Talk:Iran/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Wildlife of Iran

I was thinking of adding these few lines to the Geography of Iran (section) along with this picture (source: Iran/French/FA & Wildlife of Iran):

Eurasian Lynx

"Bears in the mountains, wild sheep and goats, gazelles, wild pigs, wolves, jackals, panthers, Eurasian lynx, and foxes abound. Domestic animals include sheep, goats, cattle, horses, water buffalo, donkeys, and camels. The pheasant, partridge, stork, Eagles and falcon are native to Iran." SSZ (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the picture of the Lynx. The map of Iran was in just the right place. We don't need a picture for everything mentioned on th page. There are enough pictures in that section.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to remove the picture for that reason. Just move it around. I have rephrased the last paragraph as per recommendation below.SSZ (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I moved this section because it was at the top of the page and I feared that if someone added a comment a day or two after the last comment no one will see it. Please except my apologies if any trouble has been caused.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you keep the order for the interventions on this talk page because what you say is valid for ANY interventions. (logic)SSZ (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

When you put the Jungle picture in the article and said it had been discussed I think you were referring to this section. First of all I would like to say that it is a lovely picture and I would like to complement Argooya on his photographic skills. However I would like to point out that the average number of images per section is 3.9 (including introduction). This includes the massive number of images (thirteen) in the history section, which raises the average almost a whole image per section. I think six pictures are too much for 7 paragraphs, one of which is only a couple of sentences. It also pushes the map of Iran down so half of it is in the history section. This time we can't move it around because there is no more space. I did consider removing another picture, but Damavand is a natural feature symbolic of Iran and a satellite image in afew featured articles like Canada. It seems that the Lynx picture is proffered and it would be unfair to have three images relating to the environment and natural features. Removing the map of Iranian provinces is out of the question and it or a map similar to it has been in the article since I first joined under manu_kian_maheri 3 or 4 years ago. The Azadi Tower is also a symbol of Iran like the Eiffel Tower or the Statue of Liberty so I thought we should keep it. So, only three options remain: We either lengthen the geography section (but the article is too big already and this is difficult), or we could make a separate section for the wildlife section and move the Lynx picture there(I think this is a bit radical),or finally, and more sensibly we could just remove it. Anyway all of you know that the jungle only covers a small part of Iran and if we need another picture in the geography section I strongly suggest that it depicts a mountainous or arid or semi-arid area. If you see a problem in my logic please say so. I would also like to say that the sentences on wildlife are now a lot better and that it is a valuable piece of text in the article,Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

First I did NOT put the picture of the Jungle in this section or anywhere else. You keep confusing me with someone else - second time this happens! :-) Secondly, I agree that the Jungle picture needs to be discussed FIRST on this talk page (like for ANY picture). I wouldn't vote for its inclusion on Iran's page because it is "too generic" and mostly because we have enough pictures already. I would personally move it to Geography of Iran instead. Kind regards, SSZ (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry AGAIN! I don't know why I mistook you for someone else again. My sincere apologies.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

NO problem. SSZ (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Bordering Countries

It say that Iran borders Russia and Kazahkstan, I can see this being true if you count the water border of the Caspian Sea, but in the Caspian Sea Article, it doesn't say anything

Tanneropia (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Tanneropia

the reason is that in the other article some lobbies are active who prevent this formula. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Then iran and japan are side by side because of ocean?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.174.19.25 (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Needs better pictures

See pictures on Persian.asia : http://www.persian.asia/photos/album —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.127.153 (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/08/iran-archaeology/iran-photography (Cyrus tomb) http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/08/iran-archaeology/iran-photography (Persian griffin) http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/08/iran-archaeology/iran-photography (Persepolis) http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/08/iran-archaeology/iran-photography (Persepolis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.144.241 (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

dating back to 7000 BC.

Iran is home to one of the world's oldest continuous major civilizations, with historical and urban settlements dating back to 7000 BC And Human settlement on the territory of Iran dates back to at least 9000 BC.

(Amirmk (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

dating back to animals

9000 years is good but not enough.Even 90000 years old..Relatives of some kind of birds.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.174.19.25 (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but who's gonna find that among that amount of redundant rubbish under history section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micronie (talk • contribs) 11:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• As for 7000 BC, I made a similar remark on this talk page (now archived) which remained unheeded. Consider, for instance, the relatively recent findings in Darreh-ye Bolāghi, which belong to the Bakun period, corresponding to the 5th millennium BC. For details consult: Iran: Darre-ye Bolāghi, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. --BF 17:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Media Supertask

dear super task your I cannot open the link http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9371723 but the other one states "petty Median chieftain subject to the kingdom of Mannai in modern Iranian Azerbaijan; later tradition made him the founder of the Median empire. " It says that he was first a subject of Mannai but then managed to establish (his own) Median empire. Also in the Irnian books is he recognized as the establisher of the Median empire. The confusion comes [put simply] because it is assumed that after a period Median throne got conquered( by the Scythians probably), but the Median royal clan again defeated them. See Diakonov on the History of Media.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC) See my talk page for more--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

---

This sentence might need further investigation: "Iran is home to one of the world's oldest continuous major civilizations, with historical and urban settlements dating back to 4000 BC" - the site at Göbekli Tepe is said to be from 10.-11.000 BC - and that's the responsible archaelogist who says so..

Jan Eskildsen ¨¨¨¨ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.57.196.2 (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Iran in the Dutch Empire

Hello everyone! There is a discussion at Talk:Dutch Empire#Request For Comment: Map, because user Red4tribe has made a map of the Dutch Empire (Image:Dutch Empire 4.png) that includes significative parts of Iran. Would you like to comment? Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

New Map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dutch_Empire_new.PNG http://www.colonialvoyage.com/ square=tradingpost (Red4tribe (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

Still OR, POV and unsourced (yours is not not a credible source). Please discuss stuff at Talk:Dutch Empire#Request For Comment: Map. This was just a request for comment, not a discussion. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

the map is not correct, not only with regard to Iran but also elsewhere. In general the situation was like this: 1- there were lands which were controlled by Dutch, for example the Netherlands but also Batavia (Java). 2- There were "handelsposten" along the coasts that were controlled by the Dutch, but the "achterland" were not controlled. finally 3- there were places which were not under Dutch control but the Dutch were there for trade for example places in Iran and Japan.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

New Images & Policy

1. Mr. Samadi has proposed this picture for the demography section:

Changes in population of Iran

I think it is good and I propose to replace the pyramid of age with this picture (basically same info but easier to understand.)

2. Somebody else wanted to replace another picture: Generally speaking and for the future do we want to keep consensus as a rule before uploading new images on Iran's page? Please share your views, otherwise I will assume we keep it as it is now: that is, to discuss any new image on this talk page FIRST so people can comment on it. SSZ (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no specific opinion as to whether the picture proposed by Mr Samadi should replace another one. However, if it is decided to add the proposed picture to the main text, I suggest that the 6 zeros of the population numbers be suppressed; to compensate for this, either along the vertical axis or in the caption be mentioned that the numbers along the vertical axis are in units of 1000,000. As it stands, the six zeros are redundant and unnecessarily take too much space. --BF 21:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. we should replace 80,0000,0000 with "80K", 70,000,000 with "70K" and so on. However, I let Mr. Samadi change his file and upload the new image (if he wants to).SSZ (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will change it. But, when I want to create that image, I followed the pattern used in these images: Image:US Population Graph - 1790 to 2000.svg & Image:Historical population of NYS.png. These images are used in Demographics of the United States & New York, respectively. Thanks. --M samadi (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear M samadi, the examples to which you refer are in my opinion not really conform the prevailing standards: not only do the six zeros convey no meaningful information, they are even visually disturbing (this fact notwithstanding, please note that the lengths of the numbers amount to one-third of the total length of the actual diagram along the horizontal axis, which make the diagram to look rather disproportionate). SSZ has suggested to make "80,000,000" into "80K", etc. Firstly, "K" stands for "Kilo", $10^{3}$, so that "80K" would mean "80,000" (incidentally, the standard symbol for "Kilo" is "k" and not "K"); "M" (and not "m"), denoting "Mega", $10^{6}$, is the symbol to be used. Secondly, it is not necessary to let "M" follow all numbers, which would be replacing one redundancy with another; letting the highest number (in the present case "80") to be followed by "M" would suffice. However, since a good number of people would not know what exactly "M" stands for, I suggest one of the following two options: (1) Add a vertical text to the vertical axis, such as "[Million]", or (2) indicate in the caption that "population numbers are in units of 1,000,000", or something similar. Incidentally, the diagram proposed by M samadi very nicely shows three distinguishable population-growth rates, corresponding, roughly, to pre-revolution, war-years and post-war-years periods; it seems that the rate of the post-war years nearly coincides with that of the pre-revolution years. M samadi: could you please determine (numerically, using linear regression) the slopes of the last-mentioned three straight lines and indicate the results in the caption of the figure? Kind regards, --BF 09:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Which one do you prefer? Image:Iran Population 1880-2005.JPG or Image:Iran Population Change 1956-2006.JPG? I can adjust other settings such as color or gridlines. But one of them includes the estimated values since 1881. I used the persian version of the latter in this article --M samadi (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear M samadi, my preference goes to the first diagram (i.e. the one covering the period 1880-2005) for the simple reason that it is more complete and therefore more valuable. One suggestion however. Although personally I have no problem with the number representation along the time axis, I can imagine that some people might have problem with it. Consequently, I should like to suggest that you present years in intervals of twenty years so as to create space for numbers to be presented in the usual manner (in this way, only the years 1880, 1900, ..., 2000 will be shown). There is also the possibility of showing the numbers obliquely (let us say at 45 degrees). Could you please also make the dots (or circles) slightly larger so that the distinction between the interpolation curve and the actual data points becomes more evident? One other thing: you might also consider the possibility of showing the derivative with respect to time of the interpolation curve as an inset — the rate of growth or of decline (specifically the locations of near discontinuities in the rate) invariably signify social/economic/natural events that one can easily identify. For instance the kink at 1978 really coincides with the pre-revolution time when many people were staying at home (because of the strikes), and consequently, well, procreating. I very vividly remember that time, when almost every woman seemed to be either pregnant or mother of a new-born baby. Further, by the end of the WWI, Iran suffered from a severe famine (which was partly, but not entirely, a result of profiteering of some merchants and middlemen). I believe the kink in the data points just past 1920, signifies this famine (although counter-intuitive, when humans are faced with mortal danger they reproduce more, apparently to save their race/genes). With kind regards, --BF 14:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for your suggestions. I agree with your idea about oblique numbers. Because if I present years in intervals of 20 years, the end of the x-axis (year 2010) remains without number that is a little unsuitable. I will also increase the size of dots in the diagram. But about the line slope and attributing the changes to events, I think there is not enough space in the diagram to present so much information. I think it is better to analyze the graph in the article. Do you have any idea about the color? white is better or gray?--M samadi (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear M samadi, I go for grey (preferably light grey) as it creates a nice contrast with the background which is white. As for the inset, the north-west part of the 1880-2006 diagram is empty, in contrast to the 1956-2005 diagram, so there is some space for an inset. In any case, please do whatever you feel most comfortable with. Kind regards, --BF 14:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC).

I uploaded the new image and used it in the article. --M samadi (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. The image looks wonderful. Kind regards, --BF 22:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have prefered a color picture instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.242.209 (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we talk about current issues on this page and other events linked o Iran?

Is it possible to discuss current events in Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Iraq and the Gulf in relation to Iran. I think US war preparations are very relevant and should be talked about on the page with a link to a whole new page.

This article for example could be used as a source and it explains the link between tensions in Lebanon with war preparations against Iran and Syria. [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.162.131 (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It is by no doubt a prophoganda article. If what you have to write is nothing like : Iran naturally should be the world 1st scientific superpower, or that the history of iran is more glories than those of all other countries so it will be useless to try writing it here, it will soon be deleted.

You should also avoid writing about that iran executing and executed teens who were blamed for being too provocative-even when it had no factual basis. Don't remind the traffic problems this 1st world country have or that their supreme leader, kaminnai, declare at 1980 that he is willing to put iran on fire if it will strength the islam, and that their great present president doing is best to get into an apocalyptic nuclear war with Israel and that he is being supported by many Iranians. You should also avoid telling that about 150,000 academics are leaving this country each year or about anything else that have no good sources-i.e., those of official iran government .

Demographics & Homosexuality

Here's a thought: the country's president claims there are no homosexuals living in Iran. I think at some point this should appear under demographics as this is not common among other countries and it clearly identifies a unique situation in Iran. In contrast to a different statistic, literacy rate for example, I think this piece of information on Iran is deserving of attention. Not to mention the fact that homosexuality isn't even touched under the main articles of demography or Iranian people.

If an expert on this topic cannot be found, I believe the statement by the country's president should be used to substantiate this.

Reference: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hATGOzv6YSmgeMY1zdYbdpyrG2cw

68.144.98.178 (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an opportunity for me to mention a matter or two that to my opinion have not been touched upon in the media. Before doing so, it is appropriate to remind ourselves of what the President has said:

"No gays in Iran, says Ahmadinejad", YouTube.

Explicitly, he said: "We in Iran do not have gays like in your countries".

