History section

It's full of selective POVish quotes from questionable sources, and is by no means neutral or balanced. If "foreign involvement" is tagged for POV, so should the history section. AlexanderPar 03:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? It is difficult to read minds.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 10:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect information in this article

What seems disturbing to me is that the individuals, who are propagating the current Iranian regime's point of view in each and every article related to Iran, do not acknowledge Amnesty International or UN as valid and neutral sources. Furthermore, they apparently lack in-depth knowledge about the various ethnic groups in Iran and the conditions in which they live in. More specifically they claim that the Balochs supported Iran in their war against Iraq, but on the contrary throughout the history the Balochs have resisted all subsequent Persian/Iranian dynasties. Nevertheless, the Balochs have never identified themselves with the ruling Persian elite. They have always regarded the Persians as suppressors.

The chauvinists do also make false allegations regarding the Persian language being the primary and the preferred language in Iran. Well, I know of many Balochs who don't even understand nor speak Persian. In a scientific viewpoint, their mother tongue, which is Balochi, classifies as the primary language and Persian as their secondary, not the other way round. Furthermore, I don’t know of any university in Iran in which the Balochi language is taught. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morara (talk • contribs) 01:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Using such words as "chauvinist" or accusing other editors to be propagandists of a political power, is against the policies of Wikipedia.If you have any different opinion, you can discuss it in the talk page and the result can be applied to the article.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

I fail to see logic here. Welsh and English are completely different languages. So either this passage shouldn't be in the article (if the languages in question are only regional variations of Persian) or they shouldn't be called regional variations. Alæxis¿question? 09:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Opinion

It is a shame to see that this so-called encyclopedia is used for political purposes.

Actually, everyone is trying to put its own statistics and opinions without any proof or valid source. The sources themselves are often political (from CIA or other dummy spreading organisms). Why not using data from the Chinese secret services then about their Tibetan minority????

Honestly, if the administrators of this website have some honour and aren't politicaly or pecuniary motivated, they should: - forbid the addon of any statistic, "quotation" or comment without a non political and strong source - forbid some sentences turned more like rumours - clean the article, full sometimes of grammar errors... - manage to gather good sources about Iran and all other topics in general - forbid changes by spammers and other people more concerned about their personnal views rather than the continuity of the wiki project

Do it guys, you are loosing credibility... And this is a hard thing to recover.Karach1979 (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karach1979 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Article in poor state

This article does little to describe the ethnic minorities of iran, and mostly repeats a possibly-political inspired message that they're only iranian, and at times without adequate sourcing. while this is certainly the official view of the Iranian Regime, other views must be well-represented, in particular bother is the attempt to discredit dissenting opinions as 'western', as if that makes them inherently incorrect or biased (unlike the regime's line?). I'll try to stick around and make some changes, as this is an important article. MiS-Saath (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction with ethnic minority pages

