Talk:Iran/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Human rights section

I would like to know more about the condition ofthe Sunni Muslims in Iran , Romours are so strong that they are oppressed ... and that they are looked dwon upon. I heard that the only Capital in the world that does not have a Sunni Mosque is Tehran. I also heard alot of stories from Irani Sunni Muslims about state geonicide that is never talked about. please add, support or prove otherwise. Thank you

I think citation would be useful for the facts stated in Human rights section. Can anyone add?

I have added some material to the Human rights section. Cited with source, where Iran has been accused by Canada of being one of the worst human rights abusers. "In a National Post article dated Thursday, November 2, 2006 Iran has been listed among the 13 worst abusers of Human rights in the world by the Canadian Government. Canada has brought this to the United Nations Human rights council, a body which the country firmly rejects Iran's participation on given its horrendous human rights record. This related to the torture and death of Canadian photo journalist Zahra Kazemi, by an Iranian prosecutor, who later became a high ranking member of the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran's was not pleased with this assessment, despite its factual accuracy. Canadian Criticism" There is a link and there is a source behind it. These are just the facts. And the fact is Iran is probably one of the worst Human rights abusers in the last 50 years. --Meanie 00:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway I removed the paragraph about the Persians having the first human rights charter. While true, the section on Human rights is about Human rights in the modern State of Iran, not in the Persian Empire, which was much larger than just the area of Iran. As well this is biased because it makes Iran sound like a bastien of human rights, when in fact Iran is one of the worst if Not THE worst abuser of Human rights in the world today. And since this page is about the state of Iran currently in existance the section should be encylopedic and reflect the fact that Iran is an abuser of human rights. And that is not a biased assesment, every major NGO and almost every government would agree with the assessment. IE if the Canadian governmetn does what they are contemplating the Iranaian president would not be able to enter most of the countries in the world for fear of extradition to Canada. There are several Iranian government officials who are wanted in Canada, and Canada requested that their UN human rights envoy, who was in Geneva be arrested,(and other countries obliged) should he end up in a country with an extradition treaty (The swss dont extradite). The Iranian government knew he would have been arrested and flew him out on a direct flight.--Meanie 21:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove the history references, Iranian history is Iranian history, 'Iran' and 'Persia' are used interchangeably, 'Persia' is the term West used to refer to Iran, but Iran has always been known as "IRAN" to Iranians since and before Cyrus the Great founded the nation. Oh and the Canadian government's opinion or individual cases should go to the main article at Human rights in Islamic Republic of Iran, the section here is just short summery and history should be part of it. --Mardavich 21:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please dont is not an argument. You have to have a reason for having it there. It is completely irrelivant. Persia was the area from Turkey, all the way into Afghanistan, it was a large geographical region. That reference is to Ancient Persia, not pre world war two Persia. Pre World War two Persia, and Iran are used interchangably, however Iran and the Persian Empire are not interchangable. Your reference is to the Persian empire, it might have a home in the history section, but not the human rights section.--Meanie 21:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Iran naming dispute, Persia is Iran, it's not just a geographical region, it's a nation state that once upon a time controlled parts of what is today Turkey and Afghanistan. The history of Human Rights practices of a nation is relivant to the Human Rights section of that nation's page. The BBC source uses the term "Iranian history" as well. --Mardavich 21:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Either way you should stop trying to block the blunt and very modern facts that Iran has a government that practices torture. If Canada's assesment of Iran doesnt belong in that statement neither does Human Rights Watch. User:Meanie|Meanie]] 01:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The following text is the text that you have rejected, while I agree that perhaps mentioning the specific case of Ms. Kazemi even though she was brutally tortured and murdered by the Iranian State:

"In a National Post article dated Thursday, November 2, 2006 Iran has been listed among the 13 worst abusers of Human rights in the world by the Canadian Government. Canada has brought this to the United Nations Human rights council, a body which the country firmly rejects Iran's participation on given its horrendous human rights record. This related to the torture and death of Canadian photo journalist Zahra Kazemi, by an Iranian prosecutor, who became a high ranking member of the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran's was not pleased with this assessment, despite its factual accuracy. Canadian Criticism"

Despite your insistance that we should not have any "examples" in the article, I think we should have at least one specific example that in a factual way highlights just how horrendous the human rights record of Iran is. I personally believe that states that behave like Iran should be KICKED out of the United Nations, because they sign the declation of Human rights and then go out of their way to violate it.

Further more that reference is historical, hence because it is about the historical state of Iran regardless of the current governments status as a successor it belongs in the history section. I have no problem with it being in the history section. But its inclusion in the Human rights section makes Iran look like a bastien of freedom and equality, of which it is neither, and skews the point of view, distracting from the facts. (We are an encyclopedia we have to present facts.) Fact being that the modern state of Iran is a brutal regime which allows little or no freedom and has no respect for women. But the Above text is what I propose, in parenthesis. --Meanie 01:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean. Do you think we should add the viewpoint of all countries about human right situation in Iran. I think we can use the U.N. and "Human Rights Watch" reports instead. Of course there is a seprate article to write more information:Human rights in Islamic Republic of Iran--Sa.vakilian 02:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Canada has a specific issue with Iran, the fact that someone who tortured and murdered a Canadian is now a high ranking member of the Iranian government. I mean its dispicable. --Meanie 18:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

To meanie. Actually the current article is more history and culture article than a political article. There is a specific article for Human Rights in Iran. As per Iran having no respect for Women there are more Iranian women in Universities than man. You are pushing too much of your POV and human rights itself is a POV issue. You should take to the Human rights article on Iran, but this article is not the place for it simply. Some people might also firmly believe that countries that have used nuclear weapons should not be in the UN. But these are POV's and not facts. Since the article is more about history and also Iran and not too much about politics, I think the issue is best handled through the Human rights article on Iran. --alidoostzadeh 02:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everyone else here in regards to meanie's edits, this is an encyclopaedia, not a political journal.Khosrow II 04:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Folks this is page is about a country, the Islamic republic of Iran is not known for Human Rights. The country page is supposed to be about the country. If this page was supposed to be a history it would be called a history page. There is probably already another history page anyway, so this page should be about the present day country, and its present day behaviors.

With all do honesty I think that we do need to have some information about at least one specific example on this page. The historical information is a single history fact, and perhaps it should be on the history page. Afterall it gives the impression that Present day Iran, which this "country page" should be about is somehow a defender of human rights. All this when their representative to the UN human rights council is a murderer. That really says a lot. The FACT that they abuse human rights is not a political policy or anything of the like, it is a fact.

With regards to Alidoostzadeh, since when does a law requiring women to wear headscarves count as human rights. While they may have a good representation in Universities they have the life of a dog in every other regard.