Firstly, I am not an Ahmadinejad apologist, but believe that integrity demands that I should say what our sound-bite media fail even to try to understand. The qualification of Mr Ahmadinejad, namely "like in your countries", is the key component of his response. To appreciate this, one has to realise the cultural differences and the social background of in particular Mr Ahmadinejad. (I grew up in Iran and consequently know the nuances that are relevant for this understanding.) The perceptions of almost all Iranians who have not had experience of living in Western countries are informed by two implicit assumptions: Firstly, that all homosexual men were paedophiles, or pederasts. Historically, one may argue that pederasty entered into Iranian culture following Alexander's victory over Iran; to understand the extent of pederasty in Iran, in particular during the Qajar era (those who are familiar merely with the poetry of Iraj Mirza must be well-aware of the extent of this phenomenan — somewhere he says, in the most elegant verse, Khodā-yā bach'che-bāzi khod che kār ast - Ke bar ān ālem-o āmi do-chār ast?, which very roughly translates as: O God what is pederasty for an occupation - In which both the learned and the common men are involved?), but also in other eras (Soltan Mahmood Ghaznavi had a boy lover named Ayāz) (read the poetry of Vahshi Bafghi whose mere residence in Qazvin has made that to say that someone is from Qazvin has become an euphemism for saying that that person is a pederast), one has to read the excellent book by Afsaneh Najmabadi, Women with Mustaches and Men without Beards: Gender and Sexual Anxieties of Iranian Modernity (University of California Press, 2005). ISBN 0-520-24263-7. Insofar as I am aware, pederasty remains rife in today's Afghanistan, another outpost of Alexander's army, and that is the major reason why the Taliban régime insisted on young men wearing beards and banned Western-style haircuts for men (ask any journalist who has spent some time in Afghanistan, and they will tell you the stories of some powerful men fighting with each other for gaining the favour of a young boy with whom they may have fallen in love). Secondly, Iranian society being a patriarchal society, it is unable to recognise that gay women can even exist. Now, given the above-mentioned two cultural assumptions, when Mr Ahmadinejd said that "We in Iran do not have gays like in your countries", in my opinion he was just expressing his cultural prejudices, that unlike in your countries, where homosexuals have a life of their own, in Iran they prey on children.

As for the execution of gays in Iran, I am only familiar with the case of Mahmoud Asghari and Ayaz Marhooni [2]. Before going into details, I must declare that I am principally against capital punishment, no matter what the crime may be that precipitates this punishment. Insofar as I know, these two men were not hanged for being homosexuals. The actual story behind the hanging of these two men was first published in the German magazine der Spiegel and I have my information from this story; surprisingly, der Spiegel never has attempted to refer to this story in their later reports (conform the line that Iran were an axis of evil), in spite of the fact that to my best knowledge they have never retracted the story (I read der Spiegel almost every day). Mahmoud Asghari and Ayaz Marhooni's crime had been to prey on a five-year old boy and practice sodomy on him for three years; they did that by blackmailing the boy over this entire period. After three years, one day this boy had decided to decline to submit to the perverted demands of these two grown-up men and told about this vile crime to his father who had immediately reported the case to the local police. Subsequent to this, the local court convicted these two men to death by hanging for raping a minor over a period of three years. (To say that these two men were hanged for homosexuality, is therefore tantamount to falling prey to the above-mentioned Iranian prejudice that equates homosexual men with paedophiles.) Since death sentences in Iran have to be approved by the authorities in the highest court in the capital city, the case was subsequently sent to Tehran. In principle, Tehran would commute the death penalties to life sentences had these young men not had previous criminal convictions. However, investigations in Tehran had revealed that these two men had once been arrested for offences related to smuggling drugs as well as theft. As a result, they did not show leniency and approved the death sentences handed out by the provincial court. Thus came to pass that these two young men were sadly hanged. According to der Spiegel, the entire village had been jubilant after these two young men had been hanged, for having been rid of two perverted men; the father of the victim had been offering people in the village sweets, exclaiming that it had been the best day of his life (this is called rough justice, as also practised in the USA where family members of victims are invited to witness executions and where after these executions the family members of victims express their jubilant mood for having witnessed the justice to have been done — please talk to Clive Stafford Smith [3], and he will confirm this account which I have from him through one of his television documentaries). As I mentioned above, all these details were published in der Spiegel — perhaps by searching the Internet, one can retrieve this report. The question arises as to whether Mahmoud Asghari and Ayaz Marhooni had been minors at the time of committing their crimes. According to Iranian law they were not (please read the Iranian Constitution, available on the website of Majles, the Iranian Parliament, (English), (Persian)). However, Iran being a signatory to the international conventions pertaining to human rights, one can make a very strong case that Iranian constitution is on this particular issue in conflict with Iran's international obligations. In other words, in principle Iran's case must be dealt with by the International Court of Justice, for some of her internal laws being in conflict with the corresponding international laws to which she is a signatory. So long as this has not been done, executions of Mahmoud Asghari and Ayaz Marhooni remain consistent within the Iranian judicial system, as these men had been raping a minor over an extended period (intent of abuse of a minor is hereby proven beyond any reasonable doubt), during which period they were considered as legally fully mature individuals, and therefore answerable to law's demands, according to the explicit definition of the notion of maturity by the Iranian Constitution.

Kind regards, --BF 13:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Your insights into Iranian culture and history lend a great deal to this section. What does seem to stand out of your otherwise seamless expression is that you support the idea that pederastry was introduced by Alexander. This idea seems a little naive, don't you think? And linking homosexuality with pederastry is a rather shallow explanation of why the Iranian religious leaders and by extension Iranian society deem homosexuality a morally repugnant issue. Nina137.111.47.29 (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nina, firstly, thank you for your compliments. Secondly, since you write pederasty as "pederastry", I am inclined to believe that you may not be familiar with the history of pederasty so that an apology from you, for having accused me of naivety, might not be amiss. You do not need to read any history of pederasty; read, for instance, Socrates' Apology by Plato, and you will realise that the people involved must have been totally preoccupied with pederasty; every paragraph contains some details about some boy lover (someone who finds paedophilia abhorrent, will find it difficult to read these texts). Look at the illustrations on ancient Greek vases, eating plates, etc., and what you see is some grown-up man engaged in a sexual activity with some under-aged boy or young man (all illustrations depicting a young boy having a hen, a rabbit, or some other house animals in his hands, is a depiction of a boy after a sexual encounter with a grown-up man — at some stage a law had been passed in Ancient Greece whereby men who in their young age had received money for their sexual encounters with old men were barred from high office, on account of having engaged in prostitution, and hence use of house animals as "rewards"). You may also consider to read the history of Sparta. I personally am not aware of anything even remotely approaching these things originating from Ancient Persia. Look for instance at the illustrations on the ancient Persian vases and glassware, and what you see consists of illustrations of flowers, birds, hunting scenes, and similar things. Read Xenophon's Cyropeadia in order to see how a Persian prince was educated. I am not saying that incidents of pederasty in Ancient Persia can be ruled out, but that it cannot have been part of Persian culture; that it must have been viewed as an unacceptable way of life. Compare this with incest, which occurs within all societies and cultures, despite the fact that it is unacceptable in all societies and cultures. You must realise that Zoroastrianism is a very tough religion. If Judaism, Christianity and Islam are tough on matters sexual, then one has to realise that the three have their roots in Zoroastrianism.

You subsequently say:

"And linking homosexuality with pederastry [sic] is a rather shallow explanation of why the Iranian religious leaders and by extension Iranian society deem homosexuality a morally repugnant issue."

What can I do with this statement? Your statement contains a value judgement, whereas nowhere in my above text had I attempted to introduce a value judgement! I just wrote on the perceptions of the overwhelming majority of Iranians (those who have not been exposed to alternative viewpoints) concerning homosexual men; it is utterly irrelevant whether this explanation is "shallow" or deep — I had not set out to introduce philosophically deep notions, but record my personal observations of a culture that I believe I know well. Kind regards, --BF 14:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear BehnamFarid, I appreciate your responses. I am unfamiliar with the variations of the word pederast because it is seldom used in my particular culture, but thank you for educating me in this domain. My suggestion that you supported the idea that pederasty was introduced by Alexander came from the general feeling that in my view the position reflects a mildly narcissistic view of Persian history. I apologise if this is incorrect. This is why I later used the word shallow, to suggest that if there are more complex reasons for the current view of homosexuality in Iran that they could have been elaborated with a little more care, as your references to depictions of pederasty in ancient greek artwork have done. Then, however, I would have most likely have made a reference to the fact that many erotic roman artworks, for instance, have been destroyed by more puritanical governments between now and when they were created. Regardless, it was not meant to be an attack at all, but rather a request for elaboration. My prime motivation for wanting a distinction drawn in this area (between the prevalence of the activity and the underlying pathological reasons for it) is that to suggest that one particular culture can not manifest such a dysfunction leads to (in my view) a danger that the practice might be much more rife than previously thought, and therefore untreated. I was mindful that you were making a reference to what many Iranians think, although the part that I questioned was where you said that "it could be argued that pederasty entered Persian culture... etc". It could be argued by one person, which is not to say that it is a valid thing to say that it is the motivation behind the majority's views on the subject. It would have perhaps held more weight for you to say that it was your personal view that it was why the majority felt that way, as it would implicitly let everyone know that you work under the assumption that there is no such thing as an historical fact. Nina137.111.47.29 (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nina, thank you for your kind response. One linguistic remark concerning your statement "I apologise if this is incorrect." Apologies containing conditional words, such as "if", are not apologies, even though they are almost invariably mistaken as apologies. Consequently, I am not certain whether you apologised at all.

Now you suggest that historical evidence with regard to the practice and/or prevalence of pederasty in Ancient Persia might have been destroyed by the puritanical. This is theoretically possible, however one cannot put any value on speculations in discussing historical events; no serious historian relies on speculation in the absence of at least a single supporting historical evidence. You may be aware that the former Secretary of Defence of the USA, Mr Donald Rumsfeld, once brazenly expounded on the subject matter of "unknown unknowns". "Unknown unknowns" have no place in historiography. Many things are theoretically possible, but we cannot talk about them in any serious academic discourse regarding history, as opposed to fiction. Above all, if your argument were even plausible, Iranians must have destroyed many other historical documents related to the practice of pederasty, which they have not. Two examples. First, here is Shah Abbas I having a wine-page in his arms: [4] (for details, please consult Shah Abbas I; please read in particular the caption of the figure). Second, here is the boy-lover of Soltan Mahmoud Ghaznavi, Ayaz, accompanying Soltan Mahmoud: [5] (interestingly, Shah Abbas I is also in the company; the two must have been kindred spirits). You should realise that this painting is on display in Tehran Museum of Contemporary Arts (before objecting to me that none of these boys is really a boy, that they are grown-up men, I recommend you to acquaint yourself with the conventions of the miniature drawing - further, Safavid artists were fully informed about the art of perspective; absence of realistic perspectives in Persian miniatures has a great deal of symbolic significance - Safavid painters were the first impressionist painters). The homo-erotic poems (all directed towards young boys) of Saadi, Vahshi Bafghi and Iraj Mirza, to name but three poets, are widely available and read by many. In contrast, as I wrote earlier, I am personally not aware of even a single artefact from Ancient Persia that would even remotely suggest homo-eroticism, let stand pederasty. You cannot accuse me of suffering from visual impairment, since we can together visit any museum that you may suggest, and I shall be able to draw your attention to various artefacts related to this practice. I repeat my earlier statement, that I cannot imagine Zoroastrianism tolerating pederasty in any form or under any circumstance. In my opinion, pederasty is an abominable predilection of Ancient Greeks par excellence and it was introduced into Iran following Alexander's invasion of Iran (my use of "It could be argued" was meant to avoid offending the sentiments of the Greek individulas visiting this page - to my best knowledge, not a single person who has studied the subject matter disputes the fact that pederasty was a Greek predilection). I emphasize once more, theoretically, sporadic incidents of paedophilia in Ancient Persia cannot be ruled out.

Lastly, I do not entertain any "narcissistic view of Persian history", this as evidenced by the fact that I never denied existence of pederasty in Iran subsequent to invasion of Alexander; as should be evident, the latter period also constitutes part of Iran's history. I do not know the views of the young generation of Iranians, however the views of the generation of Mr Ahmadinejad are informed by the perception that all homosexuals are in reality paedophiles in disguise. Something close to home perhaps. Oscar Wilde who is mostly known as "homosexual", was in fact a pederast (his Wikipedia biography says also as much - in this biography, he is, amongst other things, quoted as saying "Today I bade good-bye, with tears and one kiss, to the beautiful Greek boy... he is the nicest boy you ever introduced to me."). This shows that the Victorians, as well as Edwardians, saw things exactly as the generation of Mr Ahmadinejad see. It seems therefore that here in the West many of us must be suffering from an acute form of historical amnesia. Frankly, I consider a large portion of our journalists as plainly illiterate individuals (even when they are not acting as subservient mercenaries). Kind regards, --BF 16:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC).

ps) Please in writing my user-name do not put space between its two constituent parts. Thank you. --BF 16:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Behnam! I am very interested in Iranian history and I think your theory about pederasty sounds very interesting. I have heard a lot about this practice among the ancient Greeks, and also as you mention, among the various ruling elite in Iran and Turkey after the advent of Islam. What is still strange to me is that if the Greeks introduced this in Iran then this practice should have been existing in Iran during the Parthian and Sassanian rule. But I have never heard of any evidence showing this existed during that period. My question to you is if you know anything about this practice during these two dynasties. Finally I just want to say that I in no way believe that Islam introduced this practice in Iran, since Islam is strictly against such practices. I would even go as far as saying that with the introduction of Islam, the practice must have become less common (if it even existed before), which would further suggest that if it is so well documented after the arrival of Islam there must be something showing that it existed before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.155.83 (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Iran & the Zionist media control

I would like to know if we can mention this problem on Iran's page since it affects the perception of Iran at all levels, internationally, as well the sources on which this information is based:

• Youtube video 1/3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6YtxHFtX8c

• Youtube video 2/3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsaeIeTGNhQ&NR=1

• Youtube video 3/3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RircMzkEUtM&feature=related

:-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.59.46.144 (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia IS NOT a mean for the propagation of xenophoby, inter ethnical hatred, religious hatred or any other type of discrimination regarding sexual orientation, culture, language, skin color, etc. Please feel free to erase your previous post.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.174.72 (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see any "hatred towards the Jews" in this video. It is a factual description of who owns what in the American media, confirmed by many sources, including the Jewish Encyclopedia itself. I think it is important to know. SSZ (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If wikipedia were designed to exhibit not just fact but the millions of ways that these facts are presented, with each varying nuance, wikipedia would be as bloated as a particularly bloated pufferfish. Nina137.111.47.29 (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Photos

Photo of the head of the state is not commonly used in such articles. See for example: France, Austria, Italy etc. I replaced the photo with Ebadi's one:

• Ebadi is a notable Iranian.
• We need a photo of an Iranian woman (not just men) in the article as well.
• Iranian opposition groups need to be visible on the page and not just the rulers.