The various ethnic minority pages all claim that these minorities are culturally distinict from their surroundings, and speak Farsi as a second language, while this article claims that they're mostly culturally indistinguishable from their neighbours as part of a pan-iranian pseudoethnic relation, and speak Farsi as a first language. the two claims cannot possibly coexist together. MiS-Saath (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Where doe sthe article claim the ethnic minorities of Iran speak Persian as their first language? --Nepaheshgar 12:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
the Iranian arabs article claims that Iranian Arabs speak arabic as their first language. the Kurdish people article claims Kurds have various secondary languages, such as Arabic, Farsi, et cetera. It's all in the articles. MiS-Saath (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This article makes no claim to the contrary, I am a Kurd and I assure you that Iranian Arabs and Kurds speak their mother tongue as their first language, and Persian as a second language. Other than that, please be specific, and list your concerns one by one, so that they can be reviewed and rebuked if needed. --CreazySuit (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Your personal testimony is not a reliable source. the Kurdish People article explicitly states: "Most Kurds are bilingual or polylingual, speaking the languages of the surrounding peoples such as Arabic, Turkish and Persian as a second language.". If you can fix the contradiction, please do so in one of the articles, but you cannot simply remove tags based on your own testimony, in particular not with the edit summary you wrote, and in particular not when you include 'along the way' requests for citations for other statements. I assume you've done so in good faith, please revert your changes and make the correct amendment to one or more of the articles. MiS-Saath (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
What contradiction are you talking about? The Kurds in Syria and Iraq are bilingual with Arabic as their second language, the Kurds in Turkey are bilingual with Turkish as their second language, and the Kurds in Iran bilingual with Persian as their second language. This is a clear cut case, I see no contradiction here. --CreazySuit (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This article claims that Iranian kurds have Farsi as their first language, and Kurdish as second. the Kurdish people article claims that Iranian kurds have Kurdish as their first language and farsi as second. that's a contradiction. MiS-Saath (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Note that your revert further re-introduced a WP:SYNTH claim. MiS-Saath (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Where does this article claim that "Iranian kurds have Farsi as their first language, and Kurdish as second" ?--CreazySuit (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"...the fact that almost all of these groups speak Persian as their first language, and identify with their sub-identity only secondarily.". the time to ask these questions was before removing the tags. will you now self-revert, please? MiS-Saath (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Tagging and discussion

Adding tags does not constitute a major change to an article. these are not yet changes to an article. you cannot possibly request me to discuss adding tags, as adding tags is a method of alerting editors to the fact a discussion should take place. MiS-Saath (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the tag should be jusified. The reason you brought is good and so I removed the sentence. --Nepaheshgar 17:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Although this was meant for CreazySuit, it applies to you as well: If you have any question as to why tags are being placed, you ASK instead of removing them. tags don't add content, they highlight problems. even if you don't see the problem, i do. see the discussion i had with CreazySuit above. you are still requested to self-revert and re-add the tags, as the conflict still exists and citations are still needed for those sentences. furthermore, the mere presence of this 'general' sentence is out of scope. it may be more prudent to write that 'Iran sees these western opinions as blatant intervention in its internal affairs and alleges that it is against the UN's inadmissibility clause', but the UN's actual inadmissibility clause does not belong in this article at all. please self-revert and re-add the tags. MiS-Saath (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you need to justify the tags on the talkpage. You pointed out that a detail with regards to secondary and primary language and it was fixed. Initially you did not provide any detail. Putting a tag without giving details is not really responsible. The UN sentence is not out of scope, it is talking about foreign interference which is obviously against UN's inadmissibility caluse. --Nepaheshgar 01:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