As for why we should use Canada over the United Nations, the UN allows some of the most oppressive brutal regimes to partake in the Human Rights Council, they have no credibility when it comes to human rights what so ever. I recognize that some here would like to discount Irans current status as a human rights abuser, however I will tell you that Canada as a roll modle never discounts its past abuses, ever, lest they would be repeated again. The only objection to adding such a section to the Canada page would be from people not from Canada, Canadians readily accept and awknowledge the skelletons of the past, which is why they are on the front flank in the fight for human rights, and have bucketloads more credibility when it comes to Human rights than the United Nations as a body.--Meanie 18:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

And all that is your point of view, and you're entitled to it, go ahead and write an editorial about it in you local newspaper. This is encyclopedia, political opinions do not belong here. As for citing Canada's position on Iranian rights issues, you can cite that on the main article, the section here is suppose to be short summery from an international perspective and the Canada's viewpoint, as valid as it maybe, is no more Important than any other country's viewpoint, and if you insist that it is, then that's just your point of view again. Human Rights Watch, on the other hand, is an independent none-governmental international observer, and their viewpoint is already included in the section. --Mardavich 12:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it cant stay the way it is because its comes off as being pro Iran. That is not neutral, a neutral view is that they are an abuser, mainly because everyone says it, and they do not do much to hide it. --Meanie 17:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Who are "they"? If you mean the current Iranian government, their abuses is already outlined in summary form. But you don't seem to differentiate between a government and a nation. Regardless, the section is not "pro" anything, it's well referenced, and you're the only one here who has a problem with it. --Mardavich 19:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a separate article on human rights in Iran. As per Canada, I can say that they took some other native people's land and wiped them of clean. That is ethnic cleansing on massive scale. So if they are really sorry and apologetic, they would give it back to the natives and go back to their own rightful country. Now do I have a right to insert this POV in an article on Canada? Probably not. So discussions on Human Rights (and note I do not defend the Iranian regime) should be moved into their own separate article with variety of POV' and not in the main Iran article. As per Iranian women, they are represented in a higher number than their western counter parts and any other Islamic country in the world. As per the Hijab, some might consider forcing women wearing any clothes to be against Human Rights and one can get arrested in the West for not wearing clothes. For example some women have held protests against the law that does not allow them to breast feed in public and they were arrested and jailed. Note it doesn't matter what I think of these laws, but they are there. Hejab is a cultural standard in Iran and one can also in turn say France and Turkey are violating human rights by outlawing Hijab, but again maybe that is France's cultural standard. --alidoostzadeh 23:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment you are not too farmililiar with the Canadian Native situation in that it is awknoledged that there was a wrong committed, everyone admits it. You suggest we give the land back, well to the extent that this is possible without displacing anyone it has been done, especially up north, most of the Northern Groups got all of their lands back because nobody had settled them. In cases where the land couldnt be returned they have been paid. Now that said it has been delt with province by province, so the situation is different in every province. But certainly in the case of the North, they have been duly compensated. You see they made claims to enforce their treaty rights, as there were treaties signed, anyway its a very complicated issue which I will not pretend to be an expert on and repairations are ongoing in some provinces, but not in for example Alberta which settled outright. When you say they are more represented you do not say in what context, politically absoultly not. For example in Canada it depends on the context the wearing of clothes all people must cover themselves, however one notable exeption is that although most Women do cover they do have the right to bare their breasts. For example in Ontario a court ruling has given them the right to go topless. While this doesnt automatically roll over to the other provinces it means that the other provinces dont really enforce their laws because if they did they would be struck down as well. As for rightful country from Canada that would be confusing because everyone is mixed race, in fact most people would get to stay by virtue that a large percentage of the population has at least one native anscestor. And what do you do with a dual Chinese/Iranian/Brit? They do exist where do you send them? Hence while reparations have been made its just not feasible, practical or realistic to leave all together. Anyway I am finished trying to convince you that we should make this topic less NPOV. I am going to take my edit to the Human rights in Iran page. And furthermore if you want to create a dirty history of Canada's abuses I would be more than happy to help. Its not a political statement its a specific case, while I thought we should have a specific case in this article it is evident that nobody else agrees, and if they do they are not saying anything. --74.104.48.172 01:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the NPOV tag, although I still do not agree with the way the section is set up, it is evident to me that the vast majority of people think it should be that way. And being that Wikipedia is a democratic institution we will go with that. For reference I have added it to the international criticism section of Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. I just want to thank the above posters for their honest, and concise imput on my suggestion. --Meanie 06:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation for Iran abstain of using chemical weapons

I think there is no need of citation for proving Iran didn't use chemical weapons. Citation would be needed if they have used C. Weapons not if they haven't. Please confirm and I'll go ahead removing it. Also, I checked the the section of Iran-Iraq war. I don't think it's biased (though unnecessarily long!). Should we remove the "neutrality check request"?

Twice removal of Farsi in parenthesis as official language

[[User::Mani1]] has twice removed (Farsi) after the word Persian from the official language box. See history. Also see "Tightening of the Culture section" above. What is appropriate at this point? Bejnar 14:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion it is a very good idea to remove the word Farsi from the official language box. The language's name in English is Persian, not Farsi. The latter is the local name of the language, but a quick look at other country-related articles (Germany,Netherlands, and Finland) reveals that the local name is not mentioned on their pages. This is reasonable because this is the English Wikipedia, not the Persian one.Shervink 14:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)shervink

I am not talking about substituting Farsi for Persian. I am talking about the entry as: official_languages = Persian (فارسی (transliteration: Fārsi)) Also see India and Republic of Ireland for counter-examples. Read the section "Tightening of the Culture section" above for why it is valuable. Bejnar 16:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The usage of the word has been repeatedly banned and condemmed by academic circles. Please visit this page as an example. Besides please read "Iranian Goverment Constitution, English Text": link. --Sina Kardar21:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A stupid argument. As anyone who speaks the language knows, it is actually called Farsi. If you're going to insist on using the antiquated and rarely-used word "Persian", then it's only logical that the modern name, Farsi, is used AS WELL. Deleting it is at the very least, extremely mis-leading. Tashtastic 12:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

YEP! its "farsi". "persian" is like saying the language of china is "chinese" instead of "mandarin" and "cantanese". 58.106.19.3 05:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

THE LANGUAGE IS CALLED PERSIAN NOT FARSI. --SkyEarth 23:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"SkyEarth" obviously not a speaker of it. For those of use who do speak it, it is called Farsi. Go learn about it first, before showing yourself up further. The previous post about "Chinese" proves the point perfectly. Tashtastic 11:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct! Oxford dictionary also states: "Farsi - the modern form of the Persian language, spoken in Iran". Furthermore, ask an Iranian "What language do you speak?" and he will say "Farsi" not "Parsi", "Parsiayee" or "Persian". The country is also no longer called Persia. It is called Iran.

-- Only Iranians ignorant of their past with no study and no clue about their culture and language use "farsi" while talking in English. I have to admit that unfortunately these kind of people are huge in number.

---

I'm adding Farsi back in parentheses. Please allow correct contents to co-exist and do not engage in editing campaign over small matters like this. Fleet Command 16:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC) [[User::Mani1]] has removed (Farsi) after the word Persian from the official language box, at least four times. Bejnar 19:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. There is no need to add local forms of a name, transliterations in local alphabet and other explanatory stuff in a infobox. It is all explained in the text. For most of other countries this has not been done. Why should we repeat the explanatory stuff in the box just for Iran? There is just one official name for the Persian language in English and that's Persian.