Please add your comments if you have any. Thanks. Sangak ^Talk 08:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Then let's have both pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.242.209 (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The head of state is the main guy...so...he should be on the iran page instead of another person with less power than him. She's just not powerful enough(not because she hasn't accomplished much, but, there isn't enough room in the article for anyone apart from the main guy)Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC) 78.39.206.50 (talk) 07:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

A few points

There r a few points I want to discuss:

1. the title "Late modern era" (which i must admit was my idea) suggest that Iran's modern era is coming to a close. A more appropriate title may be recent history.

2. I have opposed the picture of the lynx in it's relevant section and i'll repeat why again:

• It pushes the other pictures down where they shouldn't be
• There are already a lot of images on the iran page
• A picture of iranian wildlife is not needed
• There r enough images in the geography section
• I will be removing the sentence on wildlife(see next point)

3. The sentence or two on wildlife are of no real quality because

• The first bit sounds like a poem!:b
• It's just a list of animals
• It isn't referenced
• It looks odd, and a sentence or two shouldn't make a paragraph

so i will remove the sentence until someone writes a better sentence.

4. We should remove the shirin ebadi photo because of the reason explained in the relevant section of the talk page

5. i was thinking that 2 images relating o the achaemenid empire isn't right. after all there were 5 dynasties in this period of time. Or maybe im wrong on this one?

Pronunciation

In the standard Persian pronunciation, there is no [ʔ] at the beginning of the word (it can only occur after a consonant or between a vowel and a consonant). Alefbe (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Amazing photographs of Iran

Dear all, I suggest that someone contact Shahram Razavi and asks him to donate some of his amazing photographs of Iran to Wikipedia. Here are some relevant links:
— Amazing Iran, — Tehran - Maga Capital of Iran, — Reflections of a Vibrant Iran, — Contemporary Iranian Architecture, — Old Tehran & Iran photos, — Armours, Costumes, Uniforms, Flags, etc., — Imperial Iran of the Qajar Dynasty, etc.

Kind regards, --BF 21:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a good suggestion, but till that time, can we add a link to one or more of those websites in "External Links" of the article?--M samadi (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear M samadi, please do that by all means. As you can testify, some of the photographs in the above-mentioned links are simply breathtakingly beautiful. The only problem with these links is that they correspond to pages where people leave comments. Incidentally, you may also consider HORIZON's page and sets on flickr. This is one of his many impressive photographs: [6], taken from this page: [7]. Kind regards, --BF 20:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

History images

I thought a bit after my edit and remembered that non of the featured articles had an image of a conquerer in it. We could replace it with a Seleucid picture but they are mostly coins. Perhaps a Median picture? It's not right that the achaemenids should have 2 pics and the medians noneArdeshire Babakan (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my edit-log of two days ago, no sane person in Iran refers to Alexander as "The Great". It is culturally simply not acceptable to call someone as "The Great" who has devastated a nation and her cultural heritage. The first thing this little devil did was burning out Persepolis. Yet, this was the way Alexander was called in the main text on Iran up till two days ago. In Iran Alexander is called Eskander-e Maqdunieh, which is "Alexander of Macedon", and he should be called as such in Iran-related articles. I have thus called him "Alexander III of Macedon". Incidentally, as I was writing this note, I checked and it turns out that in "Persepolis" some demented person has written the following text: "... the Persepolis captured and partly destroyed by Alexander the Great". In our times, such and similar acts of barbarism are called War Crimes and the perpetrators are not called The Great, and humanity has not changed much over the course of the past millennia: even the oldest historical records known to us call war crimes as war crimes and war criminals as war criminals. What is so great about a barbarian of first order carrying out an act of barbarism? Some taste and some judgement would not be out of place here on Wikipedia! --BF 12:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't make this personal. Remember Neutral Point Of View. In English he is referred to as the great. This isn't about what iranians call him.

"Neutral point of view is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors."

Anyway, the morals of it isn't the issue here. It's a history section, not a bloody lecture on human morals. If you want you could talk about this on the alexander page. Anyway this section was about picturesArdeshire Babakan (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ardeshir Babakan, I recommend you to learn some language and manners, in both of which you fail abominably. If I am not mistaken, once earlier I had an encounter with you in which you proved equally rude and insolent. What is "bloody lecture" meant to mean? First learn some manners, then participate in discussions. We are not here in a gutter! You give a bad name to Iranians and I feel already sick of having encountered you twice, experiencing you in both cases as the same loutish indiviual. Last time you apologized and I accepted. This time you need not waste my time. --BF 19:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because I used "bloody" to emphasise my point doesn't mean that i am rude. You are the rude one.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandilisation

Isn't it great how almost any attempt to add mention to relevant political or foreign policy issues is removed, edit warr'd or defaced by Pro-Iran patriots if it makes Iran look bad in any way? Notice there is not a single mention of Hezbollah, involvement in Iraq, international diplomacy, or allegations of State Sponsored Terrorism on the entire page, despite it all of them being a major factor for how the rest of the world views Iran, as well as providing relevant encyclopedia data? Alexander (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC) You forgot to add the word "murder" to the word torture. Sources Olya's Story and Prisoner of Tehran. Elonce (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There is definately too much pride mixed up in this article.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"Allegations" cannot be reported as facts. U.S ( and her other allies) are the main proponant of these allegations. I don't hear China making these claims. Iran makes alligations that United States and Israel are the biggests sponser of terrorism (LOL). But these allegations are not facts and are disputable. Furthermore there is no single definition for terorrism. Many organizations are considered terrorist in one area and not in the other, including Hezbollah. Putting such claims in this section does not seem appropriate. --Ddd0dd (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"In Search of Cyrus the Great"

The interested may wish to view the following:

• A short sample of the documentary film In Search of Cyrus the Great, directed by Cyrus Kar, in production, hosted by International Committee to Save the Archaeological Sites of Pasargadae (9 min 58 sec).

Kind regards, --BF 13:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick action required

I have left two messages here [8] that show the urgency of an editorial action to be undertaken. --BF 15:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

History of Iran Timeline picture

I was editing the entire history section and I think it is hard for non-Iranians to understand or read the whole thing without this timeline. My suggestion is to add this picture to Iran.

What is your thought?

SSZ (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that readers don't have to understand much of Iran's history from the main article. Just a basic overview is enough. Unfortunately the section is a lot more than a basic overview, and that there is too much information. So, I think that if readers want to learn what the image shows and the current history section says they should read the history of Iran PAGE. So, I disagree.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I get your point and agree to a certain extend but would it not help to downsize the history section if we add this picture, since there are hyperlinks on this image to all periods of the history in Iran? SSZ (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not satisfied with colors. I think some light colors instead of red and yellow may be better.--M samadi (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The history section about Aryans is wrong

In the history section it says "Proto-Iranians first emerged following the separation of Indo-Iranians"....now first of all is that true? I mean who says that Indo-Iranians got sepeterated that early? I mean its the same region and the same land. Why is that a seperation? It's like saying the Americans in the east are seperated from Americans in the west. I mean yes there far. But are they seperated? Or part of the same region?......

That part goes on to say, that they "Are traced to the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex"......Didnt the Aryans come from India? I mean they had the language of Sanskrit, they followed Hinduism (or an older form of it) they had the swastik symbol, they believed in different manifestations of gods (or possibly multiple gods), India had a name like Aryaverta (which means land of the Aryans) and there is mention of Aryan heritage in Indian religious scripture. So didn't they come from India?

It also says that "Proto-Iranian tribes arrived in the Iranian plateau in the third and second millennium BC"....But if they seperated from Indo-Aryans then that means their part of the same Indian family. And if their part of the same family then they might have been there BEFORE the second or third millennium BC, because many Indo-Aryans might have been their before that date........ARYAN818 (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

the thing about Indo-Iranians is indeed hypothetical. We know that proto-Iranians and the people who moved to the Northern india shared some common mythology and that their ancient languages had the same roots. We know this because of the written sources which we have. We do not have sources from other indo-european groups which are as old as these,. But other evidences show that also Slavs and Balts shared this similarity and we do not know much about other Indo-European groups. So it remains in the hypothetical phase. I, personally, do not believe in an Indo-Iranian entity. But there are facts: The people that moved to the North India was originated in Southern Russia and central Asia. This is also believed to be true about the proto-Iranian tribes (though some theories believe that they were originated in Northwestern iran, well maybe but I do not think it is right). thease are dominant theories and I tend to agree with them. In any case Aryans did not originate in india nor did they followed Hinduism. In India lived the dark skinned people and much of Indian philosophy and wisdom like Ayurveda is attributed to them. Also the caste system is attributed to them. The arriving Indo-Aryans (who were related to the Aryans= proto Iranians)adopted the already existing system and somehow modified it. they put themselves on the top of the caste system etc... Look at the dark skinned Tamils etc... They are Hindus but are not Aryans or Indo-Europeans any way!--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Combo reference list

The article reference list is too large . I think it's better this way . What do the other editors think ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Great Idea.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

On the Cyrus Cylinder

For some the following may be news: Cyrus Cylinder to be returned to Iran, Cultural Heritage News Agency, Tehran, June 25, 2008, [9].
--BF 19:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

HELP FOR EDIT

the page is locked, can anyone undo this edit: [10] --Wayiran (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Images in the Pre-Islamic Statehood section

I think we have one too many images in the Pre-Islamic Statehood section. Three paragraphs and a quote are sandwiched between two images.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

On the Epic of Köroğlu

In the event that someone is familiar with the history of the above-mentioned epic, it would be relevant to introduce some appropriate details into the pertinent Wikipedia entry (i.e. here: "Epic of Köroğlu"). The river Aras is central to this epic, and as the following remarkably beautiful stage production shows, the libretto is in Persian.

A short section of a stage production of Köroğlu, an opera by Uzeyir Hajibeyov, YouTube: [11] (10 min 55 sec).

With kind regards, --BF 02:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC).

The interested may consider the useful remarks, by User:Arkankipcak, placed here: [12]. --BF 14:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC).

what about the 1988 massacares

why are they not even mentioned?!?! this screams hypocrisy

The current history section is big and we are trying to cut down on it. However,it is hypocritical if we talk about Saddam's chemicals and not about this. I will make sure that it is mentioned in the History of Iran article. Thank you for raising this point. (If anyone wants to know more about it here is the main article)Ardeshire Babakan ^{اردشیر بابکان} (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, although i suggest we should display the Iraq's use of chemical weapons as this is very important for Iran's history section. Though again this can be debatable i believe the use of chemical weapons is important as it brings other factors into the equation such as foreign involvements. And also the use it self killed many Iranian people and so i think this should be mentioned. NeMiStIeRs (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2009 (GMT)

The polulation of Iran and CIA world factbook ?

The article says 70 millions in 2007 while CIA world factbook says 65,8 million (2008 estimate).

The «gap» is over 4 millions. Why this big difference ? --Ezzex (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC) --78.39.206.50 (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference could be the number of Iranians living outside Iran; in such case, Iran counts all Iranians, whereas CIA counts all people living inside Iran (it is well-known that around 6 million Iranians live outside Iran). On the other hand, I am rather surprised by both numbers, as my understanding was/is that Iran's population was/is approaching 80 million. One possibility (not as unlikely as it might appear at first glance) is that the number of people living inside Iran is 70 million; adding the above-mentioned approximately 6 million, one obtains the number that I have variously heard as being the total number of Iranians. In such case, CIA must have mistakenly considered the 70 million as being the total number of Iranians and for calculating the number of people living inside Iran have subtracted the above-mentioned approximately 6 million. Whatever the case may be, it is remarkable that specifications of published data are so incomplete (nowhere is it specified what precisely "population number" signifies) that one can so lightly come into problem in accounting for nearly 6 million people. --BF 08:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The value 70,472,846 is according to Iran National Census which considered only Iranians living in Iran.--M samadi (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear M samadi, thank you for the information. It follows that CIA must have mistakenly considered the number mentioned by you, i.e. 70,472,846, as including the number of Iranians living outside Iran. This is exactly the second possibility to which I have referred in my above text. Clearly, such a miscalculation is not very intelligent of an Intelligence Agency, far less of a Central one. Kind regards, --BF 06:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC).

new template

I happened to stumble upon this template.