It's okay to ask justification of tagging on talk pages. that's what tagging is for. what is NOT okay is to remove them immediately as they are introduced, without asking for clarification. furthermore, i DID provide detail, if you look at the edit history, the reason for adding the tags was in the talk page at that time. not seeing the problem is no reason to gun down tags, a mere minute after they've been introduced. will you please re-add the tags? the article conflict still exists. MiS-Saath (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
No you pointed the contradiction and it was fixed. See above. Unless you discuss and justify the tags, I do not see any valid reason to re-insert them. So where is there a contradiction? --Nepaheshgar 01:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
You simply removed the word 'first' without changing the meaning that it carried! it still says 'persian and their second ethnic language' and it further interprets as if they identify better with a persian identity, something the sentence no longer supports, if you accept that they have a primary language. MiS-Saath (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
For the fourth time, i request that you re-instate the tags and then discuss them! the change you made is a good start, but it is not a replacement for preventing the page from being tagged, so other editors could note the discrepencies and join the editing. MiS-Saath (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Again you need to discuss changes instead of unilaterally inserting tags. And tags need to be justified. If you provide a justification for the tags, then others will discuss it and then there can be an agreement. If there is no agreement, you can use RFC and then mediation in order to insert the tags. The article did not have the tags until you decided to insert it. So it is up to you to justify it and then receive feedback on the tags. --Nepaheshgar 01:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it cannot possibly work this way. tagging adds no content, inserting them IS a call for discussion! anyhow, the issues still exist in my opinion. are you going to re-insert the tags or not? MiS-Saath (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want an example how good process works, see Talk:Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. your fellow editor tagged the article as problematic, WITHOUT leaving any prior notice in the talk page, and still, an editor with doubts did not jump the gun and remove the tags automatically as both of you did. MiS-Saath (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Tagging is a form of content dispute. And I am my own editor, and wikipedia is not a battle ground (which you took as one with your message on the Arab world Wikipeda project). Anyhow if an editor does not leave prior notice, it does not mean others should not. I think providing a reason for tagging is essential. You provided one and that was fixed. Also you are adding the same information to at least three or more articles. This is in violate of WP:FORK. --Nepaheshgar 02:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Allegations of battle ground are a double-edged sword. i'm trying to add a human rights view to articles and i'm being bounced from article to article and opposed in battleground-style manner in concert. the content did not survive in the pages, so it's moot to talk about content forking (btw, not WP:FORK), not that this policy talks about what you suggest it does, anyway. Anyhow, it is still disputed, because i don't think your edit is enough. as i said earlier, You simply removed the word 'first' without changing the meaning that it carried! it still says 'persian and their second ethnic language' and it further interprets as if they identify better with a persian identity, something the sentence no longer supports, if you accept that they have their ethnic primary language. therefore i still see it under dispute. MiS-Saath (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
If you feel the sentence is unclear then clear it up. I think there is a general agreement that Kurds speak their own variety of Kurdish languages besides Persian. I have statistics that approximately 80% of people knew Persian in 1983 and now it is about 95%. It does not mean it is the first language of 95% of the population. I don't see the statement "Second ethnic language". It can be clarified if necessary but there is no disagreement among users on this particular issue. --Nepaheshgar 18:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it's not contradictory any more as is, but now the statement does not support the supposed conclusion at all - if they use their ethnic language as a primary language, how is it any support to their preference to being classified as persians? if anything, now it supports the converse - that there is merit in listing them by their ethnic classification. MiS-Saath (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