Providing the information about the name 'Farsi' is not redundant it is informative. I knew about a language called Farsi long before I knew about a language called Persian. The name Farsi is used by academics, other than those in literature. This is useful information, and it can co-exist with the name Persian. Bejnar 02:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

--Mani1 00:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Bejnar makes a good point. Even if you don't include Farsi as part of the official language it needs to be somewhere on this page simply because it is the name used by a large number of English speakers for this language. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. If you look up "Iran" in other encyclopedias, they all list Farsi as the language spoken there. "The principal language of the country is Persian (Farsi), which is written in Arabic characters. Other languages are Turkic dialects, Turkish, Kurdish, Armenian, and Arabic. Among the educated classes, English and French are spoken." "iran." The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. Columbia University Press. 05 Nov. 2006. <Reference.com http://www.reference.com/browse/columbia/Iran> Some encylcopedias even list Persian in paranthesis because Farsi is the more common name. "Languages Farsi (Persian) (official), several minority languages including Kurdish, Baluchi, Luri, and Turkic (including Afshari, Shahsavani, and Turkish")"iran." Crystal Reference Encyclopedia. Crystal Reference Systems Limited. 05 Nov. 2006. <Reference.com http://www.reference.com/browse/crystal/16648>

Category deleted

• I deleted the category:theocracy as there was already a category called category:contemorary theocracies. --Mitso Bel22:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• The category contemorary theocracies is under discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. It may be the one to disappear. Bejnar 22:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information --Mitso Bel10:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

khomeini's picture

I think picture of khomeini should be removed from the page for the following reasons: 1. He caused the death of tens of thousands of Iranians. 2. He is dead. 3. He is not popular among iranians.

I think we should use the picture of an Iranian national hero instead of murderer. Dr. Mossadeq could be a good choice. (64.231.245.248 23:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC))

looks like a good suggestion. --Mitso Bel10:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No. It definately is a very bad suggestion. Here is Wikipedia, an encylopedia. We write and display facts. Keep your propeganda and political campaigns off this website. 85.185.128.18

That's Right! Since Mr. Khomeini was an important man in Iran, we need a picture of him. Please do not engage in political activities and/or vandalism in this website. I'm re-insterting a picture of him. Fleet Command 06:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you guys see a picture of Hitler on the page about Germany?

What type of arguement is this. Afterall, Khomeini is a major political figure in Islamic world. Many would be interested to see his picture, whether they like or dislike him.

Who ever thinks that Imam Khomeini was a murderer is mad. He freed us from those american B******* and after that he saved us from Saddam;and what were the Americans doing? They were selling weapon to them while saddam was murdering thousands of Iranian and Iraqi civilians with his chemical weapons.And now people are learning how corrupt the american government is.And I am very angry that the western government has portraid Iran and Imam Khomeini In a way you compare Iran to the Nazis and Imam Khomeini to Hitler.I know that the majority of Iranians support the Iranian government.Thats why Ahmajinejad was voted as president.Imam Khomeini was a great leader and nothing less.

Good point -- there SHOULD be a picture of Hitler on Germany's page. Whether Khomeini and Hitler are reviled now or not, they are undeniably a signifigant part of their countries' history.

Oil exports

According to a number of other sites, Iran exports 2.6 million barrels a day in a 2003 estimate. Here is a site where it is stated. Persian Gulf Fact Sheet. I made the needed changes in the article. It now says Iran exports 2.6 million, not between 4 and 5.

Mt. Damavand picture.

Please guys, do something about this pictures copyright problem. I'm sure we don't want it to be deleted. The picture can be found in the Geography section of this article. Thank you Arad 18:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Quality reduced

A new paragraph has been recently added to the article that reduces its quality:

""During the war Saddam was supported by the United States all the way against Iran providing weapons and intelligence to Iraq. To stop Iranian volunteer human waves on battlefield, Iraq used biological and chemical weapons provided by West, extensively. As local dissent in Iraq against Saddam and his secular war against Iran grew, his rule became more and more dictatorial and later used chemical weapons on his own people as well, killing tens of thousands of protesting Kurds at Halabja. Despite all these atrocities special Reagan envoy Donald Rumsfeld visited Saddam twice in Baghadad delivering him weapons to be used against Iranians and assurances of continued US cooperation with Iraq. This relationship was later augmented as US Navy joined forces with Saddam in the war against Iran, sinking more than half of Iranian Navy and downing several Iranian Airforce Planes. Towards the end of the war US Navy shot down an Iranian Civilian Airliner Iran Air Flight 655 killing 290 passengers and crew including 38 non-Iranians and 66 children. The war continued for eight years until when in 1988, Khomeini, in his words, "drank the cup of poison" and accepted a truce mediated by the United Nations, under US pressure, (just when another successful Iranian assault was penetrating Iraq) without any reparations for Iran and punishment for Saddam. The total Iranian casualties of the war were estimated to be anywhere between 500,000 to 1,000,000. With the fall of Saddam's regime in Iraq in April 2003 and his capture in December, Iran announced it had sent its own indictment against Saddam to Iraq's government, with the list of complaints including the use of chemical weapons. The United Nation finally and officially accepted Iraq as the aggressor party in the war in 1997, nine years after the war ended.""

Most of this paragraph belongs to Iran-Iraq war not here. I think one or two lines suffice about the role of US in the war. I suggest reverting this part back to an earlier version and adding one line about the role of united states and the west:

""Saddam's surprise attack made several early advances, the people of Iran began rallying around Khomeini as he urged all Iranians to defend their country and religion against Saddam's secular Ba'athist regime. By 1982, Iranian forces managed to push the Iraqi army back into Iraq. Khomeini refused a cease-fire from Saddam demanding huge reparation payments and an end to his rule and that he be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He also sought to export his Islamic revolution westward into Iraq, especially on the majority Shi'a Arabs living in the country. The war then continued for six more years until when in 1988, Khomeini, in his words, "drank the cup of poison" and accepted a truce mediated by the United Nations. The total Iranian casualties of the war were estimated to be anywhere between 500,000 to 1,000,000. With the fall of Saddam's regime in Iraq in April 2003 and his capture in December, Iran announced it had sent its own indictment against Saddam to Iraq's government, with the list of complaints including the use of chemical weapons.""

line to be added could be: Saddam was supported by the United States against Iran, providing weapons and intelligence to Iraq. US Navy shot down an Iranian Civilian Airliner Iran Air Flight 655 killing 290 passengers and crew.

Your are right and please feel free to do so. most of history of Iran is concerned about Iran - Iraq war now. This was was only 8 years, compared to 7500 years of known history of the land of Iran. Remember one of the rules in wikipedia is to BE BOLD. so Be bold and do what you think is best. Arad 04:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Images with copyright problems

Guys, I'm tired of these images with copyright problems. If they are copyrighted and not allowed to be used in this page, then remove them so we can replace them or if they have no problem, then please remove the annoying text under each images which reduces the quality of the article. Thank you Arad 04:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Iran should also be added to these categories

I see that Iran is listed as

• D8
• Persian Speaking
• Middle Easter
• Asian
• Persian Gulf
• Islamic Republic

Could someone please add;

• International ties of Iran
• Countries in Central Asia
• Countries in West Asia

As for counties in Central Asia; Iran needs to be added to that group too

69.196.164.190

Women's Rights

In the Human Rights section of the Iran article, there is mention that Islam in the country drives discrimination against women and unequal treatment of them.