Mazanderani

Persian

Kurd

Kurd

Gilaki

Lur

Balochi

Azerbaijani

Turkmen

Qashqai

Uninhabited

Arab

Arab

Talysh

I'm going to put it in the article instead of the File:Iran peoples.jpg image.Ardeshire Babakan ^{اردشیر بابکان} (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC) These maps could not ne more wrong. Does anyone with a small knowledge of Iran really thinks that more than half of Hormozgan province is Arabic?! This maps are originally copies from a Russian atlas wich aimed at disinformation about the region. Copying this wrong map should stop somewhere.--ماني a.k.a. [[User:Mani1]] (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC) This map is totally wrong! west Azerbaijan has no Kurds in the north of the province! In south they are mixed with Turks. Whoever put this map here has no knowledge of Iranian ethnics. There are 35000000 Azeri Turks in Iran. Azeri Turks are majority in Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonesun72 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

To all: Both maps have major problems. For example in one the Sistanis are labelled as Pashtuns. This is wrong. Sistanis are Persians. They speak a Persian dialect and neither Baluchi nor Pashtun. Their music is close to the Khorasani persian music and nothing like Baluchi. they are also predominantly Shia Muslims. This is why the Afghans, Baluchis and Pashtuns are so eager to kill Sistanis. They apply the same method as some extremists in Northwestern Iran apply. Some Kurds come and settle in the Shia Persian/ Luri/ Laki and Azeri towns. Then they begin to terrorize the local population hoping that they flee and afterwards they claim their land. Other shortcoming of both maps are the facts that the areas of Arabs is exagerated. There are no Arabs in the Iranian interior. Those in Hormozgan are also not Arabs, but are Black and local Hormozgani Sunnis. The only place in Iran with significant Arab population is the southwestern Khuzestan. But one thing is correct. In the West of Western Azerbaijan live Kurds.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

pronunciation

Why there are two pronunciations given in the article: /irɒn/↔? And what the hell is the arrow supposed to mean? — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 13:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange Change

I couldn't find out what is the problem with this edit, But it caused some text and an image to be hidden in the article. I reverted that edit. Can anyone explain the problem?--M samadi (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The edit erroneously replaced empty tags <ref name="..." /> with start tags <ref name="...">. These lacked the corresponding end tags </ref>, and the parser apparently recovered from this error by ignoring the text up to the next <ref> tag. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 14:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Iran xref Strait of Hormuz

{{editsemiprotected}}

2008 Current Events

In the last week of July 2008, Operation Brimstone brought dozens of US and foreign navys’ ships together off the US East Coast for joint exercises and practice in littoral operations (such as would be used in the shallow waters off the coast of Iran).

As of August 11, 2008, more than 40 US and allied ships are reported en route to the Straits of Hormuz. One US carrier battle group from Japan will complement two more which are already in the Gulf, for a total of five battle groups, not counting submarines.

Speculation based on the vessel listing indicates a possible intent of mounting an economic blockade against Iran.

Memzilla (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are raw links to the citations (they only show up under the 'edit' page):

1: http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=38478

2: http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5499

3: http://europebusines.blogspot.com/2008/08/massive-us-naval-armada-heads-for-iran.html

The last one (3) is far from reliable, and should be edited out if the section is to be added

~ John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.65.94 (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

 Not done Such specific and semi-speculatory detail is probably not appropriate for the main article. Probably belongs in a related article, though.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for Image of ordinary life in Iran

Can someone upload a photo of children playing / in school etc. Please also make it available for other languages to use. Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Another request. We have a cat, submarine and lots of old people, but no real life, real children today in Iran. Please, someone, we want to see the human face of Iran. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want a new picture , I can do that , but what about this images ?

• 
• 
• 

--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's picture

Every country page on Wikipedia has a photo of the country's current President. Why doesn't the Iran page have a photo of its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iuri.lammel (talk • contribs) 23:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Because he isn't the biggest cheese in Iran. Khamenei is.Ardeshire Babakan ^{اردشیر بابکان} (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

date audit

Mixed US and international formats; please advise if the international that I chose is not to your liking. Tony (talk) 08:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong info

In the infobox is stated that several languages which are named there have "constitutional recognistio". It is vague information. According to the article 15 of the Iranian constitution all local and tribal languages and dialects (ca 20) can have their literature thaught at school. This is explained in the text. No need to add an incomplete and wrong sentence into the infobox while the text explains it better.--ماني a.k.a. [[User:Mani1]] (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Mani we have had this talk before and as I said there was a consensus about this. In the article 15 is clearly to be read that these languages literature can be thaught at school and their usage in the mass media broadcasting and press are recognized. In addition there are some other articles which state that provinces can have their TV and Radio and should have the means to promote the regional cultures. The article 15 is what we call constitutional recognition. In many countries, many languages are recognized and are legal without a consutitutional legal basis. In Iran there is such a case. In other countries, usually federal countries, the language status is bound to a certain administrative unit. This however is not the case in Iran. It is what we call non-territorial consititutional recognition. Please be kind and let it be as it is in the infobox. Any reader can distinguish the status of persian as the official language and the regional languages.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I know there have been some misunderstanding between babak and mani , and I know taking side with one of them may be not so welcomed from the other side , I do think babak is right here . Indeed there is difference between official status of local languages in Iran , compared to neighbor countries such as Turkey that does not recognize any official state for any language other than national language . In Iran , as many as 35 local TV stations broadcast in local languages and many publications in local languages are available , so I think it should be mentioned in the info box .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

And to add , there is similar information in info- box of Pakistan, India,Turkmenistan --Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)and etc .

Dear Alborz Fallah, in my opinion stuffing too much information (like that sentence) into an infobox while the same sentence can be mentioned in the text make the infobox complicated and it looses its function which is giving a short and fast overview in a simplified manner. We should not let our political agendas stand in the way of these basic facts of writing a clear encyclopaedia. Also the term "constitutional recognition! of the regional languages such as! Azeri, Kurdish, and Mazandarani, and Gilaki" is a vague and wrong formulation. What do you mean by "constitutional recognition"? Are those languages allowed to be used in official governmental documents of the region? Are they used in the foreign correspondences of certains provinces? What does this term which is made up by a certain user here mean? How can a country have "constitutional recognition" for languages "SUCH AS"!? What are those languages? In Iran at least 20 languges and dialect are in use as spoken language. Do all of them fall under this case? If so this case also should be mentioned (not in the infobox which will become too heavy.) So, I am asking you not to add this vague and incorrect sentence in the infobox and do not cause further confusion for the people of the world about our country and its official language which already exists abundantly.--ماني a.k.a. [[User:Mani1]] (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

constitutional recognition is not vague. It is very clear. And let me be sincere, I do feel insulted by you. It is exactly my filed and I have explained to you exactly and honestly what does this mean, but because of your personal grudges against me you come again and again with some excuses. So constitutional recognition is not vague. It means that they are recognized by the constitution. This makes it important and worth to be mentioned in the infobox. There are countries which recognize regional languages by other than 'constitution' . But answer to your question: As I said all these languages in Iran have a non-territorial status. There are countries like Spain which say for example that catalan should be used in the official documents of the Catalan local administration etc... But other provinces use other languages. This is not the case in Iran. There are countries which have more than one offical languages like Kazakhstan etc... These have non-territorial basis too. In contrast belgium has two official languages too, French in Wallonia and Dutch in Vlaanderen. This we call teritorial statuses. In Iran we have constitutional recognition of non-offical languages on a non-territorial basis. I will be glad to answer your questions if there are any questions? --Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I told you not to talk to me. That message was not intended for you, because as my experience shows you have not enough knowledge of the matter. You feel glad!! to answer my auestions!!? PLLLEASE.:)) I advise you to go read some books on Iran first, before trying to edit anything further. It will save the time of the users here. Let the people edit here who have more understanding of Persian language and its culture. Do not expect any further answer from me.--ماني a.k.a. [[User:Mani1]] (talk) 10:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You are disrespcting users here. I advise you not to be rude. You again revert a long standing consensus and say do not revert untill the debate is over, while you are yourself blocking all debate. You were supposed to 1- respect others 2- talk 3- not fall again back in an edit war--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What is all the fuss about here? What is wrong with mentioning that Azeri and Mazani are regional languages in Iran, which is a fact? --Sina111 (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please Babak , please mani ... calm down بابا چه خبرتونه ؟ .
For Mani : you said "in my opinion stuffing too much information...", well , I think every opinion should be mentioned under the Wikipedia's roles and conventions . Can you please show a Wiki-guideline that says we can't use such info in the box ? Again in contrast with the examples that I show ( Pakistan, India,Turkmenistan) ?
And about the vagueness of the word "constitutional recognition" ; you can wikilink to the section that explains about the meaning of that in Iranian law .Anyway we have to some how show the difference between Iran and some neighbor countries like Turkey and Az.Republic that does not allow the local languages in media or publications --Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I will change back the edit to the last version until we reach consensus ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Mani, Babak please!
To Mani: I know that you are a knowledgeable user and have a good intention, but I don't think that this tiny content dispute is worth it to add such a tension to Wikipedia. This information is informative and not against any WP policy. Why people shouldn't know the difference between Iran and other neighboring countries. Why always bad sides of Iran should be emphasised? You know about Turkey and you may know that in some Arabic countries till recently Shia's mousqes were not even allowed to have any mosque sign. Why? Because, these building were not even considered mosque by those Arabic governments and Shi'as were not officially considered Muslim neither! So, let this information stays! I see that Sina, Babak, Alborz and me don't agree to remove it and I don't think that you may find any WP policy supporting your argument. And one more thing, it is really awkward when you called Babak illitrate. Hope I don't upset you by my comment but I am really fed up with this dispute between you guys! inja faghat yek sue tafahom bevojud umade azizan. ba sohbat masale hal mishe--Larno (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We should not let our political agendas stand in the way of these basic facts of writing a clear encyclopaedia. Also the term "constitutional recognition! of the regional languages such as! Azeri, Kurdish, and Mazandarani, and Gilaki" is a vague and wrong formulation. What do you mean by "constitutional recognition"? Are those languages allowed to be used in official governmental documents of the region? Are they used in the foreign correspondences of certains provinces? What does this term which is made up by a certain user here mean? How can a country have "constitutional recognition" for languages "SUCH AS"!? What are those languages? In Iran at least 20 languges and dialect are in use as spoken language. Do all of them fall under this case? If so this case also should be mentioned (not in the infobox which will become too heavy.) So, I am asking you not to add this vague and incorrect sentence in the infobox and do not cause further confusion for the people of the world about our country and its official language which already exists abundantly.--Mani1 (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think our political points of views are perhaps the same . I did searched for the meaning of the term "constitutional recognition" : that term is itself vague. The prospect that you insist is not necessarily right . The fact that publication in local languages is free and the literature of the local population can be teached in schools means there is at least one chapter dedicated to local languages in Iranian constitution , that means their status has a constitutional recognition . If you think the sentence is vague, you can add explanation to the info box or to the text , or refer to the corresponding text , but not to delete it all , without consensus . Thankyou سپاسگذار--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

We should not let our political agendas stand in the way of these basic facts of writing a clear encyclopaedia. Also the term "constitutional recognition! of the regional languages such as! Azeri, Kurdish, and Mazandarani, and Gilaki" is a vague and wrong formulation. What do you mean by "constitutional recognition"? Are those languages allowed to be used in official governmental documents of the region? Are they used in the foreign correspondences of certains provinces? What does this term which is made up by a certain user here mean? How can a country have "constitutional recognition" for languages "SUCH AS"!? What are those languages? In Iran at least 20 languges and dialect are in use as spoken language. Do all of them fall under this case? If so this case also should be mentioned (not in the infobox which will become too heavy.) So, I am asking you not to add this vague and incorrect sentence in the infobox and do not cause further confusion for the people of the world about our country and its official language which already exists abundantly.--ماني a.k.a. [[User:Mani1]] (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please show what's your source about the definition of "constitutional recognition".As an example, is usage in the foreign correspondences a necessity for being defined as constitutionally recognized? In using the "SUCH AS"; we are not reprinting the law itself, but we are showing some examples of the local languages that is mentioned directly in law.If you think using examples in info box is prohibited, we can reach an agreement to change the sentence. Anyway , I think it is against the Wikipedia's rules to change the edit when there is a discussion on-going :Please don't change the edit without consensus .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

>>. Constitutional recognition is not a vague term. It means recognition in the constituion. It requires some knowledge of political sciense and law, but it is not vague in any case.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mani1, I think this discussion is unavailing and wastes your and others' time. The regional languages have constitutional recognition as not only they are not banned, but also that their publication are strictly allowed in the constitution. The discussion about mentioning Azeri and Kurdish is dissipation. Their name being there doesn't do any harm and is good as they are the two main regional languages.--Raayen (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The article 15 says only this:

"The Official Language and script of Iran, the lingua franca of its people, is Persian. Official documents, correspondence, and texts, as well as text-books, must be in this language and script. However, the use of regional and tribal languages in the press and mass media, as well as for teaching of their literature in schools, is allowed in addition to Persian." And you should not try to force interpretations of a certain person in that infobox which is not found in that article 15. Where do you see such vague terms as "recognistion" "status" such as" ... in that constitution? If you insist on having this article in the infobox to promote your political agendas (which is against the principles of wring an encyclopaedia) then you should mention it right and not in vague terms of personal interpretations. I also think it is against the Wikipedia's rules to change the edit when there is a discussion on-going :Please don't change the edit without consensus. Let the infobox be in the state at it was for many years i.e. without that vague sentence.--ماني a.k.a. [[User:Mani1]] (talk) 07:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It is you who is deleting a content when there is a socalled discussion. YOU, not US! You single handedly delte an important section of info box and are not very hostiptable for discussion. YOU demand this YOU demand that. WE told you stop this. There NO interpretation in this. WE take the constitution such as it is. Talking about political agenda? OK I can say something about yours but this is Wikipedia. And something else, stop threatening me physically. You know better than me what I mean. Yes. Thanks!--Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

For Mani :
I : You translate the word قومي in the law as tribal . The standard translation is Ethnic . That may explain the using of examples in info box .
II :Your POV (Point Of View ) is that citing of a matter in law is not recognized as it's legal status.Some of the editors don't think alike you : as far as I can see , Babak , Rayan , Sina and I don't understand the matter as you do. In this case the regular routine of Wikipedia is to use the consensus . If you know any source about the definition of "constitutional recognition" that supports your POV , showing that may change the consensus in favor of your idea , but repeating the accusations against the other editors that they act by their political agendas will solve nothing and is against the Wikipedia's guidelines to be Be polite,to Assume good faith and No personal attacks. Thank you--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

To Mani he has crossed a delicate line now:

Look Mani. It was you who challeneged me to come to the Hague Station and I suspect the suspicious person who came to my adress was you or was connected to you. It is shamefull how far you go for a disagreement in wikipedia. It is not healthy --Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Biased Writing (Iran Today)

I noticed the section about Iran "calling for the destruction of Israel". Ahmadinejad's speech said nothing about destroying Israel. It said that Israel would "vanish from the page of time". As the Quran states (and as the Bible states), when the people occupying Jerusalem fall, then the Four Horsemen shall ride and the world will end.