removing of sections waiting for citations for more than a year

I plan on removing sections that have been waiting for a citation for more than a year. it is high time these claims get referenced, as they contain possibly exaggerated and dubious claims. you may wish to review the article and add correct sources for these statements. MiS-Saath (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well , I add some citations , still have to cite other requests.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Good job, although there's one thing i'm not thrilled about: the article says "..and identify with their ethnic identity only secondarily", and the quoted source says (from the quote) "Frequently got answers such as...". It's not sufficiently strong to justify the claim that most identify with their persian identity more than their secondary identity. furthermore, you accidentally erased the last 'weasel word' tag for western, and furthermore removed one request for citation without adding a source, so i'm adding it back. but overall, it's definitely an improvement. MiS-Saath (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The sentence is " However, these statistics are largely discredited and viewed as flawed by Iranians themselves ,because the Western data ignores considerable intermarriage rates over centuries between these groups, and the fact that almost all of these groups speak Persian as well as their ethnic language, and identify with their sub-identity only secondarily"; speaking of "Iranians themselves" shows using Persian language sources are acceptable in citing this sentence.
About the weasel word tag for "western" , I don't get the idea . I mean here is a Iranian (traditional)view vs Western sociology view : which part in the word "western" is unknown ? (weasel?)
And which tag was removed ? Is it the one after this sentence? :balanced approach to the difficulties and opportunities caused by this diversity, particularly as this internal diversity has often been readily utilized by foreign powers,If yes , I think every time a citation is used , it may not be tagged by the reader : in answer to the first tag , I mentioned the section "foreign involvement":no need to repeat it twice .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Usage of 'western' sources imply that they're somehow inferior or lesser to iranian sources or politically motivated, just like the word 'colonial' i found in another article. We don't need to specify that the CIA is an american source or delve into the iranian-western conflict in each sourcing (which the article already does too deeply to my taste). We can't discriminate between western and iranian sources and the best to do would mix both. everybody can see that and assess its relative credibility themselves. you first erased the multiple tags and left a single one (acceptable), but then you removed the single one you left intact, which is problematic. In particular there is another problem in which there are allegations about the methodology/motives of the CIA without sufficient proof. We don't really know how it treats the mixed marriage and multiple identity issues. MiS-Saath (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Not to insist for the word "western" , but I had previously mentioned the difference between understanding of the word "ethnicity" in the western countries and old middle eastern societies : [1]Using the word "western" does not means to reject or decrease the western concept , but the nature and history has made a different understanding from the word ethnicity ,in the old world .In Iran, the groups are considered not to be lingual/racial , but cultural .In Iraq, both the Shia's and Sunnis are Arabic language and no difference in their race , but still every group consider itself from a different sect ( read : different ethnicity ) . By simulation of the situation of the countries in Europe , we can not understand the concept of ethnicity in the middle east. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This brings up a good point, which i think the article should reflect - one needs to discern between contesting the statistics and methodology (in our case, how are mixed-ethnicity iranians counted) and the concepts and meanings (i.e. what does it mean if there are X iranians born to (one/two) Lur/Bakhtiar/Kurd/Arab parents) and what role does ethnicity play in society and politics. as it is today, the two are mixed and it looks like a piece of bad apologetics, instead of reflecting the real issue to the reader. MiS-Saath (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Then do you agree that the word "western" in this article is not a weasel word ? Plus I do agree about the need of an explanation about the different meaning of the word ethnicity in the old middle eastern countries .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It's problematic. we don't 'mark' sources by political affiliation, gender, race or otherwise, even in borderline cases, much so when it's the CIA world factbook we're talking about... that's why there's a little air of stench to it. most readers already know that the CIA is the central intelligence agency of the united states and can judge its veracity on their own accord, we don't need to state them 'hey look, it's western'. Not that i'm saying that there isn't any bias (i can't determine that myself) it's just that we need to let the readers judge that, and for that we should endeavor to explain what might be wrong (i.e. mixed marriages possibly miscounted - and we need an alternative statistic for that because we don't know the methodology behind our statistics and in another subheading the implications of these statistics). P.S. i've already done my two reverts with relation to the anonymous IP disrupting our attempt to improve the article, i'd be happy if you revert them next time. MiS-Saath (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
CIA fact book is used in almost every article in Wikipedia , and mentioning it doesn't means it's not reliable . I think if the previous editors had problems with the source , they would put the tag of unreliable source upon the CIA source ; I mean perhaps the usage of the word "western" here is neutral. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bullet list

Can we get a bullet list or a table? it's easier so to observe the list of minorities and it is more eye pleasing. MiS-Saath (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sath, but this is an Encyclopedia article, not a list. That's the problem. If you want sometime more eye pleasing, I will add an interactive map which also serves as a list. --CreazySuit (talk) 08:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Please compare with Racial_demographics_of_the_United_States and see what i mean. i just think that since this is what the article deals with, it should be more clearer and not some text in a big paragraph. MiS-Saath (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