This is inaccurate, it mischaracterizes that the religion of Islam itself is the cause of this while it should be mentioned that it is people's choices that are really behind such treatment and unequal treatment of women is unislamic.

you wrote: "unequal treatment of women is unislamic.", this is untrue, According to Quran:

• And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree of advantage over them(Quran 2:223)

• Your women are a tilt for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilt as ye will, and send (good deeds) before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will (one day) meet Him. Give glad tidings to believers, (O Muhammad)(Quran 2:223)

• And get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her.(Quran 2:282)

• Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.(Quran 4:3)

• Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females(Quran 4:11-12)

• Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great(Quran 4:34)

this is just quran, There is much more in hadith and Sunnah (Marmoulak 22:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

I think everyone knows that Islam sees women as inferior to men. No point arguing this.

Iranian Calendar not mentioned in the article body

Nobody have mentioned in the article that Iran is using a rather unique and presice Calendar system called Jallali calendar. See Iranian Calendar for more details.

At least now, it is mentioned in the inavbox at the bottom of the article. -- Beland 09:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A new Section

I think a new section should be added about a big percentage of people who are not happy with the current government. Or maybe a new article. What do you guys think? Arad 01:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Great idea, since it would represent current situation in Iran. It should a separate section in the existing article.

Iran Military

Does anyone think there should be a section on Iranian military? Why or why not?

well, there are already articles dedicated to the iranian military.Khosrow II 20:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

News about Iran

British troops are mobilizing on the Iranian border http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060830&articleId=3097

Iran's Population Dispute

This source Iran's population is >70 million: http://www.irantour.org/Iran/population.html

CIA claims Iran's population is 68 milliion.

And this source claims Iran's population is 75 million: http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/Asia/iranc.htm

You arrogant bastards think you can count the population of Iran to the last single person. I have several conflicting sources which state the population is above 70 million as of 2003. Title: Culture Shock, A Guide to Customs and Etiquette Author: Maria O'Shea ISBN: 1-55868-764-5 Page: 48

As of October 2004, population estimate for Iran was 70 million Title: Iran, Page 24, ISBN: 1-74059-425-8

There will be a concencious at the end of the iranian year 1385

Motto

Is anyone able to provide a reference for the motto? From I've found after googling it, it was used by Khomeini and during the Islamic revoution, but I didn't find anything showing that it has any sort of official status. Article 18 of the constitution states that "The Official Flag of Iran is composed of green, white, and red colors, with the special emblem of the Islamic Republic, together with the State Motto." This leads me to think that the actual motto might be Allahu Akbar. Does someone know more about this? Pruneau^talk 18:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It shows up on Iran press sites, but I will keep digging.Mowens35 18:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on the flag and its script, I'd go along with you re "Allaho Akbar" (this is the spelling given by the website of the Pakistani embassy in Washington, which represents Iran in the US at http://www.daftar.org/Eng/aboutiran_eng.asp?lang=eng#Flag.Mowens35 19:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think with living in Iran for 15 years and saying the Iranian Motto every morning (ask any Iranian and they will agree) that Iran motto is Independence Freedom Islamic Republic. Arad 12:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Also the website your citing for Cambodia and Iran is not the official website of that country, and I don't find it reliable neither, as you don't find FIFA reliable. Arad 12:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

(This is the continuation of a discussion started at User talk:Pruneau#Please stop.) The constitution certainly is reliable, so the motto definitely is on the flag. Could you explain why you believe that the website for the Pakistan embassy in the US is not reliable? I explained why the FIFA webiste is unreliable: it lists information which is provably false. Even if you don't accept the Pakistani embassy website as a reliable source, we only have to look at the flag to know the motto. I am not denying that Independence, Freedom, Islamic Republic is an important motto for the Iranian people; I am only saying that so far, I have not seen anything to convince me that it is the official motto. In the US, many pupils say One Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all every morning, but that doesn't make it the official motto; the official motto of the US is In God We Trust. All I want is to get verifiable facts listed. If you are able to provide a reliable reference for Independence, Freedom, Islamic Republic, I will be quite happy to accept it; unfortunately, you haven't provided any concrete evidence so far. Pruneau^talk 14:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't prove anything while I don't have any prove, so do as you wish. But I remember that they told us at school that Independence Freedom, Islamic Republic is the motto. Maybe I'm wrong but I asked few Iranians and they said that Independence Freedom Islamic Republic is the motto. I try to investigate more. I don't like anything that the Islamic Republic made official even the flag of Iran after the revolution. Why do we have to have Arabic words on our national flag? Anyway, this has nothing to do with our discussion. --66.36.134.107 21:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I live in Iran and I know for sure that the main motto is Independance,Freedom,Islamic republic. Other mottos include Allaho akbar(Khomeini rahbar) and noteast (reffering to the USSR)nor west.

Should we maybe list Independance, Freedom, Islamic republic as de facto motto, and Allahu Akbar as the de jure motto? Pruneau^talk 12:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Turko-Iranian

I want to know your opinion about this article. It seems to be supported by separatism and Pan-Turkism ideologists! It may be against Wikipedia:No original research! It is not NPOV. What do you think?

zandweb 07:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC) _ ZANDWEBT

Topics Related to Iran

I have just fixed the 'topics related to Iran' section at the bottom of the article. The lists are now in alphabetical order, properly rearanged and all word start with a capital letter.

Please, if you are to change this list follow what I have done; it took me a very long time. Thanx alot. Pedram-e 23:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Im confused. What are you talking about? Also, I think you need to be posting this stuff here: [1]. Khosrow II 23:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You know the box at the bottom of the Iran page titled "Topics related to Iran"? And you know how there are topics in the section such as History, Economy and etc? Well i just put the lists under each topic in alphabetical order and i fixed some grammer problems related to the lists. That's basically it. Pedram-e 00:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I have also created a new template design for "Topics related to Iran". Please look at it and see if I should replace the one on the page with this one. Here it is!! Pedram-e 03:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting fed up

This is really annoying to see this article getting vandalized and then, even worst, the admin revert the vandals by erasing half of the page. And the public health section is ridiculous too. some of it are facts but you can't just talk about HIV and hepatitis C and malnutrition. A health section must be a large informative section talking about what are the bad points, good points what is being done and what is already done. Arad 00:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is much better now, thank you.--Arad 03:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

un-existing links

There are some linked words in this article that dont have a article attached to them. If we want this article to hopefully become featured, these "red" links should get an article or we should just remove them. Pedram-e 23:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Your right. I'm pretty sure that private trading does have an article (maybe capitalism?), its just not linked correctly. That only leaves two red links, once we figure private trading out.Khosrow II 23:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

There is actually more; there is one under Public Health, one under Economy, two under Culture and two under Further reading. And while you are looking through the article, should that template be there in the middle of the government and politics section; because one it looks weird and two the template contains the same links that we already have under this section? Pedram-e 00:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe it should go in the bottom?Khosrow II 00:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Photographs link

I tried to add a link 'Photographs of Iran' (http://www.worldisround.com/browse/NorthAfricaMiddleEast/Iran/) but it was dropped.