Here's specifically what President Ahmadinejad said (translated by my good friend Amir):

"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

TRANSLATION:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

We need someone to get on that and fix it ASAP. It's factually incorrect and biased.

IHouse (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well , you are right and the issue has an extended discussion here : Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel.But anyway , there is a global misunderstanding about the speech and I don't think anyone can change the whole world's opinion. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Language(s) in information box

It seems to me that the term "constitutionally recognized" is vague. The term fails to clearly answer the following questions: 1. Are the languages in question (i.e. Azerbaijani) officially recognized? 2. Who coined the term constitutionally recognized? The answer to the first question, as it pertain to Azerbaijani, is no: "In Iran, Azerbaijani is widely used as a lingua franca, although it has no official status in the country (Comrie 1981)." [13] Therefore we ought be more lucid, perhaps by giving a statistic of number of speakers for each language.

From my understanding, the term "constitutionally recognized" is original research based on the phrase "the use of regional and tribal languages in the press and mass media, as well as for teaching of their literature in schools, is allowed in addition to Persian" in Article 15 of the Constitution [14].

The comparison was made to infoboxes in the Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and India articles. Neither of them use the term "constitutionally recognized". The India article use the term "Official Scheduled languages" and the Pakistan and Turkmenistan articles use the term "Recognised regional languages"

It certainly should be noted in the infobox that these other languages (i.e. Azerbaijani, Arabic etc.) are spoken in Iran, but perhaps without the vague term "constitutionally recognized".

Ultimately, the matter is not the biggest problem facing the article and we should work together to reach a mutually acceptable resolution--but certainly not edit war.Agha Nader (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree and disagree with you. First I should say that many sources can claim many things. the Panturkist sources usually claim that Azerbaijani language is supressed, yet the source you mentioned says that it is widely used but has no official status (sic!). The constitution however 1 recognizes that there are regional languages in Iran and 2- their usage is allowed next to Persian. You can call it a semi-official status if you want but this concept is very vague. Constitutional recognition is indeed NOT a vague concept and by no means it is an OR. it simply means recognized by the constitution. To go even further there are languages in which there might be more publication and broadcasting in certain countries, without them being recognized by the national constitution. Many l;anguages are only recognized by provincial or sub-federal laws. In Iran however it is the constitution. Therefore the term is ok. Moreover the term scheduled languages in India box sounds also very vague. I do not say it is, but it sounds so. I do agree with you that the largest languages of Iran however should be mentioned in the box any way.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

An Internet search of constitutional recognition gives many results. These links are interesting: http://www.alp.net.au/media/1007/msialoo110.php http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/8/1/7/8/p181786_index.html http://www.issa.int/aiss/Ressourcen/Tagungsberichte/The-constitutional-recognition-of-social-security-rights-in-America http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/375/1/34 www.aida-americas.org/templates/aida/uploads/docs/Right_to_Healthy_Environment071129.pdf www.uregina.ca/sipp/conference_2007/english/abstracts/Mcneil_yarrow_abstract.pdf --Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In citing (Comrie 1981) , the fact should be considered that the Iranian Constitution extensively changed in 1994 and 1995 , so I don't think any citation before that date can be used as source for current legal situation in Iran .
About comparison with other info boxes , I think the term constitutionally recognized , covers a broader spectrum than the mere Recognised regional languages ; I mean the former gives the information that the status of the languages is mentioned in the Constitution, but the latter refers to a page that covers many entities that it is not known which one is the case . Overall , I'm not against redirecting via a Wikilink to the page Recognized regional languages like this :constitutionally recognized; but anyway I don't know haw to refer the Constitution and in same time use the Wikilinked page .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Only "recognized"can mean recognized by local or regional lawas. Constitutional recognition means by the national lawas. I think most of the languages in india are recognized by the regional "state"'s law, while in the Iranian case they are recognized by the national constitution. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There might be other terms we can use, but I agree that the info should be in the info box. Perhaps we could say "all minority languages, such as ..., are recognized by the constitution" (if that is the case). kwami (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be a good solution in addition to name a few exaples to let the reader know which languages these are. However the Iranian constitution does not call them minority languages, but regional and ethnic languages. The term minority is defined in the Iranian constitution as non-Shia moslem communities. Most of Iranian ethnic groups are regarded as the majority.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

For kwami: That's a good idea . But term "Minority" in Iran is not in common use for ethnic groups and it is rather used to show religious groups ( I mean:اقلیت مذهبی ) , by using the term "Minority" , there may be confusion with ethnolingual groups such as Armenians vs local languages that are not been used by distinct racial or ethnic groups . What about "all local languages, such as ..." ?! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:provinces of Iran labled map

In Iran article under Provinces and cities there is a red link that should be corrected as

Alborz

Ardabil

Bushehr

Chaharmahal
and Bakhtiari

Isfahan

Fars

Gilan

Golestan

Hamadan

Hormozgan

Ilam

Kerman

Kermanshah

Khuzestan

Kohgiluyeh and
Boyer-Ahmad

Kurdistan

Lorestan

Markazi

Mazandaran

Qazvin

Qom

Razavi
Khorasan

Semnan

Sistan and
Baluchestan

Tehran

Yazd

Zanjan

North
Khorasan

South
Khorasan

West
Azerbaijan

East
Azerbaijan

Caspian Sea

Persian Gulf

Turkmenistan

Afghanistan

Pakistan

Azerbaijan

Armenia

T
u
r
k
e
y

Iraq

Kuwait

Saudi Arabia

and also the link 1911 Wimbledon Championships redirects to Iran.anybody knows why? Bbadree (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

GDP data is outdated

The IMF updated it's GDP database (October 2008), please use this link: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2004&ey=2008&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=429&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a=&pr.x=45&pr.y=17. Gggh (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

can someone please update the GDP and GDP(PPP) and percapita. someone who has access to the editing page needs to update the GDP--Babylon32 (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove alcohol prohibition category

Iran is under the category Countries with alcohol prohibition however, alcohol is not banned in Iran. Selling alcohol is only permitted by Jews and Christians, but everyone can easily buy it. I cannot make edits because it is protected, so can someone remove the category for me. Thanks.--Parthian Scribe (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The new globe map for Iran

I recently visited articles of a few countries like the US, Canada, etc. and noticed that the map of those countries is shown on a new globe which is cool. In case any of the editors have access to the new globe, I'd like to suggest changing the map of Iran to that of the globe. Thanks Nov. 17, 2008 - Igores —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igores07 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that would look much more modern, but I wonder if Iran is large enough... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.213.231 (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think 1,648,195 km² is large enough to be shown on the map? :) Nov. 24, 2008 - Igores —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igores07 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but theres so many veir maps on Wikipedia, just look at the Mongolian one lol. Thats a worldmap. But countries like Indonesia, Sudan, Argentine and Saudi-Arabia, are larger, but still don't have that type of map. But Mexico is a good example, not really that much larger than Iran, but it has that new type of map. I wish Iran and more countries could get this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.213.231 (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Economy of Iran - Request for Comments

This article has reached a mature stage i think. Feel free to share your comments on the economy of Iran's talk page so as to improve the project further. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.251.98 (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the article of Iran and the one that you mention, the economy of Iran, are good articles. Perhaps the article about Iran could be futured on the frontpage? Or marked as a good article..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.213.231 (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that may be Iran could be considered for featured status. External links need to be cleaned up though. See WP:links. See also other FA for comparison in this regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.251.98 (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Both Persia and Iran after 1949

How to include "A few years later, some Persian scholars protested to the government that changing the name had separated the country from its past, so in 1949 Mohammad Reza Shah announced that both terms could officially be used interchangeably." in the beginning part?

Iran (Persian: ايران, /irɒn/↔[ʔiˈɾɒn] (help·info)), officially the Islamic Republic of Iran[5], formerly known internationally as Persia until 1935, is a country in Central Eurasia, located on the northeastern shore of the Persian Gulf. The name Iran is a cognate of Aryan, and means "Land of the Aryans".

--Wayiran (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

For your info, this information is already mentionned in the "etymology" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.251.98 (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

But in addition to "etymology section", it should be added somewhere in the beginning part. But I don't know where exactly and how to change the sentence, as English is not my mother tongue. --Wayiran (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Iran (Persian: ايران, /irɒn/↔[ʔiˈɾɒn] (help·info)), officially the Islamic Republic of Iran[5], formerly known internationally as Persia until 1935, is a country in Central Eurasia, located on the northeastern shore of the Persian Gulf. The name Iran is a cognate of Aryan, and means "Land of the Aryans". From 1949, both the terms "Persia" and "Iran" can be used.

Is it fine? --Wayiran (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The question is: Did the IR of Iran uphold this decision? (I don't know)

For names, until they are not abrogated by the new government, they are valid. There is an example of "Damavand", whose name remained same, even after IR, but in case of "Shahyad square", they changed the name to "Azadi square". In Persian we say ناسخ و منسوخ . --Wayiran (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

---

yOU MUST CHANGE THE RELIGIOUS DEMOGRAHIS IN IRAN. The state religion is Shia islam, estimated on 90% everywhere. Please change 89% to 90%. -Preceding unsigned comment added by Denni-ka (talk)

And if we refuse to comply with your demands...? --Enzuru 23:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Who is this "yOU"? Is there anyone responsible for this article? If "90% of Iranainas are Shia" has a reliable source you can add it yourself. I guess I know you from Persian Wikipedia! Am I right? --Wayiran (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

well the original order was a smart move, but in wrong direction! as far as i know, more and more iranians are changing their religion, or are now molhed. officially they are called (shi'a) muslim. unfortunately some facts do/can not admit documentation.--Xashaiar (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting but I have heard it is by people who want to get assylum in the West because they can then declare themselves to be "APOSTATE" which carries the death penalty in Iran. I ma not sure I would call it true change of religion. It is just fraud/deception may be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.251.98 (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately i'm not a member,but i have a suggestion.

in the economy section,it should be mentioned how iran's economy ranks globally and in the region.Fro example it says "germany is the largest economy in europe". Or "south africa is the largest economy in the africa".But the world factbook is still not udated to 2009,so GDP figures are outdated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.105.216 (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

These rankings are already mentionned in the infobox (HDI, Gini, GDP (nominal and PPP), etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.251.98 (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Rahmatabad Iran 5000 - 7000 BCE?

"Iran is home to one of the world's oldest continuous major civilizations, with historical and urban settlements dating back to 4000 BC"

The date 4000 BC is incorrect. I mean does the Elamite civilization (9000BC?) count? Or if it doesn't than my main point is that I did a recent report on the ancient mound at Rahmatabad Iran ( Journal Article = Life in a Fifth-Millennium BCE Village: Excavations at Rahmatabad . In it they suggest based on the evidence they saw that there existed older layers that may date to 7500BC but the main focus however was the 5000 BC fifth millennium period. I'm sure you guys are aware of even older findings, I'm just saying that 4000 BC does the ancient Iran justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 07:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Rahmatabad Iran 5000 - 7000 BCE?

"Iran is home to one of the world's oldest continuous major civilizations, with historical and urban settlements dating back to 4000 BC"

The date 4000 BC is incorrect. I mean does the Elamite civilization (9000BC?) count? Or if it doesn't than my main point is that I did a recent report on the ancient mound at Rahmatabad Iran ( Journal Article = Life in a Fifth-Millennium BCE Village: Excavations at Rahmatabad . In it they suggest based on the evidence they saw that there existed older layers that may date to 7500BC but the main focus however was the 5000 BC fifth millennium period. I'm sure you guys are aware of even older findings, I'm just saying that 4000 BC is almost 5000 years short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 07:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Rahmatabad Iran 5000 - 7000 BCE?

"Iran is home to one of the world's oldest continuous major civilizations, with historical and urban settlements dating back to 4000 BC"

The date 4000 BC is incorrect. I mean does the Elamite civilization (9000BC?) count?