How is it now? The map both serves as a list and a map. --CreazySuit (talk) 08:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Much better. i think i've seen this map before on wikipedia, it's definitely in place here. MiS-Saath (talk) 10:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I do rely on Wikipedia as an easy to access source of knowledge almost all the time I am connected to the internet, but today I noticed some disappointing mistakes in this online encyclopedia. The ethnic dispersion map of Iran is seriously defect! It depicts the most parts of West Azerbaijan Province as Kurdish territories! Just when Urmia, more than 90% Azeri Turkish city, became Kurdish!! and when Khoy, nearly 100% Turkish Azeri city, transformed Kurdish!! Maku, at the pinpoint of the northern-most part of Iran; the border city of Bazargan, etc., these are all Turkish, but they have been falsely depicted Kurdish. The statistics given for the Azeri Turks is also biased, although it seems this statistic is interpreted from some official figures; i. e., it attributes the East and West and probably Zanjan provinces' population as Azeri Turks. However, there are many Azeri Turks living in the provinces like Qazvin, Hamadan, Gilan, Golestan, Isfahan and notably Tehran, the capital city. These are not included in the statistics. If there was a scientific estimate, according to some geographical knowledge from inside country, the map and statistics could be more reliable. It might be better to assess the whole statistics based on the population of single cities, not according the wholistic figure of the provinces. Provinces usually include cities with various ethnic people, e.g., there are some purely Kurdish cities inside West Azerbaijan (like Mahabad), or similar cases of Azeri Turkish cities in Gilan province (like Astara). Therefore, approximation of the population based on the provincial administrative boundaries can not lead to a reliable figure about ethnic diversity in Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.206.58 (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not like this ethnic map of Iran either. It is very simplistic But I did a count. Actually the numbers of the encyclopy of the Orient are closer to those from the CIA. the share of both Fars and Azeris is actually more modest than the CIA is giving. Do a count yourself, you will see. Notably the percentage of Shomalis and different Luris is understimated by the CIA source while percentage of Fars and Azeri is overestimated.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
In Wikipedia ,it does matters to cite the source and the map can be changed only by citing the reliable source . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Both images should include a description of the image; i.e. the source of the image or data. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


============

the map put in the page is perfectly inaccurate! kurdish accomodated lands are far smaller, instead of dreaming to steal western Azerbaijan kurds should think about their own lands which they dont want to take apperantly, like the kermanshah! the idea of friction between iranian turks and kurds is indeed induced by the enemies of both nations, wake up kurdish nuts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.187.45.251 (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 May 2012

The staistics about Irabn's ethnics is now obsolete and wrong, should be corrected

ArashKherad (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, sources for any article in Wikipedia should not be single journalist articles or delcarations, but rather books, official stattistic organisms and groups and university analysis (ex : congress library, cia world factbook, encyclopedia Iranica, etc...). Otherwise, any partisan position will affect the quality of this Encyclopedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArashKherad (talk • contribs) 08:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. As stated on the template, edit requests need to be in the form of "please change X to Y," not simply "please change X." elektrikSHOOS (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
When you have provided a more specific edit request, simply change the |answered= parameter in {{edit semi-protected}} from yes to no. This will reactivate the template. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of issues with this article

This article looks like a mess. Between the contributions of the centralists, the splittists and the correctness weevils, it is full of nonsense.

You could start by removing comical assertions, such as that the Azeri language is part of the Iranian language family. No, it isn't.Eregli bob (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2014

A link to the "Iranian Arabs" page should be included under 'See also" 184.145.84.30 (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Arjayay (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2014

Richard Armatage was never Sec of Defense, as listed (2004); he was number two guy at State under Collin Powe

Done and thanks Cannolis (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ethnic minorities in Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

'Black' Iranians

Shouldn't these people be mentioned? They've been there since BCE and many Africans who're enslaved by Turks and Arabs fled to Iran as well. Many Africans especially from nations with long histories with Iran such as Ethiopia have alot of people who go to and from Iran and vice versa. They're connected religiously as well (House of Solomon, Achaemenid Empire and Queen Esther from the Bible). This is coming from an Afro-Iranian. ;) 2606:6000:60C1:1D00:A463:F193:C09:E7CC (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ethnic minorities in Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ethnic minorities in Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Iran's Caucasians

Wikipedia is already known for idiocy... Now for Tats and Talyshes being "Turkic" groups. Wow! Congratulations! This article is such a reference-less load of crap... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.90.75.192 (talk) 10:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ethnic minorities in Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ethnic minorities in Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2017

MicroPoft14427 (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ethnic minorities in Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ethnic minorities in Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethnic_minorities_in_Iran/Archive_2&oldid=1136707370"