I'm a newbie at Wikipedia contributions but it appears I'm not allowed to add this link because I run Worldisround. We host other peoples' travel photos for other people to browse so this and similar links seems like a very valuable addition to Wikipedia. (Several people have independently added links from Wikipedia to Worldisround places and articles.) It certainly isn't a commercial link; we'd be lucky to make $1 from the advertising. Kelek1 18:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article

I have a question; Is it possible to have an article on the a country on FP status? because if it is, then all other countries would probably want to become FP too and it'll be a chaos. Personally I've never seen a FP article on the country. --Arad 03:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I just saw that India is featured, then Iran can be too. Arad 03:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There are many countries that are featured articles, including Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bhutan, Cambodia, Canada, Hong Kong, India, Libya, Pakistan, People's Republic of China and South Africa. Unfortunately this article has a long way to go to reach featured article status, which is mostly about using summary style correctly, and not insisting that everything about Iran should be in this article. For example, the history and government sections have to be shortened extensively. Other things that need to be improved are that many many images need to be removed, and only the ones that are free or have a real fair use rationale included. Plus the page has to be much better referenced. This work was started by User:Green Giant a while back, but a lot of editors did not like it because content was being removed and placed in the daughter articles (according to summary style). Regards, -- Jeff3000 03:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the Geography, Economics and Demographics are pretty good sections. About the right length, and detail. The images need to be checked for fair use rationale, and too many images is not a good thing either. Notice for example, the Canada article has only 13 images, and this article has 44 images. -- Jeff3000 03:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Iran#History it too long and includes too many details. Also this article need separate part about religion because it's very important in understanding Iranian life during its history and today.--Sa.vakilian 05:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Clean up for history section

Do you guys like the clean up i did at the history section? Arad 21:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Rogue state, Axis of Evil.

I recently added information regarding Iran's status as a rogue state and also mentioned that it was part of the Axis of evil. Someone removed that change. Could you please explain why you did so, and why I was wrong in categorising Iran as a rogue state? Thanks. Cerebral Warrior 10:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a neutral encyclopedia, not a political website. Labeling a country "Rogue state, Axis of Evil" etc is against WP:NPOV. --Mardavich 11:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a "label" it's a fact. Please understand that Iran has been officially declared an Axis of evil state by the U.S and other countries. Cerebral Warrior 12:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Only the US has declared Iran an Axis of Evil (and should I really say George Bush). Definitely partisan-American-POV. -- Jeff3000 12:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Although the current Iranian government is no less than the devil itself, this wikipedia as mentioned by user:Mardavich, has a neutrality of point of view and I agree with User:Jeff3000 that it's only George Bush (I have no problem with George bush like many other people have) who calls Iran a rogue state. 66.36.158.150 01:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It is american government that is the true devil.

a just-for-fun response: if we are going to write things in wikipedia according to what bush says, the whole encyclopedia would be 1 page or at most 1 and a half. if we are going to write according to the americans the whole things would be 10 pages or atmost 13. thanks god we are taking serious stuff into account. kalash23oct2006

It is interesting to see narrow-minded and ignorant individuals whom believe their Fundamentalist Christian point of view is in fact the “gospel for the whole planet,” editing a world wide information site. And, complain, when their nonsense is removed..

Universitydegree among Iranians

According to the Swedish goverment 50% of Swedish people must have at least a bachelordegree to be competitive towards other countries. Would anyone tell how many percent of Iranians must have a good and highly competitve universitydegree?!

I have requested education stats on Talk:Higher education in Iran. -- Beland 09:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It must added that only a small number of people in Sweden has a degree: less than 17%. This is to low to make the country competetive towards other countries. Other countries have a higher ratio of graduation among their students and better attitude towards university studies. One should remember that in USA, UK, Germany etc well-educated people are taken care off much better than Sweden: There are many well-educated people who are unemployed. To have a degree from a university is not concidered as an option in Sweden, not even among their politicians (???). To discus problems of this kind it should be much better to transfere knowledge and exprience from USA, UK, France, Germany, Canada etc to Iran and Iranians.

Placing "Persia" after "Iran" in the title of the article

Regarding the first words of the article (i. e. the title) it is really remarkable that the synonymous use of "Persia" by the West and of "Iran" by the Persians has been extinguished here whereas we are living in a world where we still call a European country "Germany" which the so-called "Germans" themselves call "Deutschland". In France the same country is called "Allemagne" and not "Deutschland". And there are other countries of this kind. In any scientific or lexical work one would read the foreign term as well as the native name of the country which in the case of Iran happens to be the term used as part of the official name for the political entity of the "Islamic Republic of Iran". However, to proceed exactly, those who support the absence of the term "Persia" after "Iran" in the title of the article should use the official name "Islamic Republic of Iran" as a consequence of their argumentation. This idea however would not be lexical but plainly political. It is of considerable importance to show the correspondence between the two terms "Iran" and "Persia" already in the title of the article in order to unmistakably make clear which nation is being treated here. The absence of the word "Persia" after "Iran" in the title has a political aspect which should be avoided in an encyclopedia with determination. --Anoushirvan 19:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

With respect, I didn't understand a word you said. Arad 23:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I understood and I disagree becuase foreign countries no longer refer to Iran as Persia.

I think in the first paragraph, when it says "once known as persia to the western world", it should read "formerly known as..."

I think that Iran is one and the same country with ancient Persia, Sassanid Persia or Sefevid Persia; it is the oldest country in the world and people should refer to Iran as Persia. This country withstood the invasions of Barbarians such as alexander or the Mongols and proved to be better than all its occupators and it inevitably "Persified" them. --Gligan 22:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

I came across this really descriptive diagram of Iran's political system, from BBC. I think it's a good idea if those who have the editing right to include this somewhere in the document:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/default.stm

Great link, but I don't know if we are allowed to use the texts or not. --Arad 16:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

History section

File:Paint7251.jpg

Iranian woman painting the atrocities of the War. In Iran reminders are everywhere.

I don't know why this picture was in history section. It has nothing to do with History of Iran. Plus it has copyright issues which has to be fixed. And also in the history section, why do we have paragraphs at the end talking about recent events? They aren't historical yet, and I don't think they will be historical anyway. They only make the History section longer than it is now. --Arad 19:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Arad. I think we can easily drop the last three paragraphs in the History of Iran as of today. Indeed, this information can already be found in Iran's nuclear program, Iran-US relations and Politics of Iran articles. Inevitably, there are going to be new developments in the future and this should keep the main article shielded from excessive changes.

Missing section in History: Iranian Revolution section

Partway through talking about the US embassy hostage situation during the Iranian revolution, a sentence about the US blocking something is cut off. I assume this probably came from some sort of vandalism but I'm having a hard time locating the original wording of this section in the articles history. Any help would be much appreciated. The section of text concerned is as follows:

...a move which only increased his popularity among the revolutionaries. Women, African Americans and one hostage diagnosed with multiple sclerosis were soon released.In contrast U.S. blocked Despite attempts made by the administration of US President Jimmy Carter at negotiation and rescuing the remaining hostages through such methods as Operation Eagle Claw,...

BobBobtheBob 17:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Further reading

Deleted Saeed Shirazi, A Concise History of Iran PublishAmerica, September 19, 2005 ISBN 1413767982 from the Further Reading section. PublishAmerica? Unless someone knows something about this title I don't, please leave this out. Lowerarchy 04:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC) This article came up first on a Google search for Iran, by the way. Lowerarchy 04:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Republic in bed with Communism?

There's something that I really fail to understand: if Iran is an Islamic Republic and vows to defend Islam throughout the world, why on earth does it have such a close relationship with militantly atheistic regimes like Cuba's (even while communists are persecuted back in Iran)? I mean, even if a common bond of hate against America might unite them, I really don't think it would make much sense for an Islamic republic to be so in bed with Marxist regimes. Ahmadinezhad's recent moves for an even closer alliance with "friend" Fidel is something that I just can't get into my head. But then, maybe I'm dull. Enlighten me.Giorgioz 17:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you need to get enlightened. These guys are mullahs sucking on Iran's resources. As long as there is money, these ugly "Non-Iranians" will say whatever with anyone. The Islamic Republic is bullshit too. A republic cannot be Islamic. Islam and Democracy don't go together. Not that I'm again Islam, but you can't have a religious democracy. I hope one day these guy get what they deserve like Saddam Hussein, these terrorist anti human Islamic monsters.