The ancient mound at Rahmatabad Iran ( Journal Article = Life in a Fifth-Millennium BCE Village: Excavations at Rahmatabad .

older layers that date to 7500BC as noted by the staff in the article.

main focus however was the 5000 BC fifth millennium period. I'm sure you guys are aware of even older findings, I'm just saying that 4000 BC is almost 5000 years short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 08:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

too many pictures

i propose to add more text to each section or to reduce the number of pictures. in the current form pictures are almost overlapping. for example, in the section "sports" i guess we can remove photo of dizny.--Xashaiar (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that shows that Persia is not just desert, and it has different climates. In addition to this it shows a good tourism place of Persia and how happy people are, and etc. --Wayiran (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Women's Rights

Why is there no mention of the restrictive women's rights in Iran? It seems to be a relatively wide-spread issue ([15][16][17]) with 2,420,000 hits for 'women rights abuse iran' in Google. It just seems like a strange omission from this article. --Stvfetterly (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

‌Because there are other articles to cover this issue. --Wayiran (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

While I realize that there are articles discussing the Persian women's movement, and Human rights in Iran I would think that there would at least be some reference to women's rights in Iran in the article about the country. Especially as those previously mentioned articles focus predominantly the historic status of women, not current conditions. This is especially important with relation to Sports as the article currently mentions "Iranian women are also active in sports." without making reference to the significant hurdles that female atheletes must overcome (not being allowed to compete/train with men, being forced to wear restrictive clothing when competing in any mixed male/female stadium, etc.). The omission of these facts casts a very different light on women's roles in Iranian society. --Stvfetterly (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Need mouseum photos

may anyone make photos of Persian Plated mail and Mirror armour? (Idot (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

Middle Ages: Verifiability violation

I started verifying the source provided for the first paragraph after reading the following claim:

The Iranian contribution to this new Islamic civilization caused the Islamic Golden Age.

As you might noticed this is a controversial claim (violating already the WP:ASF policy). The cited source was (I am quoting) "Caheb C., Cambridge History of Iran, Tribes, Cities and Social Organization, vol. 4, p305–328". This citation clearly violets the following rules of WP:V:

1. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books: However the source details is not correct. The author name is Cahen not Caheb and the full title is The Cambridge History of Iran (yes the THE is important).
2. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question: The citation says p308-328 which is a whole chapter.

But anyway ignoring all above infractions and after reading the whole mentioned chapter there is no whatsoever supporting that claim neither previous claims (about science, medicine, literature...) which I believe are correct but still need verifiable sources. In essence, the cited chapter talks about Persian society and organization in post-Islamic Iran. I am removing the above claim (doubtful and absurd) along with its source which violates the most important rule of verifiability: The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. and will add a citation needed note for now until someone else provide a reliable source. Bestofmed (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC).

Explain how the government of the Caliphate was modelled around the government of Sassanid Iran then, or how way over half of the great intellectuals during the Islamic Golden Age were of Iranian origin, or why the capital of the Caliphate was moved to Baghdad when the Abassids took power..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.5.148 (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what Baghdad and the Abbasids have to do with the Persians? Baghdad was founded in the 8th century by the khaliph al-Mansoor, and the Abbasids were the descendants of the Prophet. Such influental scientists and philosophers as al-Battani, Ibn Khaldun, al-Kindi, Averroes weren't Persians; Persian poetry was based on the theory borrowed from the Arabs; If I'm not mistaken, about 70% of the Persian vocabulary is borrowed from Arabic. After all, why it was not until the Arab conquest that the Golden Age of Persian culture began? I'm not denying the contribution made by Persian intellectuals but the claim that it caused the Islamic Golden Age is a very, very big exaggeration.--91.76.127.215 (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

BIG BIG statements are not necessarily controversial or wrong.--Xashaiar (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

View on homosexuals

Do homosexual people have limited rights in Iran? Are they allowed to be educated on equal terms as strait people? And how is the general view at homosexuality?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has once said this: "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country" [18]. All well educated people know that just because you are born in Iran, the chance of being homosexual is not less than any other place at the Earth and they are not different from other homosexuals any other place.

Should that be mentioned?? --Lindberg (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe in a human rights/civil rights section of some sort? Any thoughts? The Scythian 01:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It is not a major issue. There is no law prohibiting homosexuals from civil rights. Additionally homosexuals can have public romantic expressions much easier than heterosexuals due to the fact that physical intimacy between two men is not against the norm in Iran and gays can organize parties much easier than heterosexuals. Sinooher (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

WOW!!!

Q. Isn`t Iran just the most amazing place ever????!!!!

A. YES YES YES

what do you think!?

please answer!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.204.207 (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place for that sort of thing. Jersey John (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

He said please, though. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 06:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

its true —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibernia345 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Roman Expansion

This article says the Parthian Empire limited Rome's expansion and had some of their golden eagle standards. I know that Trajan went as far as Babylon in the second century and the standards (or at least some) were returned to Rome after Nero's war with Parthia in the first century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.166.216 (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Article is about terrorism

Should this be inserted at start of article to warn people?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.40.47 (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not about terrorism at all. It's about a country. If it were about terrorism, there is a terrorism template that can be added but to link to related articles, not to warn people. Munci (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Soccer World Cup Finals

{{editsemiprotected}} In the sports section, the article states that Iran has been in three of the Soccer World Cup finals. This is not true since Iran has never made it to the finals on such tournament. For more information see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Cup#World_Cup_summaries

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve the accuracy of this article. The lede of the FIFA World Cup article you reference states "involves 32 teams competing for the title...this phase is often called the World Cup Finals." I think that the sports section claim is asserting that Iran has been one of those 32 teams in three different years. Celestra (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

The article still is inaccurate. The term 'finals', as related to the FIFA World Cup, is used to refer to the last game of the tournament. If you want to say that Iran has been one of the 32 teams in three different years, then a more accurate statement would be: "Iran has participated in the FIFA World Cup in three different years". There is a difference between "Final Tournament" and "Tournament Finals". Iran has been in the "Final Tournament" on three occasions, but has NEVER been in the "Tournament Finals". Since the majority the world takes the term "Finals" to mean the final of the tournament, the article remains inaccurate. If you are still unsure about this, consider the fact that the tournament itself has several parts: first round (8 groups of 4 teams each), second round ("round of sixteens"), quarter-FINALS, semi-FINALS and FINALS. Even the article that I cite uses the term FINALS to denote the last match of the tournament. Anrodrig (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Not done: The phrase in question reads "having reached the World Cup finals three times." The World Cup article states that the 32 team tournament is referred to as the "World Cup Finals." There is no inaccuracy except, perhaps, the capitalization of finals. I'll fix that. I understand your argument around the common use of the word, but in this case that is moot. We are not talking about some hypothetical "Final Tournament," we are discussing a particular tournament referred to as the "World Cup Finals." Accepting that this is accurate, is there some alternate wording that you would like to suggest? Celestra (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

The problem is that the tournament is *NOT* referred to as the "World Cup Finals". When I mentioned the common usage of the word, I wasn't talking about a hypothetical tournament either. I was referring to it in the context of the FIFA World Cup. My point is that, to persons familiar with the FIFA WC, the article seems to imply that Iran has been in the final match of the tournament. Still, to keep things consistent with the FIFA WC article a more accurate wording would be: "having reached the World Cup Final Tournament three times". It's a little more verbose but at least it's consistent with other articles. However, "having reached the World Cup three times" would be enough since any team can make it to the qualifying rounds. To summarize my point: "FIFA World Cup Finals" != "FIFA World Cup Final Tournament" (and the latter is the one the article should refer to). Anrodrig (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not done: If you are asserting that the World Cup article is incorrect about the 32 team contest being "often called the World Cup Finals," please provide some reference which supports your assertion. Otherwise, you need to accept that that phrase is correctly used here. Continuing to simply assert your position is not helpful. Put yourself in my shoes. Someone wants to remove a tiny positive detail from the article on Iran. To avoid falling into some sort of anti-Iranian (or anti-Iranian football) POV battle, I look at the reference and find that the tiny positive detail is valid, but that the requester was confused by the term. I explain the confusion. The requester rejects the explanation repeatedly. I continue to assume good faith, but it would be easier if you would accept that this detail is accurate, but possibly phrased in a confusing way, and suggest a way to reduce the confusion. Celestra (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

You are correct in that I didn't provide any references. However, this was never about anti-Iranian (or anti-Iranian football) sentiments. Personally, I was confused when I read the article (I am not a big fan of soccer, but most of my family is so I knew that, as most countries, Iran had never won a FIFA WC) so I tried to make the article more accurate (or at least clearer). I do believe that the wording is confusing and I already provided a less confusing alternative:

"... having reached the World Cup Final Tournament three times".

I don't see a problem with this wording, but if you do, please let me know.

Regarding the World Cup article, I do believe the wording is inaccurate, or at least uncommon. To see why this is true, please take a look at the following article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Cup_Finals

The article refers to the FIFA World Cup Finals as the final match of the tournament, and the tournament itself is referred to simply as "World Cup" or "World Cup final tournament". The article provides 42 references in which the tournament is referred to as "World Cup" and not "World Cup Finals". These references are from FIFA themselves. Another way to put this: the article is called "List of FIFA World Cup Finals" and it provides a list of the final matches of the tournaments and not the tournaments themselves. Please take the time to look at these and let me know if you find an error in my reasoning. I can provide more references if you want. Anrodrig (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Done Fair enough. Thanks for contributing to the article. Celestra (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-Aryan civilizations

Here's an amazing link of Iran: http://www.persian.asia/photos/photos-of-iran I didnt know its that beautiful. Im Iranian myself but havent visited the country for many years! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.1.197 (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

[Pictures of Iran]: http://www.persian.asia/photos/album —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.1.197 (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Elamites are not even mentioned. We are metioning Alans and Sarmantian that where hardly part of country of Iran, but not one of the very first civilizations of Iran and the world? I would like to know what others think... Ddd0dd (talk) 08:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It is briefly mentioned in the section "history" , but the especial problem in writing a page about Iran is it's prolonged history , that makes any article outsize ! More than that , the Elamites are not directly connected to nowadays Iran , but all of the after-Medes are .Although they are very important , but the nation of Iran was built after their time.Same as pre-immigration Iranian-language peoples that could not be Iranian before creation of Iran .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I kind of understand your point, and I agree that they cannot be considered Iranian, however I still think that they had a great impact on Iranian culture, and their heritage was not lost altogether. And when it mentions in the article that "Iran" has a 7000 year old history, it kind of implies that we are considering them part of "Iran"'s hisotry...--Ddd0dd (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

In reference to the historical relationship between Nazi Germany and Iran during World War 2, I was wondering if someone would shed some light on this matter perhaps on the Iran History wiki page. I am sure your already aware that the changing of the name of Persia to Iran was foreshadowed by a visit by an anthropologist from Germany who studied Iran's history, archaeological sites and recommended to the Shah that he change the name to a cognate of Aryan, hence Iran. If this is not sufficient perhaps a mention of the war factory Hitler designated to be built in Iran during world war 2 so that he could use Iran's rail road system to ship goods, this was of coarse before the Russians and English invaded and replaced the Shah with his sissy son. I thought this would be an interesting article because most people are ignorant of the fact that Nazi Germany and Iran had international relations, supported by the 2 paintings Hitler himself drew for the Shah of Iran and which are still kept in an Iranian museum under the Islamic republic.

Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 00:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any paintings in museum in Iran from Hitler, this is the first time I hear such thing, please support ur references by stating sources. Regarding Iranian name change, there is a full discussion on this matter on Wikipedia, about Iran's naming dispute. I won't get into details, 1. Iran was ALWAYS known as Iran inside the country and to Iranian people. Persians are the main tribe, however they are other "Iranian" tribes as well. The name Persia never made any sense inside the country. There are various poems and writings from at least 1000 years ago in modern Perso-Arabic inscript that states the name "Iran". For example Nizami: همه عالم تن است و ایران دل نیست گوینده زین قیاس خجل Rough translation: World is the body and "IRAN" is its heart and soul, the narrator is not ashamed of such comparison.

2. The most important reason for Shah to change Iran's name was because of Iranian minorities, specially Kurds who at the time didn't necessarily relate to the name Persia. So in order to satisfy this he made Iran the official name.--74.12.105.221 (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hunh?

You can describe Iran in two words, " Totally awesome!" There are many bad rumors about Iran but it is a magical land filled with many exciting and historical places. You can do anything while at Iran from seeing a museum to unraveling the mysteries of it's history! Quote: After the Islamic conquest of Persia and the resulting Islamization of Iran, Iranians benefited their membership of a truly international society.

I don't understand this sentence, can somebody please review it? Maikel (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's non-sourced, user opinionated garbage...I say erase it! The Scythian 17:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Your action is swift and your foot is nimble. Maikel (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Iran have civilization and economy from 7000 BC so i suggest that change the time of 3200 BC to 7000 BC

it is really not fun to have that "this is not sourced". so did you check the reference given? in Cambridge History of Iran, I mean. by S. H. Nasr I mean. Please make a little effort then question others' works. Note: not every sentence needs reference: Go ahead and read until a point has been made and then you see the reference. (update: the quote is The Islamic conquest of Persia enabled the Persians to become members of a truly international society and to participate in a world-wide civilization in whose creation they themselves played a basic role. this is what after the Islamic conquest of Persia and the resulting Islamization of Iran, Iranians benefited their membership of a truly international society in my opinion means. of course we can make the quote even more interesting. any suggestion? --Xashaiar (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

benefited does not mean that before islam Iranians were not acting internationally. The fact is that Iranian activities after islam went (outside Asia and toward west) far beyond the traditional border of Iran in sassanid era. I leave it to others to find good wording. --Xashaiar (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Islamic Civilization as Perso-Islamic Civilization

After examining the accuracy of some sources per WP:V policy, I found the following controversial and chauvinist claim not related to provided sources:

In fact this influential Persian presence that relied heavily upon achievements of Sassanids whose identity and continuity had to be assumed by the educated, has made the Muslim world itself long since come to accept Islamic civilization as a Perso-Islamic civilization and had the latter as the continuous uprising culture from eleventh century on.