It's not that you can't have a religious democracy, it's that it's very difficult. Some Muslims believe in democracy, while others, including Al Qaeda and many other anti-Western terrorist groups, are against democracy, and favor a religious theocracy. In the case of Iran, however, it's as much a republic as Cuba is, which is to say not at all.--TelevisedRevolution 06:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

IMHO and with all the study i've done, you can't have a religious democracy in which the law is based on a religion. A democracy must be secular. --Arad 15:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Does the persecution of Baha'is merit mention?

I find it notable that nothing is mentioned with respect to the persecution of Baha'is and of other religious minorities in Iran. This is particularly notable with respect to the Baha'is, as they comprise the largest religious minority and face the stiffest persecution. I request that we include such information in the Iran page. Please browse through some of the links provided to verify the legitimacy of this request. If the request is valid, please say so. If not, please mention why.

My intention is not to defame this great country, only to remedy a notable omission.

20:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)~carsonc

This is about the country Iran, everything regarding human rights is mentioned in the human rights in Iran article.Khosrow II 20:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we even mention that there is religious persecution in Iran or is that going to left under "freedom of speech"? Oh, and I found the baha'is on there. Nevermind. (Sorry). Carsonc 20:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we must write about the foundation of it at least under "religions"

TfD nomination of Template:Kurds

Template:Kurds has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Khorshid 13:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Errors and Omissions

The phonetic spelling of Iran is incorrect; it implies a long 'i' and a long 'a'. The first pronunciation offered by the American Heritage Dictionary would have both vowels short. Among Iranians, the pronunciation the 'i' is closest to a short 'i', and the 'a' is a low front 'a'. This coincides with the American Heritage Dictionary's second pronunciation: ĭ-rän'. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Iran.68.109.92.109 08:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

establishment

The infobox calims: " Establishment: 550 BCE Cyrus the Great overthrows Median overlords and establishes Persian Empire "

There is no reason to assume Iran was established on that date, noting the Iranian kingdom of Medes, and pre-Iranian kingdom Elam. The date may include the first kingdom in the land (Elamite), re-establishment of independence on the land by Iranians (under Medes), and/or establishment of modern Iran (under Safavids). I changed this date with: "see: Persian empire" --Gerash77 03:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Elam and Medes should be removed from the template. Elamites and Medes were not the only kingdoms/civilizations in Iran. There is no direct link between them and the creation of Iran as a country (It's like mentioning the beginning of Sumer civilization as the establishment of Iraq, or Hittites as the founders of Turkey). Jahangard 05:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The Elamites were not the founders of Iran, however, the Medes were. The first time the term Arianna was used for the region of Iran was during the time of the Medes. Also, Cyrus the great did not start a new empire, he just succeeded his grandfather to the thrown of Iran.Khosrow II 05:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom of Medes didn't include southern parts of Iran. About Cyrus, he had considered himself as the heir of his father (king of Anshan) and later king of the kings (not Astyages's successor). Also, there is no concensus among the historians whether he was Astyages's grandson (according to Herodotus) or not. Jahangard 05:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Medes were the first kingdom in Iran from the Iranian stock, controlling almost all of the area of today's Iran, so removing them doesn't make sense. About Elamites, they did establish the first large kingdom of the land, which later got assimilated with Persians, so I thought including Medes and not Elamites would not be a NPOV. Also, "revolutions" are part of political change, and not establishment/re-establishment of the nation, so i think it doesn't make much sense to include those events there.--Gerash77 06:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What does the 1906 Constitution have anything to do with the establishment of Iran? Iran, the state, was established by Cyrus the Great, when he united the Persians and Medians. --Mardavich 11:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

See France, Italy and Japan as examples. Jahangard 17:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

But Persians and Medes were united before also, werent they? They did not really bicker and the Mede tribes and Persian tribes were very close to each other and had respect towards each other (which is evident even more after Cyrus's take over). I think the Medes were the founders of Iran, and definetly the founders of the first Iranian Empire.Khosrow II 15:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well actually Cyrus created the Nation of Iran by unifying it. Medes and Elams are part of Iranian history and are Iranians but the first Iranian Empire, In the true definition was established by Cyrus by making Iran one unified nation. --Arad 20:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Khashkilla vandalism

You may not assume you can edit the article with anything you like, without discussion, and be able to keep it. You claim Iran was reestablished by Ardashir overthrew Parthian (look up the word) empire to create a "Persian" Empire. Should we also assume Iran today is not Iran because its headed by an Azeri? Frankly, as a Persian I am getting sick of this Perso-centric view of Iranian history, done by certain chauvinist. I'll keep an eye on this article from now on--Gerash77 01:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

haha. I keep my eye on this article 24/7 and it's hard to keep it clean. --Arad 20:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

GDP

Please see this, the GDP per capita is 8400 dollars. --Mardavich 04:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

For the GDP ranking, IMF sources have been used for all countries. See List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita where it says The table below includes data for the year 2005 for all 181 members of the International Monetary Fund, for which information is available. Here is IMF's original link [2], according to which Iran 's GDP per capita is 7,980.Heja Helweda 05:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

CIA fact-book says 8400 dollars, and they are more up to date with its data. There is no arbitration on using IMF as a source on all country articles. What makes you think CIA fact-book is wrong? Are you saying their data is wrong? --Mardavich 05:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

See you Talk page. The ranking article uses IMF as the main source, so first you have to convince people over there to change their source, then link it to here, as the present article is referring to the ranking article, but their numbers don't match.Heja Helweda 05:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

IMF's data is updated every year, CIA Fact-book's data is updated on regular basis. Are you saying that CIA Fact-book is not a reliable a source. If that's the case, then we should be modifying the number and percentage of different ethnicities and the language-speakers as well, since all that data comes from CIA Fact-book. --Mardavich 05:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

CIA economic data is compiled from a variety of sources. These comparisons also crucially depend on official exchange rate used, computation of the size and distribution of subsidies, government transfer payments, ... . It has become increasingly popular to report PPP numbers, but computation of these numbers depends on the methodology employed. Among economists, IMF data carries more weight than CIA numbers. In part because CIA seems to inflate the values for government transfer payments. mrjahan Nov. 21 2006, 8:28 PM (UTC)

LA Times

WE MUST bomb Iran. --Striver 09:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

American Enterprise Institute. I'm not surprised. Hopefully Canada will have nothing to do with this insanity. DragonRouge 20:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The Iranian Official Language

The language spoken in Iran if Farsi, not Persian. Although Persian can be used as a general term, as in saying the Americans speak “American,” or the British speak “British”.

But, the official language of Iran is called Farsi.

   Farsi is the arabized form of the word Parsi, Persian.

This is not a correct statement. There has been a long and exhaustive discussion regarding what is the correct European name for modern Persian language. You can easily find the resources and minutes of these discussions in many English and Prsian sources, including Iranica and Academy of Persian Language (Farhangestan-e Zaban). The absolute majority of scholars and serious research personnel agree that in English language, you MUST refer to modern Persian as "Persian" and not "Farsi". --mrjahan Nov 26, 2006.

-the above statement is absolutely right

RACIST

Why is it that so many Iranians I've met have an elitist Racist attitude?? They tend to feel that Iran is a breed apart from the rest of the Middle East/Central-South Asian diaspora. I met one fool from Iran who did not want to associate Iran with South Asia even though Indo-Aryans and Persians have got some ethnic lineage connected. He had the nerve to say that people from Northern India and Pakistan were `not really Aryans' and saying that they were mixed with Dravidians. Iranians are mixed as well. As a rule of thumb, many Iranians may be fairer that most South Asians, but I have seen many instances where they can be indistinguishable. If you look at the map of Human skin colour, you will notice that Iranians are roughly the same hue as people from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Northern India. By the way, what the hell is the ideology behind Sumka, the Iranian Neo-Nazi party??

First of all sign your comment. And second of all who are you? The reason why Iranians tend to consider themselves different from middle east is years of being oppressed but every side of Asia. When Arabs, Mongols, Huns, etc are menacing you country, your culture will try, to preserve itself, to become sort of racist. It's the same feeling people of Quebec have toward the English Canadians. Please do not make personal attacks by calling someone a fool. --Arad 04:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

im agree with you arad iranians have been tring to save their self confidence during centuries of crulty and humility by uncivilized like arabs and Mongols. they have negative feelings about arabs. another thing is he is partly right about indians race.they are not completely arians . havent you heard about discrimination between arians and dravidians in ancient india? my parents were mixed culture indian azery arab and iranian,so i cant be a racist,can i? but i advise you to study more and then call others fool.

You're right. --Arad 20:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If he's not calling someone here a fool, and not naming the person, then what does it matter?

I'm not sure about the extent of this problem, but it's safe to say that many Iranians do have a disgustingly elitist attitude that can be mixed with racism on occasions. For example, take the matter of joining the Arab League which propped up a few years back. The usual suspects went into a frenzy of racially motivated protests against this move, mainly because of the name with which this organization is known. They couldn't lower themselves to that level and see their beloved country joining the League, no matter what benefits the membership could have. The overwhelming majority of the arguments was based on the fact that 'we are not Arab' .--Sennaista 18:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the people of northern India are only Aryan nominally. They have only retained the language of the Aryan invaders, but are not racially Aryan. In fact a regional study in India has shown that there is very little differences in certain regions between sample populations who claim to be Aryan and smaple populations who claim to be Dravidan. The racial mythology and concept of Aryan superiroity in India has in fact resulted in the caste system, where the so-called puriest Aryans were on the top of the pole. Of course what little Aryan strain was in India has become diluted over time in India. The case is similar to Turkey where the population is non-Turkish, but has inherited the Turkish language and identifies itself as Turkish. The case of India can also be related to Africa wheere local populations speak European languages, but are not European. Please also see Iranian peoples; I beleive there is a link there that talks about SOuthwest Asian populations. It clearly states and shows that the populations east of the Indus are very dissimilar from Iranians. Iranians in regards to their composition, which is eclectic can be categorized with Caucasia and Turkey and to some extent Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

74.101.98.235

You are falsely using the word `Aryan' in its racial sense which the Nazis used. Genetics states that Indians are a mix of races and certain DNA markers overlap with Western Eurasians (like the Iranians). People in Iran are mixed and what makes them `more' Aryan? Sure , they generally `look' fairer than most South Asians but this is not always the case. Some theorists believe that the original Aryans did come from the Pakistan/Afghan region as they are said to have spoken Sanskrit, a language now only spoken in India.

because persians are persians, just like germans and french people arent he same race, if you went up to a german person and said hey dude im french he would probably be like, i dont give a f88k. does that answer your question, you idiot? :) plus try having your empire attacked by arabs and mongols 24/7 for the past 2000 years --Fgol142.104.148.39 20:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

And that allows us to be racist against Arabs how? or indeed Mongols. Do you think it's acceptable for the lot that we invaded, killed, raped and enslaved to feel racist towards us too?--Sennaista 22:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The racial connotations of the word Aryan are as recent as the 20th century. Before that, in modern times, the word has been used in the linguistic sense. Both these uses have been done by Western scholars for their convenience. However, traditionally for very long, the use of this word has happened overwhelmingly in religious sense, so only those who follow an Aryan religion were deemed as Aryans. Hardly any practical utility of this term exists, since its used has been deprecated by other terms in all these connotations. deeptrivia (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Images please vote

This page is getting full of Images, and to improve it's quality, I'm going to remove some of the photos which do not contribute to the article. The current candidate for removal are:

• Xerxes's photo - Vote here: Support (we have enough pictures of ancient persian kings already) Weak Oppose - We only have 2, and he's second.
• Cyrus photo - Vote here: Support (We already have the photo of his tomb on same page) Strong Oppose - Not only because he's cyrus, but because we should have him as the first King of united Iran and also Mohammad Reza as the Last. We can take his tomb off.
• Khomeini's photo - Vote here:
• Khamenei's photo - Vote here: Removed
• Ahmadinejad's photo - Vote here:
• Azadi Square photo- Vote here: Oppose (because it is an architectural symbol of Tehran & Iran)
• Dizin Sky resort photo - Vote here: (Support - why not?)
• And the Iranians scientist, astronomer image - Vote here:
• Boeing 747 photo is Economy section - Vote here: (Support - photo already in the main article)

If you agree or oppose or want to add more candidates please do so. I will remove the images in 7 days if the census is in favor. Please vote by : Oppose (next to the image name mentioned before to show your oppose for removal) or Support (to support the removal). If this article is going to be FP, we need more high quality photos. --Arad 04:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

2006 Iran Holocaust Conference

I just created the article 2006 Iran Holocaust Conference and was hoping some people here would help me by fleshing it out. It is a bit of a stub at the moment. Thanks!Sup dudes?[[User:Kitler005]] 19:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia banned in iran

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1963166,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1 --Iran yesterday shut down access to some of the world's most popular websites. Users were unable to open popular sites including Amazon.com and YouTube following instructions to service providers to filter them. Similar edicts have been issued against Wikipedia, the internet encyclopaedia, IMDB.com, an online film database, and the New York Times site. Attempts to open the sites are met with a page reading: "The requested page is forbidden." - signed by you're friendly pirate.

Great work!

Guys, i just look at the article for the first time ever, and only haven seen the pictures gave me a great impresion! wow! Iran really does NOT look like what they would like us to think :D --Striver 01:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm really glad that you liked the article (and the images). That's the best thing anyone could say to make me do my best on this article. Thanks again --Arad 01:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting!

"Adam Pārsa, Pārsahyā puça; Ariya "

In sanskrit, this will read:

"Aham Pārsa, Pārsasyā putra; Arya " deeptrivia (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Project on Western Asia

There is now a proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Western Asia which, if it ever becomes realized, would deal with the countries of Western Asia, including Iran. Many of these countries do not already have existing projects dealing with them, unlike Iran, and neither does the region in general, for those subjects which deal with matters which cross extant national boundaries. Anyone who would be interested in working on any of the subjects under the scope of the proposed project would be more than welcome to indicate such there, so that we can know whether there is sufficient interest to begin the project in earnest. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

something I noticed

- Under the sub-heading 'major cities', the population of Tehran in the paragrapg does not match the population of Tehran under the photograph; if someone could please fix that. I believe i would also be helpful if we gave a little information about each of the main cities such as how the sub heading 'Government and Politics' is branched out.

The population figure is fixed. - Beland 09:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

- Also in the sub-heading 'Administrative divisions', i think it will be a good idea to note the recent changes in provincial boundries such as those of Mazandaran, Yazd and Khorasan provinces.

- Also under the sub-heading 'Government and Politics' it would look more profetional if the branched out headings would be placed on the imidiate upper right hand of its paragragh; this requires the repositioning of the pictures in this section. In the same section some of the branches have a paragragh of one or two sentences such as that of the 'Expediency Council', maybe adding more information to that would be wise.

- Also under 'Government and Politics' each branch has its own main article and most of them are quite short. It would be a lot of work but it would be good if we would join all of does into on article. this could then be the main article for 'Government and Politics'. This would illiminate all the excess links.

- The sub-heading 'economy' could also use mager editing, since it concists of many short and long paragraghs making it look awkword.

any thoughts? Pedram-e 06:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

I was thinking of moving the picture of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh to were his name is mentioned in the sub-heading 'History of Iran'; any thoughts? Also if anyone has a good and appropriate picture of the Iran Iraq war, please add it next to that section of the sub-heading 'History of Iran'; thanx alot.

Another thing i noticed is that most of the early pictures are very pail, dead and colourless un-like the last few pictures. If anyone has more livly pictures specially for the Government and Politics section please replace these ones or just add them. If you do so, keep in mind copy right issues. Pedram-e 20:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

More information needed

Most of these still need attention. -- Beland 09:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

- Under the sub-heading 'Economy' there is a picture of the persian Rial but there is no information about it in the sectio. If someone has can please add some information on it and the persian currency. The example below is from the CIA website, but something similar would do.

ex. rials per US dollar - 8,964 (2005), 8,614 (2004), 8,193.9 (2003), 6,907 (2002), 1,753.6 (2001)    
note: Iran has been using a managed floating exchange rate regime since unifying multiple exchange 
rates in March 2002 

- Also under 'Demographics', I think there should be a more detailed section talking about the refugees in Iran such as their numbers and the reason why they have become refugees. ex. due to the taliban rule

- Also under 'geography and Climate' there should be an explanation about Irans geographical disputes, such as the example below from the CIA website but more detailed.

ex. Iran protests Afghanistan's limiting flow of dammed tributaries to the Helmand River in periods 
of drought; Iraq's lack of a maritime boundary with Iran prompts jurisdiction disputes beyond the 
mouth of the Shatt al Arab in the Persian Gulf; Iran and UAE dispute Tunb Islands and Abu Musa Island, 
which are occupied by Iran; Iran stands alone among littoral states in insisting upon a division of 
the Caspian Sea into five equal sectors 

• Also this page would be better if it had a section for Communication and Transportation in Iran; including cellphone use, Tv, Roads, Airports, Radios, Internet and etc. It would also be good if we have a section for military on this page, since this all is directly related to the country of Iran.

- Also under 'Economy' the should be some talk about Iran's gas exports including the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline and etc. and some part about Irans main industries, agriculture and industrial products, and even production of elecrticity

thanx alot Pedram-e 00:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Mosssadegh ws not the first Prime Minister of the Majlis. It was General Haj-Ali Razmara according to your article on Massadegh.

Too long

This article is 64kb at present and we can shorten it. Do we need too many details for example about battles in the main article.--Sa.vakilian 04:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

possession Chemical weapons

There is written "Although Iran itself also possessed chemical weapons, it never used them during the war" and refered to [3] and [4].

I don't think these sites support this sentence. There is written "In an interview with Cable News Network (CNN), the new U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen, responding to a question on his top concern with regard to chemical weapons, mentioned Iran among other countries allegedly possessing chemical weapons. " This is just a claim so we shouldn't write it as a fact. Also there is written :"The official English-language Tehran Times disputed Defense Secretary William Cohen's allegations that Iran possesses chemical weapons, offering as evidence that the use of chemical weapons is against the principles of Islam and that "almost all relevant international agencies have announced that Iran never used chemical weapons" even during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. U.S. officials were excoriated for indulging the "whims of the Zionist lobby.""--Sa.vakilian 13:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should write "Also U.S. accuses Iran to have chemical weopons since 1997, but Iran has denied it officially and The Islamic Republic of Iran is a signatory to the international conventions banning the use of chemical weapons. Moreover, Islam firmly opposes inflicting harm and injuries on the civilians. ."

Instead of " Although Iran itself also possessed chemical weapons, it never used them during the war." --Sa.vakilian 05:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore that paragraph is so weak and there is put some different irrilated issues beside each other. We can omit some part. Move some others to other articles.:"Although Saddam Hussein's forces made several early advances, by 1982, Iranian forces managed to push the Iraqi army back into Iraq. Khomeini refused a cease-fire from Iraq which was demanding huge reparation payments and an end to his rule. Khomeini also sought to export his Islamic revolution westward into Iraq, especially on the majority Shi'a Arabs living in the country. The war then continued for six more years until 1988, when Khomeini, in his words, "drank the cup of poison" and accepted a truce mediated by the United Nations. With the fall of Saddam's regime in Iraq in April 2003 and his capture in December of that year, Iran announced it had sent its own indictment against Saddam to Iraq's government, with the list of complaints including the use of chemical weapons. The total Iranian casualties of the war were estimated to be anywhere between 500,000 to 1,000,000. Although Iran itself also possessed chemical weapons, it never used them during the war. "

I don't know what you want to prove with this but Iran never used chemical weapons in War as they had signed a treaty to not use those weapons. The other paragraph is also full of facts. --66.36.134.107 22:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean we should write "U.S. accusses Iran to have chemichal weopons" instead of "also possessed chemical weapons"--Sa.vakilian 03:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition this paragraph includes something about Iran-Iraq war, export Islamic revolution westward into Iraq, indictment against Saddam in 2003 and chemical weopons. How these issues are related to each other.--Sa.vakilian 03:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

OK I see what you mean, but I strongly oppose writing "Moreover, Islam firmly opposes inflicting harm and injuries on the civilians." as EVEN IF Islam opposes harming, Islamic republic and other Islamic governments execute people just because of being against the government or having sex with a someone who they are not married to (order of Islam) or punishing harshly someone who drank alcohol (order of Islam) or listened to "Western Music" So you don't expect them not to use chemical weapons. And also I think the second paragraph is a well documented, and well organized paragraph and "Iran-Iraq war, export Islamic revolution westward into Iraq, indictment against Saddam in 2003 and chemical weapons" also are related to each other (Iran-Iraq war). IMHO --Arad 11:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately you misunderstood. I insist on that is just the U.S. claim not a fact. U.S. accuses Iran for example because Iran make phosgene in petrochemichal industry to use in production of Polycarbonate. Also if this paragraph is about Iran-Iraq war, I propose to write it in different way. it is not coherent at all--Sa.vakilian 15:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping this is now sufficiently covered at Iran and weapons of mass destruction. -- Beland 09:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

History section

Article does not mention at what point in time Iran become the current political entity, i.e. country...--Gkklein 14:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox now gives various establishment dates, including the Islamic Revolution. -- Beland 09:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)