The provided sources:

The following references give comprehensive analysis and clarification of the terms "persian presence" and "perso-islamic" and the relation to Sassanids and the impact on Islamic cultures:

• Marilyn Robinson Waldman, Toward a Theory of Historical Narrative: A Case Study in Perso-Islamicate Historiography, Published by Ohio State University Press, 1980, ISBN 0814202977, p. 30
• Richard M. Eaton, The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204-1760, Published by University of California Press, 1996, ISBN 0520205073, p. 28
• Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), The Persian Presence in the Islamic World, Published by Cambridge University Press, 1997, ISBN 0521591856. p.78.
• P. M. Holt, et. al. The Cambridge History of Islam: Volume 2B, Published by Cambridge University Press, 1977, ISBN 0521291380. p. 501

The sources use the term Perso-Islamic as a way to refer to Islamic Iran or something done when Persia was part of the Islamic Empire. It does not support the claim that the Muslim world sees the Islamic Civilization as Perso-Islamic or Arabo-Islamic, will delete the claim if a non-valid and clear source that respect WP:V is provided. Bestofmed (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC).

check the sources given. The source Cambridge history of Islam says explicitly was has been added. Removing sourced materials can be reported to admins.--Xashaiar (talk) 10:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I checked the sources and It is me who is going to report them unless a clear source that respect WP:V has been provided. I noticed that someone has removed a sourced material from the same book. I mean some editors here are putting only what please them from both the Cambridge history of Islam and Cambridge history of Iran. Both book do mention the importance of the role played by Persia but they did not credit it for everything neither said that the Islamic Civilization was a Perso-Islamic as whole. The book said : "...the Muslim World itself, without necessary putting this judgment into analytical terms, has long since come to accept Islamic civilization as 'Perso-Islamic synthesis`...". If you compare the quote to what said in the article, you will see the assertion tone added to it although the source used a reluctant tone (mainly: without necessary and the quotation marks). Bestofmed (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC).

That's called selective quote. Wikipedia:SYNTH prevents you from doing that. I was modest enough not to put the quote from the book cited that: perso-islamic civilization had as its typical product "Taj mahal". We have summed up the 4 sources to conclude that: Islmaic civilization is nothing but Perso-Islamic civilization. If necessary I will bring up even more provacative quotes from Ikhwan_al-Safa books.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• you have added "as part of the new Empire" from Nasr article which does not say this. This is against wikipedia rules.
• Moreover you added "the vast number of works written in arabic language" that were written by Iranians. You should add this one. To reach WP:CONS I invite you to find 10 most important books on science written in Arabic language and we check who wrote them. Ok? I guess this is fair. The Consensus will be "the vast...written by Iranians" if out of 10 we get 6 of them written by Persians.
• you have added "antiquity work in Arabic". This is non-sense. Either you do not understand "antiquity" or you do. In each case that must be removed. Page 396 states explicitly: QUOTE Islamic science came into being in the 2nd/8th century as a result of the vast effort of translation which made the scientific and philosophical traditions of antiquity available in Arabic. CANT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THIS QUOTE CONTRADICTS YOUR ADDITION? AND YOUR ADDITION REFERS TO THIS!!!!!!--Xashaiar (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it is a historical fact, Iran was part of the Empire and in addition the book mentions clearly how this new membership to an empire (even calling it truly international) stretching from old Persia to Europe has opened new doors not only to Iranians but every nation part of it.

About Arabic, it was the language of science at the time and by no doubt the universal language of the Empire in general and most translators were Arabs (including Arab Christians and Jews). Most scholars including Persians were taught in Baghdad or other major Arab cities (of course with the exception of later independent Persian dynasties) especially under Abbasids that is why their output is in Arabic. About the books written by Arabs I am not going to argue about this because I sensed a race supremacy tendency in your tone it suffices to mention Al-Andalus which was basically founded by Arabs and Berbers enabling the Western renaissance (I took this example but I am afraid you will claim that Al-Andalus has been flourished because of Persians). Finally if you want to do some statistics, you will find that Persians were the second most influential scholars after Arabs (I am ready to compile a list of Arab scholars to compare). If someone reads your comments he will presume that all praise should be given to one "race" as if for instance a titre d'exemple Ibn Khaldoun: The father of demography, cultural history, historiography, the philosophy of history, sociology and modern economics; Averroes: The person behind the idea of secularism and major polymath in logic, psychology, Arabic music theory, and the sciences of medicine, astronomy, geography, mathematics and physics; Abu al-Hasan: The famous mathematician and father of algebraic symbolism. al-Batani: The first to determine the solar year, he founded some major trigonometrical relationships and Nicolaus Copernicus based his work on al-Battani's observations and results; Al-Kindi: Founder of Arab and Islamic philosophy and a distinct polymath. He was the first to write a treatise on cryptography, cryptanalysis and frequency analysis and thus seen by some a the founder, he was the first to write about music therapy; and many others, were nothing compared to what Persians did. I have one question for you, don't you think that some parts are very chauvinist? Bestofmed (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC).

First of all I have reported you here because of your disruptive edit that I commented earlier. Now 1. your first sentence "Well it is a historical fact,...part of it." is your OR/POV. The sources given in the text mentions no such thing. I was modest enough not to include provocative quotes from that book. 2. We have not added Ibn Khaldun's quote. If you want we can suggest it here and after WP:CONS we can do that. However that quote would mean: Arab contribution to science is 0 (this is a big zero). 3. I understand that you want to add that arabic was a lingua franca. I added that for you. But do not forget that arabic language used by scientists was the work of Iranians. See my addition and the sources given. I chose a source so that no accusation will be accepted. 4. YOU SHOULD STOP USING TALK PAGE TO CHAT. WP:RS and WP:V are what count. 5. You should not give reference to my additions, but changing the sentence as you like. You have done this twice. 6. The question is not race, and this is in violation of WP:good faith. 7. You must first write here what is the problem, suggest a solution and wait for WP:CONS

Your comments on Averroes, al-Batani, ... are unimportant here. Those are iran unrelated characters. (you seem to be unaware of two lists in wiki: 1. Persian scientists and 2. arabs. Count them and report back here)--Xashaiar (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not want to refer to you but reporting is done according to Wikipedia guidelines and policies not in admins's pages. Second, whatever Ibn Khaldun (who is Arab) and Ikhwan Al-Safa (who were probably Arabs) said was what today is called self-criticism. Now back to our discussion and let's stick to it please and be constructive. You said in your addition about Arabic: "Even in developing the scientific Arabic prose itself which differs in style from that of Quran, Persian scholars like Ibn al-Muqaffa had a major role.." but the author said "Although perhaps it is an exaggeration to say that Persians created philosophical and scientific Arabic, it is certainly justifiable to state that they had a major role in its development." Moreover you added later "The contributions of Iranians in Arabic language is however not limited to scientific prose needed by themselves" which is not what the source mentions and implies disputed claims. Finally please read the WP:CITE to avoid plagiarism. I am opening a new discussion about possible improvements to this part so we can rich a consensus. Bestofmed (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC).

Ikhwan al-safa are not arab. and no: The author says: It is well known that the Arabic prose connected with the religious sciences such as Qur'anic commentary and hadith differs in style from the prose of scientific and philosophical works. Persian scholars like Ibn al-Muqaffa' had a major role in developing this scientific prose, and the whole class of clerks and civil administrators which was so responsible for the cultivation of the sciences in the early Islamic centuries consisted mostly of Persians, who entered the civil service in large numbers. Although perhaps it is an exaggeration to say that the Persians created philosophical and scientific Arabic prose, it is certainly justifiable to state that they had a major role in its development. Now the part scientific prose needed by themselves comes from his arguments+1000s of other sources that say: Iranians made almost all the scientific developments. So saying "needed by themselves" is a reflection of this. Even this quote is not the perfect one because even Arabic prose connected with the religious sciences was developed by Iranians: Tabari and Sibawayh. But I chose not to mention this. One reason is that the article is 12kb over sized.--Xashaiar (talk) 07:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, if I could find the source, around 80% of the Arabic language as it is today was developed by Persians; this was noted by an Arab scholar, not a Persian one. On an unrelated note, we should put in here that the most beautiful sounding dialects of the Persian language are missing from Iran, and can only be found in Afghanistan, haha! I shouldn't be admitting this as a Pashtun, but Hazaragi makes my heart flutter. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 09:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Just one last comment before opening a new section. It is indisputable that the Arabic language was influenced by Persian and Persians and beyond that by many other languages and nations but all of this was part of a larger cultural and linguistic exchange. We cannot stick to one view or perspective. No major language in nowadays is pure. For instance Persian has a significant number of Arabic loan words which make up more than 50% of the vocabulary according to some statistics (mainly done by Koppe, Humbert and Osmanov while studying the Persian language lexicon) which is quite weird because they are from two distinct language families (one is Semitic and the other Indo-European). Particularly in the Middle Ages, Arabic words increased from 10-30% to some 50% in the 12th century which was a major element in the forming of New Persian especially after independence from the Abbasids and the rebuilding of the Persian Identity. Moreover, this influence did not stop at the verbal and writing levels but went further to the adaption of a modified version of the Arabic alphabet which is still in use today. Another interesting fact is that most borrowed words were used to express abstract concepts and scientific theories (i.e. mots savants); that was one of the reasons why most Persian scholars chose to write their scholarship in Arabic (other factors exist of course). I am not under-estimating the value of Persian language but wanted to show the other POV not mentioned here. By the way, the article is about Iran so it is better to mention changes occurred to today's Iran language rather that of Arabic.

>>to Pashtun ismailiyya: I will ask one of my Afghan friends to speak it next time ;), he is Hazara and I call him Hassan (mirroring from the marvelous The Kite Runner by Khalid Hosseini)! Bestofmed (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

Violation of the principal of NPOV and non relevant claims

I want to open a new discussion in order to rich a consensus about some sections of this article, mainly the part History of Iran in the middle ages.

I have some objections to this section because it violates:

• the principal of neutrality: All the mentioned views are given an excessive undue weight and asserted as being judged as "the truth".
• Simple Formulation principle: No simple formulation is used. All expressions were used to assert opinions themselves. Moreover, other POVs were not included but sometimes removed or moved in the name of WP:CONS. The editors should attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that this opinion has, not asserting it. One important principal is that editors should not imply that any one of the opinions is correct. Citing one source or hundreds of sources does not make an opinion a fact. See WP:ASF for more details.
• Verifiability: Some cited sources were used selectively to include specific biased views. The idea expressed by a source should be expressed fully, for instance in one source the author has some reservations but they were not included. e.g. One author said that it is an exaggeration to credit Persians the development of scientific Arabic, or "..without necessary putting this judgment into analytical terms.." when he talked about the Perso-Islamic term (he even used quotes for that term).

..and includes:

• Biased writing to an ethnic group: No popular opinions of one's area, country, culture, language, ethnicity, etc. should be considered as a fact. Most included claims credit one ethnic group and marginalize others.
• Plagiarism and copyright: The section is full of plagiarism with many paragraphs taken from someone else's work in both verbatim way or with a minimal changes. Most ideas were copied verbatim from the Cambridge History of Islam and the Cambridge History of Iran which are both protected by copyright laws. According to Wikipedia policies plagiarism should not be removed immediately but responsible editors should paraphrase the copied content as soon as possible or their contributions will be removed without notice.

I have some notes too about how the present content is relevant to the topic. Most claims are mentioned in an isolate way, in other terms you cannot find any reference to how Persia was run under the Islamic Empire and nothing talks of the socio-political aspects of that period. The section talks about Iranian contributions to Islamic Civilization without mentioning the wider context and simply was limited to represent it as a simple continuation of pre-Islamic Persia. It shows a biased POV basically aiming to show that the Islamic Conquest did not have any effect on Persia and only sell one idea: Persia has given much to this civilization but the civilization gave nothing and changed nothing. It is important to show how Persians played a major role in it but we should not cite only a part of the truth (half-truth = worst of all lies). I think we should talk more about how this conquest transformed Iran: the social life, the political life, language, culture etc. Previous sections are the right place to talk about pre-Islamic Iran.

Before closing, a very useful interesting quote by Arthur Schopenhauer for this discussion: "Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts as a last resource pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and happy to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority."

Finally, I prefer resolving the mentioned problems locally in a civil and constructive way, thus please be civil and remember no personal attacks! I am trying to avoid the CCN for now. If we do not rich a consensus or the discussion diverges to personal attacks as the previous one, all opinions violating the NPOV due to chauvinist and nationalist sentiment will be reported to the CCN noticeboard. Others, including personal attacks, will be reported to relevant noticeboards. Bestofmed (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not a forum the first thing you should know. Next let's see: you say the principal of neutrality: All the mentioned views are given an excessive undue weight and asserted as being judged as "the truth". Be specific about a sentence that you think gives undue weight, and do not accuse us. If others agree with you I will find better version. (update:) This is not a page for Islam, it is the page of Iran. So obviously we concentrate on Iranian matters. Therefore no need to mention about other people/countries/cultures.--Xashaiar (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Xashaiar, you said "Therefore no need to mention about other people/countries/cultures." while you added almost two paragraphs discussing Arabic and no word about Persian. In addition who said talk about Islam? I said clearly we should talk about social life, political life, languages, culture etc. of Persia in that period but discussion was limited to science and the Arabic language. The section is part of History of Iran but where is the historical facts? Bestofmed (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

Where is historical facts? All the section is about history.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Bestofmed, Just say what is your specific problem in that section? --Wayiran (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wayiran, I will try to be more specific by analyzing some parts of that section. I apologize if I was not clear enough.

• Iranians continued what was set-up by Sassanids but in much larger scale and with a more universal scope. *plagiarism* *WP:ASF* *undue weight* *WP:V*: Mainly skipping some facts. The reader of this idea will assume that Iran continued to live as it was before the conquest with no effect. In addition larger scale, universal scope thanks to what? It seems that the reasons were neglected although interestingly they can be found in the same source.
• Therefore blossoming of Persian literature, philosophy, medicine and art became major elements of the newly forming Muslim civilization. *WP:ASF* No indication soever what pushed toward this blossoming? May be the previous sentence but it has some issues explained above.
• The Islamic Golden Age which is characterized by the development of science owed, to a large extent, its importance to the vital contributions of Iranians, and reached its highest level in 10-11th centuries a period in which Persia was the main theatre of scientific activities. *plagiarism* *WP:ASF* *undue weight* By analogy I can find hundreds of sources that said the same thing about Arabs or Turks for instance. It is important to highlight who has the opinions and discuss them without embrace. I support this idea but it should be reformulated in a neutral way.
• In fact this influential Persian presence that relied heavily upon achievements of Sassanids whose identity and continuity had to be assumed by the educated, has made the Muslim world itself long since come to accept Islamic civilization as a Perso-Islamic civilization and had the latter as the continuous uprising culture from eleventh century on. *plagiarism* *WP:ASF* *undue weight* *WP:V*: Undue weight because it is the sole opinion of the author and some others and not accepted widely by the mainstream academia. The author himself said "..without necessary putting this judgment into analytical terms.." and used quotes which shows clearly that this claim is questionable and should not be taken as factual (the use of In fact which infringes clearly the ASF principal).
• Even in developing the scientific Arabic prose itself which differs in style from that of Quran, Persian scholars like Ibn al-Muqaffa had a major role. And the whole class of clerks and civil administrators which was so responsible for the cultivation of the sciences in the early Islamic centuries consisted mostly of Persians. The contributions of Iranians in Arabic language is however not limited to scientific prose needed by themselves, but also in Arabic poetry. These contributions by Iranians are characterised as "the lively and graceful fancy, elegance of diction, depth and tenderness of feeling and a rich store of ideas". *some plagiarism* *WP:ASF* *undue weight* *WP:V* *non-relevancy* It undoubted that Arabic was influenced by the Persian languages and vice-versa (according to statistics 50% of Modern Persian has Arabic origins, see section above). I strongly agree to show that Persians were given key-positions and played an important role in the administration but unfortunately this section continues the undue weight and includes half-truths. The verifiability is questionable too because the author said clearly that it is an exaggeration to credit Persians the development of scientific Arabic. Intelligent readers will ask why Iranians chose Arabic for scholarly works in the first place if they developed it for themselves? Regards. Bestofmed (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

Please be succient, but you don't seem to know the meaning of WP:OR, which is exactly what you are doing. Wikipedia is not a forum. As for why Arabic was promoted as a scientific language has to do with it being the language of the Quran which was the basis of the common Islamic empire, but Persian eventually developed its own scientific and philosphical works by the 10th/11th century. As per Plagarism or OR, any sentence can be rewritten. As long as it is not an exact paragraph. Plus it can be quoted with the ("").

As per undue weight, these are well known scholars plus quotes by Bernard Lewis should be added as well : [19]. You will not find hundred sources like you claim. It is not a conspiracy theory. For example Ibn Khaldun(and I suggest we quote him verbatim):"It is a remarkable fact that, with few exceptions, most Muslim scholars both in the religious and intellectual sciences have been non-Arabs ... Thus the founders of grammar were Sibawaih and, after him, al-Farisi and az-Zajjaj. All of whom were of Persian descent. They were brought up in the Arabic language and acquired knowledge of it through their upbringing and through contact with Arabs. They invented the rules [of grammar] and made it into a discipline for later generations. Most of the hadith scholars, who preserved traditions of the Prophet for the Muslims also were Persians, or Persian in language and breeding because the discipline was widely cultivated in Iraq and regions beyond. Furthermore, all the great jurists were Persians, as is well-known. The same applies to speculative theologians and to most of the Qu'ran commentators. Only the Persians engaged in the task of preserving knowledge and writing systematic scholarly works. Thus the truth of the statement of the Prophet becomes apparent, If learning were suspended at the highest parts of heaven the Persians would attain it. ... The intellectual sciences were also the preserve of the Persians, left alone by the Arabs, who did not cultivate them. They were cultivated by arabicized Persians, as was the case with all the crafts, as we stated at the beginning." excerpt taken from: "The Golden age of Persia by Richard N. Frye, Professor of Iranian, Harvard university Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London 1975 Professor Richard (Emeritus) was a Professor of Iranian and Middle Eastern studies at Harvard University. pages 161-162". If it was the other way around, I am sure Ibn Khaldun would have mentioned it as well. So in Wikipedia we stick to WP:verifiability, WP:OR and WP:RS. If you don't like some of the giant scholars of the West, then a forum is better medium. (Note by Iraq it means Arak-e-Ajam (Persian Iraq)) although modern Iraq had a large Persian population at least up to the Mongol invasion. Thank you.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The connection witht the Persian empire is clear as well as Ibn Khaldun remarks: the Persians "were most versed in those things because sedentary culture had been firmly rooted among them from the time of the Persian empire".--Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Nepaheshgar, thanks for your proper answer. And Bestofmed: I have problem to understand you, we have found rewording of what the sources: The Cambridge history of Iran, The Cambridge History of Islam, A Literary history of Arabs say. Direct quote makes you unhappy, and indirect rendering too. So what is your position? Let me mention just one of your problem. You say

Iranians continued what was set-up by Sassanids but in much larger scale and with a more universal scope. is *plagiarism* *WP:ASF* *undue weight* *WP:V*.

My answer: This is a direct rendering of The Cambridge History of Iran vol. 4 page 396: quote In a sense the scientific activity of this period continued what had been begun during the late Sasanian period, but on a much greater scale and with a more universal scope. No serious person consider this plagiarism: It is fine to quote scholars in wikipedia (in our case we are quoting S. H. Nasr, be careful he is simply the undisputed top scholar). And if you read WP:RS and accept that we have given reference to top scholars and not just "somewhere published matrerials" you see that we are not violating anything. WP:ASF is also fine. We have mentioned facts: You can not deny Ebn Muqafa. We stated FACTS about him. That's it.

Finally please stop OR and using wikipedia as a forum. If certain things are bothering you, you need to bring reliable sources that are 1. in the level of our sorces (The Cambridge history of Iran, The Cambridge History of Islam, ..) and 2. dispute explicitly what we have added. Read my comments and that of Nepaheshgar once more. I repeat, bring contradicting claims from reliable sources then I will listen to you.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes in Wikipedia we work with valid sources. If there are sources that contradict other valid sources absolutely, then we can mention it. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I do agree we need to put more on life in the medieval ages. By the way Richard Frye also states: "The remaks of Ibn Khaldun are not in dispute but the extent of Iranian influences on Islam, the Arabs and the Arabic language needs to be examined and classified. I propose to discuss these influences under the following rubrics: administraion and government, religion and philosophy, science and medicine, commerce and crafts, the fine arts and finally literature and language, where the rise of the New Persian language and poetry will be treated". So if a distinguished Professor from Hardvard states they are not in dispute, then there needs to be at least some equally distinguished Professors of Iranian/Islamic studies that say the opposite. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can be specific and write a sentence or two from each of these. Specially Frye gives good one/two page summary of each of the Iranian contributions to these fields. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Bestofmed, I suggest you to read this article, to understand the issue better. --Wayiran (talk) 09:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems that the majority misunderstood me. I am not here to negate the contribution of scholars of Persian descent to the Islamic Golden Age; that is absurd. I am concerned with the undue weight and the absence of NPOV in this section, in addition the misrepresentation of some reliable sources notably the Cambridge History of Iran (picking only what please some editors). I wanted to stimulate a discussion in order to rich a consensus on how we should modify this section as Nepaheshgar pointed out, but it seems, to some reasons I am not aware of (may be chauvinist or nationalistic), this is not going to work. I appreciate what Xashaiar said, I will add my contribution to this section in order to make it more balanced and neutral. Nevertheless, I have some comments. Whoever read the Al-Muqqadimah will notice what the term arab means; it is not the same connotation of nowadays. Ibn Khaldun used the term to refer to Bedouins or what he preferred to call sometime: The Desert Mind (the typical example of primitive society in his book). In addition you should read the whole 6th chapter to understand that he was discussing an early period of the empire scientific history, he mentioned later the decline of science and culture in Persia and noted that Cairo was the center of knowledge at the time. Anyway that is not our main topic but wanted to make sure that Ibn Khaldun's full view is cited. About the Arabic language, first I thank Wayiran for the link but again I am not questioning the influence of Persian language on Arabic (Arabic was influenced by Persian, Turkish, Berber etc.). The problem is that is a one-sided view. There is no single word about the influence of Arabic on Persian and how it was a major building block for the formation of New Persian which resembles Modern Persian; that is an element we should mention because it is about the History of Iran. I will add the missing views as I said very soon and then will appreciate any comment afterward. Bestofmed (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC).

I do agree with much of your edits, specially also Islamic influence on Iranian culture and Arabic influence on Persian language. But you are taking an Arab nationalist view of Ibn Khaldun and Arabs. Arab simply means Arab speaking by the time of Ibn Khaldun and not just desert Arabs. Note in that quote he is saying Arab and 'Ajam and Fars.. obviously, Arab is not the same 'Ajam. I will include the parts of your edits I agree with since they are a large number of edits. You have for example quoted Ibn Khaldun where-as it is the job of the scholars to quote it (since he is a primary source). There is no proof that Sibwayah was an "Arabized Iranian" based on secondary sources. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nepaheshgar, It seems you are not aware of the WP:ROWN. Even if you are right, you cannot revert a whole content which was mostly supported by inline-citation, because of one term or because my contribution was "large" as you said, that is a form of Wikipedia OR. I am reporting this edit war to the administrator's noticeboard (including you and Wayiran).

About Ibn Khaldun, that is not the nationalists Arab view, Bernard Lewis in his book The Arabs in History said clearly "Ibn Khaldūn's use of the term Arab in his history seems to indicate a class of people and not a group. Most scholars believe that, in many instances, Ibn Khaldūn uses the name Arab to mean bedouin." While Ibn Khaldun is a primary source, his work has been reliably published (by a university press mainly Princeton University) so it may be used in Wikipedia (see WP:NOR for more details) but nevertheless I agree with you we should have more sources, I will provide them soon. Bestofmed (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC).

“Additionally, the Arabic script replaced the Aramaic script for writing and simpler Arabic forms replaced the cumbersome and limited Pahlavi formations.” Ironically even though I prefer Bestofmed's version if I had to choose, how in the world do you mention something so opinionated like “cumbersome and limited” about the Pahlavi script, but yet don't mention the Persian contribution of the Nastaʿlīq script which has had endless influence on how several languages are written?

I feel both versions have bias. One leans towards a view that backwards Bedouin Islam is hopelessly in debt to Persian civilization and would be nothing without it, while the other leans towards a view that Persians were a group of backwards people who could only ever realize their full potential through the heroic Arab introduction of Islam. To be honest, I think both views are exaggerated but contain fundamental grains of the truth. And both were well cited. One can have valid citations for opposing views, and that's what we realize is happening here. I propose we state various historians opinions and note where they contradict, or even rewrite a version that balances both Islam's contributions to Persian civilization and the Persian contribution to Islam. Both versions as it is favor one or the other. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 20:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it is not me who said Pahlavi is cumbersome and limited, the sources said so and it is widely accepted but I am not against any other contribution or addition with a different POV as long it is well cited. About the POVs, I did not remove the whole content of my previous editors as they did (at least I preserved their POV but questioned some claims). I tried to provide the missing point and reinforce NPOV (you can see my attempts above but almost no one listened seriously). I asked always for a rewrite to this section to become more balanced. Bestofmed (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC).

I have put most of Bestofmeds contribution except some part about conversion and Arab invasion. The latter had also had a bad effect as well which was not covered. For example Biruni mentions: "When Qutaibah bin Moslem under the command of Al-Ḥajjāj ibn Yūsuf was sent to Khwarazmia with a military expedition and conquered it for the second time, he swiftly killed whomever wrote in the Khwarazmian native language and knew of the Khwarazmian heritage, history, and culture. He then killed all their Zoroastrian priests and burned and wasted their books, until gradually the illiterate only remained, who knew nothing of writing, and hence the regions history was mostly forgotten.". But the particular quote from Ibn Khaldun indicated difference between Persian and Arabic, see Frye with reference to that particular quote. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ibn Khaldun is still a primary source, even it is translated it. You need secondary sources to intrepret it as per Wikipedia requirements. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am going to split that section into cultural and political aspects as the two are too convoluted. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. As I said above "I think we should talk more about how this conquest transformed Iran: the social life, the political life, language, culture etc." but got only personal attacks. Bestofmed (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC).

Here is the quote of Ibn Khaldun: [20]. It is clear by Arabs he means Arabs, since Abbassids are called Arabs--Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not because he used Arab, he meant Arab. You should read the whole Prolegomena because picking pages or quotes out of context sometime misleads the reader. If not, you can read commentaries and analysis of some scholars who agreed on the fact that Ibn Khaldun did not mean Arab: "..Most scholars believe that, in many instances, Ibn Khaldūn uses the name Arab to mean bedouin". In addition if we want to go further Ibn Khaldun used the term Ajam in his Arabic version and not Fourrss but most of the Ajam were Persians although some scholars question this mapping. Bestofmed (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC).