Talk:Iranian peoples/Archive 1

Iranian Peoples
Regions with significant populations
	Middle East, South Asia, Central Asia, Caucasus, and also dispersed across the world due to immigration
Languages
	Persian (various dialects), Kurdish (various dialects), Zazaki, Balouchi, Ossetic, Luri, Pashtu, Talyshi, Mazandarani, Gilaki
Religion
	Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Bahai'ism, and various others

The definition of "Iranian peoples"

The following definition is very good and reasonable and will be the basis of the edit I'm about to make.

The Iranian peoples are an ethnic and linguistic branch of Indo-European peoples ... As a group of people, they are predominantly defined along linguistic lines as speaking the Iranian languages, a major branch of the Indo-European language family ... From a linguistic standpoint, the term Iranian people is similar in its usage to the term Germanic people, which includes various people who speak Germanic languages such as German, English and Dutch, Norwegian, or the term Slavic people, which includes various speakers of Slavic languages including Russians, Poles, Croats or Serbs. Thus, along similar lines, the Iranian people include not only the Persians and Tajiks (or eastern Persians) of Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Tajikistan, but also the Pashtuns, Baloch (Pakistan), Kurds, Lurs, Zazas, Ossetians and others.

-- Mttll (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted an edit by User:Mttll. First of all, because the explanation he gives does not justify his edit (i.e. he is assuming that Azeris are included in the number given, which is not the fact). Secondly, he is suspected by some to be a sockpuppet. Tajik (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azeris are included in that figure, which is a fact. Check the link. I'll be good as to ignore your ad-hominem.

Here's the link: [1] which, looks, btw, rather amateurish. -- Mttll (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving that source out, the other ones (though not scholarly either) say "150-200 million" - NOT including Azeris. As for the claim that I made ad hominem comments: it's not me that is accusing you of being a sockpuppet. But you are being suspected. Tajik (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that now. That should be a typo or some other kind of mistake, don't you think? If you take a look at the table showing the breakdown of Iranics into subgroups, the figure is 131,25 to 132,25 million people which is nowhere near 150 million, let alone 200. Still, I apologize for not being very careful. -- Mttll (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, those numbers are just estimates. Yet, I did add the numbers, and that's what I get:

Minimum: 150.000.000+

Maximum: 182.000.000+

Go and check the numbers. So I think that estimates between 150m and 200m are quite accurate. NOT including Azeris. Tajik (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can use;

a) this source [2] which somehow mentions 150 to 200 million, but its breakdown chart shows 131,25 to 132,25 million people.

b) the unpublished synthesis in the article which is 150 to 182 m.

for now. I'll investigate the figures further.

Btw, can you create an infobox for "Persian people" article? -- Mttll (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see what you mean. Well, the problem is that it's almost impossible to get real numbers. All numbers are mere estimates. As for the article Persian people: I do not like infoboxes. And I think that an infobox would be very misleading, because in popular language, a "Persian" could be an ethnic Persian, a native Persian-speaker or even a citizen of Iran. Going by the definition "Persian-speaker", the article and the infobox must be extended to include Farsiwans, Tajiks, Hazaras and even Afghan Uzbeks who are bilingual (of whom many speak Persian as their first language and Uzbek as their second language). Tajik (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So which one is it going to be, a or b? a seems problematic, I'd say b for now. -- Mttll (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am for B. Because it is more "general" ... the number of Iranian peoples is somewhere between 150m and 200m. Tajik (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted unsourced POV edits by an anon IP. Tajik (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted edits by User:R1000R1000 simply because they were no improvement at all. Quite the contrary. Tajik (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Work in progress, please help

Here is what I have so far (Ethnic group info box):

The "Iranian peoples" are mainly characterized by their use of Iranian languages. The addition Not including possible Iranian peoples is not needed - instead, estimates vary should make it. There is no need to mention all kinds of languages ... it's totally enough to say Iranian languages. Tājik 00:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to edit it. Also, the reason I put that down is because Croatians, Bulgarians, etc.. are still disputed.Khosrow II 01:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we turn it into a template to be used on all the articles on Iranian peoples? --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 01:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image

I really like the image, but can we get more non-Persians please? We shouldn't forget that the other Iranian peoples are no less important!—Khoi khoi 02:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my previous one I had Saladin (Kurd), Cyrus (Persian), and Avicenna (Tajik). I dont really care what the image is, so long as there is an image.Khosrow II 02:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know. But I thought that these 3 Persians actually represent the wider "Iranian identity" rather than a specific "Persian identity". Zarathustra was not Persian but Bactrian. Darius was an ancient Persian and should not be confused with modern Persians - besides that, he was the Emperor of the first Iranian Empire. Avicenna wrote most of his works in Arabic rather than Persian. His ethnicity was most likely "Sogdian". Rumi represents a whole range of peoples - most of all, he represents a unique version of ISlam which sprang out of a strong Iranian element.

I removed the piture of Saladin, because Saladin was more an Arab than a Kurd or Iranian. And I replaced the picture of Cyrus with that of Darius, because Darius' picture is better known. Tājik 02:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Cyrus was not the shah of the first Iranian Empire. You have to remember that the Medes were the founders of the first Iranian Empire (while the Bactrians and Sogdians founded the first Iranian kingdoms).Khosrow II 02:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Tājik, it's just that I'd just rather have it not seem like Persians are the "dominators of all Iranian peoples". I'm sure there are plenty of famous non-Persians we can add—right? We don't even have to have 4 people, we can have many more like in the Kazakhs page, or even the Volga Tatars article (although I think that's possibly overkill). Additionally, not all Pan-Iranists are Persians, right? —Khoi khoi 03:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious why all the personalities in the image are Persians. Is this a page for Persians? Anyway, Tajik's argument on removing Saladin (being more Arab than Kurd !!!), sometimes makes me wonder that all this talk of Iranian people, Greater Iran,etc, are just convenient vehicles for advancing the cause of Persian domination over the region.Heja Helweda 03:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. By the way, not all of them are Persians. Tajiks are Central Asia Persians in the context that they speak a Persian dialect, however, they are mostly the descendents of Sogdians, and Bactrians, and other Central Asian Iranic peoples. However, I do believe we should have more pictures, including Ossetians, Kurds, Pashtuns, Balouchi's, etc...Khosrow II 03:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox needs to go

The infobox is useless as the Iranian peoples aren't an ethnic group, but a series of ethnic groups sometimes only linked by language and sometimes by other factors. Tombseye 05:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. {{Infobox Ethnic group}} is only supposed to be used in articles about ethnic groups. The Iranian peoples are a group of ethnic groups. Khoi khoi 02:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, but why do I get the feeling that resistance and controversy is on its way?! Tombseye 02:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it always is. ;-) Khoi khoi 02:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-This is absolutely correct, the Azeris were Iranians who were "turkophoned" (adopted turkish language)

*sigh* Khoi khoi 03:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Azeri's are Iranians my friend. There are several ethnic groups who speak Azeri today, but their origins are all different. For example, Iranian Azeri's are Iranian, while those from the Caucasus are Caucasians, and the ones in Iraq are called Turkomans.Azerbaijani 17:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reference about genetic similarity of Iranian Azerbaijanis and Persians needs to be explained, I could not find the paper, even I tried the author's web page, please give the name of journal or conference , which the paper is published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.167.141 (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slavic Macedonians and Iranians

This is definitely not the place to discuss whether today's Macedonians originated from Bulgarians or ancient Macedonians, so making any connection between them and Iranian people is quite inappropriate.Scheludko (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian vs Persian

Why is Wikipedia being replaced by the term "Iranian Peoples"? The following statement does not do any help either: "As Iranian people are not confined to the borders of the current state of Iran, the term Iranic peoples is sometimes used to avoid confusion with the citizens of Iran." In most languages the correct term is "Pesian" and Iranian refers strictly to people of the country of Iran. As a Persian I am deeply offended when everything related to Greater Persia is simply called Iranian or Iranic. The modern Iran was only a small fraction of the various kingdoms and empires of Persia. It seems that people from Iran are leading a campaign to "miseducate" people that everything Persian is really Iranian. It is not! How would you feel if the term "British" got replaced by "Welsh" or "Scottish"? It is just as inaccurate to refer to everything Persian as Iranian, even if you try to clarify what you mean. Iranians are Persian, but not all Persians are Iranian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.44.102 (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic section

I put it up for dispution. It is weak, inaccurate and incomplete. It is based on bunch of a certain hypothesis of Indo-Iranian origin that are not well supported, it only talks about two isolated Tajik population without mentioning any other Iranian population what so ever (Please check below "49-Iranian genetic"for my arguments against this section). I tried making changes, but my changes were reverted twice as a user finds it a case of POV. Since I was not trusted with making a change I put it up for an expert opinion. I also propose that we eliminate genetic section all together. There are no other Indo-European nation that have R1a mentioned as their origin ( check Indo-Aryans, Italians, German).--Ddd0dd (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many experts now believe that the Iranian people are one of the lost tribes. Their names culture, etc. indicate this beyong doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.251.241 (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what about photo of "green eyed" Iranian girl in genetics section? As if green eyes was most characteristic feature of Iranian people. The whole section tries to convince reader that modern Iranians are European / "aryan" people unlike their neighbors. And tries to blur genetics research showing that at least West Iranians are closer to other Middle Eastern groups, than to East Iranians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.7.42 (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in the deleted part iranians were called "idiots of iran" i delete it

information age is good in some ways!! we can recognise other people and their behaviour all the world are idiot except europe and usa isnt it??? The genetic section should be deleted, There are several studies about Iran, which are not confirming each other, Also Dr.Bonab's research results about the similarity of Iranian Azeris and Persians and their differences with Azeris of Azerbaijan needs more explanation,Can the author specify, where the results are published? if not it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.167.141 (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iranic

Separesh (talk · contribs) here did a s/Iranian/Iranic/, without as much as an edit summary, let alone a coherent proposal or explanation on the talkpage. This is not acceptable and should have resulted in a revert. Yes, "Iranic" is sometimes used, but with a usage at least an order of magnitude smaller than that of "Iranian". See also WP:NAME. --dab (𒁳) 12:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANSWER to iranic people: pls change it,we are indoeuropean people ,pls write that so.iranic people harassed us kurds, because to be executed in Iran every day Kurds. indoeuropean peopel would be percekt.because indoeuropean or indoeuropean speking people would be right ,too.

greets from kurdish area.

ali. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.188.101 (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting a violation of personality rights

The owner of following picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Persian-Iranian_girl_with_green_eyes,_rural_Iran,_09-07-2007.jpg which is actually http://www.flickr.com/photos/kargadan/ is not willing to give the rights to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Le_Behnam to use her photo on wikipedia, since It's an identifiable photo. I tried editing the page and and it was "Locked". tell me what else is needed to remove the photo ? any e-mail from the owner or something ? THE PHOTO HASE BEEN ILLEGALY USED BY SOME OTHER PERSON ON FACE-BOOK, And it is causing some touble, Please help me solve this problem, I'm not wanting the people who is responsible or something to sue, The copyright holder only wants the removal of the photo. Soso freak (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

==

Please restore the previous featured article instead of this version

The previous version of this article was far better than this one. I read that version 1 year ago and I do remember it was a featured article with SATAR but look at this article ! I am persian, but I have to say this article is ignoring other Iranic people. Please bring-back the previous version. جون مادرتون هر کی گند زده به مقاله قبلی یک لطفی کنه و مقاله قبلی را برگرداند من خودم فارس زبان هستم ولی در این مقاله با فارس فارس کردن فقط حساسیت بیخودی ایجاد می کنید اگر اول ایرانی هستید بعد فارس (مثل من) که باید تکیه مقاله بر مفهوم ایرانیک باشد و در غیر اینصورت اگر اول خود را فارس می دانید و بعد ایرانی که به عقیده شخصی من به درد لای جرز دیوار میخورید ولی آنچه مسلم است این است که جای افاضات شما لااقل در این مقاله انگلیسی نیست بروید در یک جای دیگر گندتان را بزنید — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.163.40.237 (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

== to

Change to Iranic peoples instead

This word is confused with the modern citizens of Iran the Iranians. Are we going to start calling Turkic peoples Turkish? This needs to be changed to Iranic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.90.213 (talk) 06:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the page wp:title according to which the article is named correctly as "Iranian peoples": "Generally, article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources call the subject of the article". Xashaiar (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion may have to remain as there is a similar situation with regards to Germanic peoples for example. Mentioning Iranic as an alternative in usage is not a problem though I'd say. LearnerDude (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, "Iranic" is not a neologism but a scholarly term even if not employed as much as "Iranian", and it is more apt as it wont cause as much confusion with citizens of Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scythian Saka (talk • contribs) 11:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title of Article

I agree, the title should be changed to "Iranic people", it's confusing this pan-ethnicity with the citizens of Iran (Iranians). 00:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Im with this too, it will be on par with "Germanic" and "Turkic", rather than German and Turkish respectively which also now refer to a specific ethnicity rather than a pan-ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scythian Saka (talk • contribs) 18:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

about religion of ossetians

there is a statement in the article that ossetian follow nestorian church. that is false. those ossetians which are christian, belong to orthodox church, and initially got acquinted with christianity via bizantium missioners (neither russians nor georgians). nestorian church was never introduced in Ossetia and in Caucasus in general.

You've misread the text. It says:

The Christian community is mainly represented by the Armenian Apostolic Church, followed by the Russian Orthodox and Georgian Orthodox Ossetians followed by Nestorians. Judaism is followed mainly by Persian Jews, Kurdish Jews, Bukharian Jews (of Central Asia) and the Mountain Jews (of the Caucasus), most of whom are now found in Israel.

Here, "followed by" means "the next biggest in size". So "Russian Orthodox and Georgian Orthodox Ossetians followed by Nestorians" means that there are more Russian and Georgian Orthodox Ossetians than there are Nestorians. It does not mean that Ossetians are Nestorians - quite the opposite. As for who converted Christian Ossetians to Christianity, it's not irrelevant. It was Byzantine Greeks who brought Christianity to Russia, but Russians are now mainly Russian orthodox.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explanation.I also want to point out that ossetian christians of South Ossetia belong to Alanian Eparchy, which is a part of the Greek Orthodox church ( http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Аланская_епархия )- this community is actually much bigger than mentioned in the article Georgian orthodox ossetians, representing assimilated minority which survived after ethnic cleanings in Georgia. So I think it would be relevant to add the information about Alanian eparchy of Greek Orthodox church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.237.43 (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

gorani and zazaki =kurdish languages

pls edit this page.gorani and zazaki =kurdish languages

greets —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.190.72 (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

_Kurdish is an Iranian language too.Pouyakhani (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

consider these!

most of you forget about one important aspect of being Iranian... Iranian is not just related to Race " its also related to religion... let me explain my meaning : Iranic parts of Indo-European or those who labeled by the name " Iranian" can have some sub-branches in inside ( between those who lives in Iranian Plateau ) or out sider like Indian because of the Gods they worshiped. they distinct in inside because of the Godess they worshiped... for example Iranic part of indo-Iranian preyed to Mazda(ahora mazda=ahora=asora=sora=khoda ) and Indian in the another parts worshiped the DIVA. so they had been seperated in first place because of the God the had... not because of the race(they all have the same ethnic)

separations in inside are due some Important facts; 1- distinct God which they had 2- other races that they met 3- immigration due harsh climate but of course let me admonish you about one single truth... all of sub-branches share same race-culture and myth and of course the same race... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SORENNA (talk • contribs) 12:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vote proposal

Change to Iranic peoples. Any search for Iranian peoples should redirect to 1) Demographics of Iran 2) Iranic peoples.

Let's vote on this and whatever decision is reached anyone wishing to challenge that can hold a future voting option after further debate has taken place. Iranian peoples is much to confusing and I vote it needs to be switched to Iranic peoples. Iranians should strictly be for peoples originating in modern Iran just as Germanic needs to be distinguished from German or Turkic from Turkish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.88.146 (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should not be in the business of reforming the English language. The English language has many words with multiple meanings. "Iranian peoples" is correct. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Population numbers

The population numbers mentioned in demographics section need reliable citations.E235 (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody keeps changing the population figure in the infobox. Just in the last few days it's changed several times, generally trending upward. It's now at 500 million. The reference immediately next to that figures has numbers that add up to 134.05 to 140.1 million. The table in the Demographics section (also with references) has figures that add up to 154.746 to 186.746 million. Taking the lowest and high figures, then rounding them to the nearest 5 million, we get 135 - 185 million. I'll just go ahead and change it to that. Zyxwv99 (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Equating the term Persian with Iranian

Until a sufficient explanation for why the change should be reverted has been supplied, I see no reason why it should be made. The article, prior to my modification, had used the term "Persian" synonymously with the term "Iranian". The Ossetians call their land Iron, they do not however call it Persia. The very simple explanation is that Persian is an ethnic term, and Persians are an Iranian people, whereas not all, not even MOST Iranians are Persians. Not ethnically, nor linguistically. In no case should the two terms be conflated. This is inexcusable. All Persians are Iranian, but not all Iranians are Persian. Very simple concept to grasp, I would have thought.

If you disagree, please provide an adequate explanation before reverting the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.202.26 (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to say thanks for making the change. Someone added the Persian synonym a few days ago, I reverted it, then they changed it again. I didn't want to get into an edit war, so I left it alone, hoping someone else would change it back, which you have done. Thanks. Zyxwv99 (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up needed

This article is currently a jumble of mess. If purportedly the term 'Iranian peoples' is solely a linguistic one then this isnt what is reflected in the article. Distinctions need to be made been the historic concept (as in, from the actual Iranian point of view) of the Iranian peoples, which was first defined in the Zend-Avesta and the Achaemenid inscriptions, and later in Sassanid sources, and the more recent Western-academic POV, which is characterized solely by linguistics.

I'll begin this clean-up shortly, time permitting. اردیبهشت (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to understand the difference between Ancient Iranian peoples and this article. Even though this article is so much longer, it does not even have 1/10 of the quality the German version has to offer. Also, there needs to be a clear distinction between the ancient Persians and modern Persians who are not the same, the same way ancient Germans (or Germanic peoples) are not identical with the modern German people. By doing so, it should also be made clear that various historical individuals traditionally coined "Persians" were not Persians. And that includes personalities like Ibn Sina, al-Khwarizmi, al-Farabi, al-Biruni, etc., all of them being of Iranian Central Asian origin and who either did not speak Persian as their first language (al-Khwarizmi, al-Biruni, or al-Farabi) or whose ancestors had just recently adopted that language (ibn Sina, Barmakids, etc.). There should be no double standards and cherry picking.

Your racist POV will not be tolerated. I doubt that you can prove to us that you are a "pure decsnendant of the ancient Persians" ... and that's simply because you are not! --Lysozym (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am only interested in presenting here what is recorded and accepted in academia. I care nothing for your original research and personal POV. اردیبهشت (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear to everyone who is a racist POV-pusher. You want to see what the academia have to say? Here, directly from the Encyclopaedia Iranica: The term “Iranian” may be understood in two ways. It is, first of all, a linguistic classification, intended to designate any society which inherited or adopted, and transmitted, an Iranian language. [3]

Your racist POV must not be tolerated. --Lysozym (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I suggest somebody changes the title of the article to "Iranic peoples" to avoid confusion with the citizens of Iran. One /s/ in the end of a word would not make too big a literal difference. Thus, Iranic, parallel to Slavic, Turkic, Germanic, Celtic, is the more logical word to use and is in fact used in other encyclopedias. -Mitrakana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitrakana (talk • contribs) 12:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Iranian gives too much confusion regarding the present day population of Iran. (Who are not all Iranic) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.142.220 (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Let's have it changed. We can have a article change vote, but somebody needs to place the tag proposal on the article or discussion page-99.226.242.202 (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic distribution of Iranian languages IS FAKE! zaza are kurds!

Geographic distribution of Iranian languages IS FAKE! zaza are kurds! PLS remove it.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.179.206 (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zazaki and Kurdish are Iranian/Iranic languages. Both languages and ethnic groups are also Iranic. Read the current article and Iranian languages. And for further study: Indo-Iranian languages and Indo-European languages. Winter Gaze (talk) 09:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if the language spoken by a people make them iranic people, then why the Hazaras of afghanistan are not mentioned, as they speak persian and their culture is similar to tajiks and iranians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.240.83 (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread the article, I, myself am a Hazara and consider myself iranic. we are in the persian side of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.32.192 (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hazara people is mentioned in the Demographics section. See the table. Zheek (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the article.

Why is it named Iranian peoples? shouldn't it be named Iranian people, without the last s. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it covers all Iranian peoples. — kwami (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xerxes the Great and Darius the Great/Administrator

Surprised these two aren't up on the notable list of Persian ppl......they shoulda been one of the first--172.250.18.130 (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of Iranian peoples, this means it includes other Iranian groups aswell, and no need to put them on, they are already on the Persian People article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian People Title

The title of this article should be changed to Iranic People because people confuse Iranic people with iranian poeple(people from Iran) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasani2 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Iranian Peoples

Why don't you add some images of ancient Iranic peoples on the article? I mean Sarmatians, Medes, Scytians and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.174.135.250 (talk) 07:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kindergarden!

Some users've added Pakistanis on the article. Pakistanis are Indid, not Iranid.BBBAAACCC (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's this, you're now complaining? Wasn't it you who did that?--Fareed30 (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained you in your message page. I think you have a problem with understanding! I am not going to arguing with you. It is just waste of time. BBBAAACCC (talk) 07:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pashtuns

It is concluded that the origins of Pashtun people is unknown or unclear.[4] [5] Some may be linked to Iranian peoples (Durranis) but others such as the Ghilzais are linked to Turkic peoples [6] and many others are of Arab descent. Those in and around the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa region and Federally Administered Tribal Areas, who are often called "Pathans", are mostly connected to Indian, Rajput, or even ancient Greeks. Looks to me like some editors are trying to add Afghanistan, Pakistan, and western India as an Iranian peoples region, but this is extremism and exaggeration. It is well known that south of the Hindu Kush in Afghanistan has been part of Greater India for the last 2,000 years.

The Library of Congress Country Studies states:[7]

“

By the time of Ahmad Shah's ascendancy, the Pashtuns included many groups whose origins were obscure; most were believed to have descended from ancient Aryan tribes, but some, such as the Ghilzai, may have once been Turks (see Ethnic Groups, ch. 2). They had in common, however, their Pashtu language. To the east, the Waziris and their close relatives, the Mahsuds, had lived in the hills of the central Suleiman Range since the fourteenth century. By the end of the sixteenth century and the final Turkish-Mongol invasions, tribes such as the Shinwaris, Yusufzais, and Mohmands had moved from the upper Kabul River Valley into the valleys and plains west, north, and northeast of Peshawar. The Afridis had long been established in the hills and mountain ranges south of the Khyber Pass. By the end of the eighteenth century, the Durranis had blanketed the area west and north of Qandahar.

”

I, therefore, propose removal of Pashtun ethnic group from this article, especially the images of Pathans from the imagebox in the infobox. It is simply false information and some sort of propaganda.--Fareed30 (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your sources are outdated (Sir Olaf Caroe and others proposed various origins that have proven to be hypothetical at best). Genetic studies show that Pashtuns are linked to other Iranian peoples, Nuristanis, Kashmiris, and Punjabis. They don't show any real connection to most Indians so the Rajput connection is largely derived from Hunnic invaders who passed through maybe. Greek ancestry is believed to average below 2% so this is irrelevant. Pashtuns do speak the only major surviving Eastern Iranian language. The Turkic connection needs to be considered in the context of who the Uzbeks are, a Eurasian people of mixed Caucasoid and Mongoloid ancestry and whatever residual genetic connection they left hasn't been proven to be very substantial (although Uzbeks are a major group in Afghanistan and some live as far south as western Pakistan).

Both terms, Greater India and Greater Iran are political and mean only so much as what people prescribe to them. The Pashto language is Iranian not Indo-Aryan (although the two fall under the rubric of Indo-Iranian). If we don't include Pashtuns as 'Iranian peoples' than including Punjabis as Indo-Aryans may as well be questioned as well. The fringe groups between Iran and India share cultural traits and history, but categories such as Iranian peoples as help to classify groups based upon information. The Pashtuns are an unusual group in that they have largely been autonomous. Their religion was probably pagan before Islam (given Pashtunwali and their neighbors who were also pagans like the Nuristanis) and appear to have largely been isolated in rural areas while cities were conquered.

The Pathans of India are reputed descendants of the Pashtuns in eastern Pakistan and India. Some are descendants and some may or may not be, but that's a separate matter. The Pashtuns of Afghanistan and western Pakistan are Eastern Iranians not Indians. There's just no connection to make this viable.

An interesting book about this topic is The State, Religion and Ethnic Politics: Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan that explains a bit about who Pashtuns are: http://www.amazon.com/The-State-Religion-Ethnic-Politics/dp/0815624484/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1385323249&sr=8-3&keywords=afghanistan+pakistan+iran

Infodrunk (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infodrunk, you are mostly right but Punjabis, Kashmiris bla bla are not classified as Iranians. Yes, Pashtuns are Iranians but the others(Punjabis, Kashmiris, etc.) have nothing to do with Iranians. They belong to Indid race both genetically and phenotypically. And also there are no linguistic or cultural similarities.

I'm not saying Punjabis and Kashmiris are Iranic, just the Pashtuns. The Kashmiris are a Dardic group, sometimes included within Indo-Aryan and sometimes considered its own transitional group between Iranian and Indo-Aryan (based on language). Race gets hazy here as 'Indid' phenotypes are also found in Iran and further west and I don't prescribe to the phenotype as a rigid categorization because most scientists don't and have shifted to the genetic evidence. Genetically, there are many genetic similarities throughout these areas with peripheral groups overlapping a bit. Usually, groups that live next to each other share some genetic similarities, but and so some Punjabis and Kashmiris have genetic similarities to Pashtuns and others, but this does not mean that Pashtuns are related to say someone in Sri Lanka or Bangladesh, although they can be in some sense. Even groups like Tajiks and many Persian-speakers in Iran show some genetic similarities to Indo-Aryan groups so drawing distinctions is a bit difficult. More genetic studies will be required to further assist as genetic studies amongst Pashtuns have been limited to urban areas anyway. At any rate, yes the Pashtuns as an Iranian people is the point and appears valid, at least in terms of their language and similarity to their closest relatives the Tajiks of Afghanistan and the Baloch. Infodrunk (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding at least one Pasthun in the Pictures section on top.

I don't understand why my edit was reverted. Pashtuns here are considered to be Iranian people as well. Pashto is a north-eastern Iranian language. The article didn't say that an Iranian person had to born in Iran or be Persian. If this article said "Persian people", then I can understand the revert. If this list was to just to include Persians then why are non-Persians people included in this list as well? For example, in the pictures section of famous Iranian people, Saladin was a Kurd born in Tikrit, Mesopotamia (Modern day Iraq) and Veronika Dudarova was an Ossetian born in Baku, Azerbaijan. I don't see what is the problem with adding at least one Pasthun into pictures section? Ninmacer20 (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You can add famous Pashtuns to the infobox. The infobox can include any famous/notable Iranic person from any country. It's not limited to Iran or Persians. Current infobox revision is not good enough. It needs some works. --Zyma (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ninmacer20 (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Croatians

Are they assimilated Iranians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medea Mēdeia (talk • contribs) 22:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely. The Croatians, like most Balkan peoples, appear to be indigenous and were invaded by various Indo-European peoples emanating out of the Ukraine/southern Russia who brought their various languages. The Slavs were the last major group to invade and their language remains prevalent. What we do know is that the Iranian-speaking Scythians and Sarmatians lived all over Eastern Europe as far west as the Balkans and as far east as Central Asia. So in one sense all the people in this area could have some 'Iranian' ancestors, but the group is a linguistic one as the modern Iranian remnants aren't entirely Ukrainian/southern Russian obviously. The inclusion of the Croatians and others seems tenuous academically. Another movement in areas like Poland called Sarmatism also illustrates a residual influence of 'Iranians' in Eastern Europe, but calling Slavs and others 'Iranian' is not really viable because they don't speak Iranian languages. One can explain that ancient Iranians were once prominent in the region though, but that is again not much more than a side-note given the modern categories we're dealing with. Ultimately, a lot of different peoples are related in numerous ways and pointing that out is fine, but the Croatians, Serbs etc can't be referred to as assimilated Iranians since the Iranian linguistic invaders were one of many who passed through the Balkans with each leaving a little part of themselves in the region. Infodrunk (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True. Iranian speakers were present in parts of SEE from 600s BC till at least 400s AD. Even in the middle ages , the Brodniki in Moldavia are said by some to be Iranian speakers. However , their direct , specific co tribution to Croats appears negligible within the context of early middle age Dalmatia. The original Croats were a clan of nobility who extended their rule over much of Dalmatia ; and were mostly of local Dalmatian origin mixed with Carpathian populations (Slavs and Avars). Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Iranians and Western Iranians

Despite their similarities and close relations, do Eastern branch belongs to R1a Haplogroup (Indo-Iranian, Slavic) and Western branch belongs to J2 Haplogroup (Mesopotamian)? I mean did the Eastern Iranians assimilate Western Iranians? Or both groups are same but in some of them J2 is dominant and in some others R1a is dominant. OR two different group? --Zyma (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the relation between Indo-Iranians and Eastern Europeans (according to image file)? --Zyma (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a geneticist and I don't know much about haplogroups, but unless R1a was spread by some earlier migration, it sure looks like its distribution reflects the effects of Indo-European – and in particular, Indo-Iranian – migrations out of Eastern Europe (their most probable origin, see Poltavka culture), and I think this has been suspected by other scholars too. See Haplogroup R-M17. J2 or Haplogroup J-M172 can be linked to the autochthonous population of the Middle East, who started the Neolithic Revolution, and thus to the ancient Elamites, Hurrians, Urartians, Kassites, Sumerians, Semites, Caucasian peoples etc., who were present in the region prior to the Indo-European and later Iranian expansion. So R-M17 is conceivably the Indo-European signal, and the western portion of the Iranians (corresponding to modern Iran and adjacent regions like the Kurdish regions) are genetically more Middle Eastern because the autochthonous (agricultural and settled) peoples were much more populous than the incoming (pastoral and nomadic) Iranians, while east of the modern state of Iran, the Iranian element predominated not only linguistically, but was also genetically more dominant, probably because the mountainous regions were sparsely settled already before the Indo-Iranian expansion. What is surprising and unexpected, however, is the strong presence of R-M17 on the Indian subcontinent. Sure enough, the region is dominated by Indo-Iranian languages too, but you'd think the pre-Indo-European element would be stronger, similar to the Middle East.

So, in a nutshell, Western Iranians are genetically Middle Easterners, for the most part (some admixture of European origin seems to be present, though, which is also indicated by the map at Haplogroup R-M420), while the Eastern Iranians are genetically more European (if R1a really originates in Europe). My impression is that the genetic map represents relatively recent (e. g., Turkic), older (e. g., Indo-European) and very old migrations (e. g., Neolithic migration from the Middle East into Europe), but of course my impression can be wrong. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalli-Sforza's 1994 research (it's old, I know) shows that closest ethnic groups to Iranians are Greeks, Italians, Indians (probably North Indians not all Indians), and Near Easterns. Maybe Proto-Iranians, first wave and second wave were similar to Pamiri people (another Iranic ethnicity):

File:Pamiri-child, Afghanistan.png

If we accept Kurgan model as the strongest theory about the origin of Indo-Europeans, then Proto-Iranians or Ancient Iranians should have some close Ancient Eastern European cousins. --Zyma (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does Cavalli-Sforza say anything specifically about Afghans? Or does he simply lump them in with Iranians, even though the Nuristani aren't even Iranian in the linguistic (much less political) sense? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an old research and I think his research only includes Iranians of Iran, not the whole ethno-linguistic group (the Iranics). Because I don't think peoples like Afghans (Afghan Pashtuns, Afghan Tajiks, and etc.) and Tajiks of Tajikistan are similar to those ethnic groups. Some researchers say that there are some contacts between Proto-Indo-Iranians and Proto-Slavs. Is any genetic research available for ancient groups like Massageteans and Sarmatians (Alans and Roxolani)? And any relation between Iranic tribes and Tocharians? Because they were neighbors and maybe some Iranics share similar characteristics with them. Ossetians are the only group who speak a Scythian language and they belong to Iranian people. Do any non-Iranian modern ethnic group exist with direct relations to ancient Sarmatians and Scythians? In Eastern Europe or other parts of Europe which Sarmatians and Scythians lived there? Also groups like Persian includes many people. Both Persian ethnicities and Persian-speaking ethnicities. From Afro-Iranians to Mongoloid ethnic groups. Genetically different peoples, but share same language (various dialects) and many cultural elements. So a comparison between Ancient Iranians and Modern Iranians is an useful addition to this article. Or more details about this large ethno-linguistic group to clarify their timeline. --Zyma (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you have seen Indo-Iranians#Genetics (and Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses#Genetics and Kurgan hypothesis#Genetics)? Perhaps this answers some of your questions. As far as I know, ancient Iranian peoples such as the Scythians were frequently described or depicted as having fair hair (or red hair) and light eyes, and the appearance of mummies assumed to be of Iranian/Scythian origin (such as the Pazyryk mummies, and perhaps part of the Tarim mummies) is consistent with this. (The same can be said about the Tocharians. You might find sources about this in the articles for the relevant ethnic groups, but also in articles about blond and red hair and eye colours.) Also check the first comment here: Central Asian Turkic peoples, from the Kazakhs to the Uyghurs, appear to have some Scythian heritage. The Yenisei Kirghiz included individuals both of European (presumably of Scythian/Iranian heritage) and East Asian (presumably of Proto-Turkic descent) appearance (see "Ethnicity and language" section). Besides the Ossetes, the modern Yaghnobi have retained a Northeastern Iranian language as well, and the Wakhi language appears to have some influence from Saka. R1a is often described as "the Slavic gene", but there is no reason to think that Afghanistan had ever any significant Slavic influx prior to the Soviet invasion, and the only link to Eastern Europe is via the Indo-Iranians. That the early Slavs included (and assimilated) some Iranian tribes from the Eastern European steppes is uncontroversial. Certain tribal names point to this. There are some Iranian loanwords in Slavic, too. But if the Scythians, Sarmatians and Alans were genetically and phenotypically predominantly Eastern European, their contribution to the Slavs would be pretty much invisible in the genetics and appearance of the modern Slavs. By the way, some Persians even in Iran still look strikingly European. For example this girl. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I read them. What's your opinion about these two links: Distribution of European Y-chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) haplogroups by country in percentage and DNA Results - Iranian section. The first link from Eupedia and it's clear although I don't know about its reliability. The second is from National Geographic and It's odd to me. It says Iranians are: 42% Mediterranean, 42% Southwest Asian, 8% Northern European, and 5% Northeast Asian. What is Southwest Asian? Is it ancient Mesopotamian or Semitic influences? Also it appears that they used "Mediterranean" category for a wide range of ethnic groups. Not just the classic definition of Mediterraneans. So what do you think? 50% Europoid genes (42% Med + 8% N-European)? Only 8% Europoid? 47% Semitic and Mongoloid + 3% others? --Zyma (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The misery

This article, like most of the other articles of Wikipedia likes to stress on prides of peoples. It seems, Wikipedia don't want to bring the miseries of the nations to their faces, not to offend them!. The introduction is full of historical arrogance that doesn't match the present day, and a while ago, conditions of Iranians.-Raayen (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Cyrus The Great to the "Iranian peoples bar"

1. I suggest we add him. He is probably the most important Iranian/Persian/Whatever you want to call it who has ever walked on earth. He is after all the founder of the Achaemenid Empire and a person celebrated to this day by both military historians and regular Persians in Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan etc. I am not sure whom we shall remove though. Darius the Great maybe?

--90.149.188.205 (talk) 05:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Related groups

I think "related ethnic groups" means "genetically related groups". Is the linguistic is a parametr? Lamedumal (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no...! You're completely wrong. That parameter only includes other closely related ethnic groups. Do not add terms like Aryan race (?), Central Asian (?), and unspecific ethnic groups. Using "other Indo-Europeans" is pointless. You should read other articles about ethnic groups. The close groups to Iranians are Indo-Aryans and Nuristanis. Both historically and language family. If you know any other close ethno-linguistic groups, add them. But don't add non-specific and regional names/terms. --Zyma (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

R1a and J2 is associated with Iranians, especially R1a. There are two types of R1a-Eurasian and European- Eurasian R1a is coomon among Iranids, Turkic groups( Tatars, Turkmens, Uyghurs) and upper class Indians(particularly Brahmans), not all Indians. Because Indian haplotypes are H, K, and vica versa. These are not Iranid dna. Although Afghans are close neighbors of Pakistanis and Indians they have only a paucity of it. Thus, just because of R1a, we cannot say that they are related to Iranids. It means that Ossetians related to Gypsies. It doesn't make sense. Lamedumal (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistically related? Hmm...Yes, you are right. Ancient Aryans that came to India from north are close to Iranians linguistically and probably genetically(upper class Brahman R1a confirms it) but we are talking about "today". "Related ethnic groups" doesn't sound like "linguistically". :/Lamedumal (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed. I think you have wisdom about ethnicities. Therefore, I do not want to delete your edits totally. Kind regards. Lamedumal (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That field/parameter is not about genetics. Also the genetics of Iranian-speaking ethnic groups is not a specific haplogroup. R1a belongs to ancient Indo-Iranians (plus other groups like Slavs, Balts, and Germanics). But J2 is also popular among Iranics plus other haplogroups. A good example article is Slavs. See the related field. It only includes Balts, and you see no terms such as "other Europeans". As I said above, you should read and review other articles about ethnic groups in Wikipedia. We know Iranians are related to some non-Iranian groups, like some Caucasians, Arabs and Turkic-speaking groups. But that parameter is not a place for them, you should mention them in the article body (related section(s)) with reliable sources. I know you want improve this article, but always consider previous edits by other users, talk page archives and accepted revisions. I think I explained enough and there is no unclear point about that parameter/issue. Zyma (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Zyma I see your point. But if the title is "related ethnic goups", not "linguistically related ethnic groups". Thats the reason why I fixed it. But I did not delete it, I have just fixed it. Lamedumal (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I made a mistake. I mean "...But the title is related ethnic groups, not linguistically related ethnic groups". Lamedumal (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This field is a constant bone of contention and a honeypot attracting edit wars, so much that after a discussion on WT:ETHNIC it was even removed entirely for a while, but it turned out that too many people are too attached to it or something. There is a consensus that it is essentially referring to (ethno-)linguistic relatedness (which basically makes it redundant – and that was the main rationale for removing it, if I remember correctly –, but its popularity and some incessant noisemakers have saved it from deletion hell, or so), as other criteria are just too subjective. Linguistic relatedness is not completely uncontroversial, either, but far easier to reach a consensus about. So I strongly suggest we change the field to say "Nuristani people, Indo-Aryans". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dardic people (such as Kalash), Nuristani people and upper class Indo-Aryans or northern Indo-Aryans is valid. Because Indo-Aryans consist of too many groups that have nothing to do with Iranians both culturally and genetically. Lamedumal (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the field "related groups" is not about genetics. It would turn into a contradictory mess if we tried to apply genetic research to determine relationships; biological relationship is not nearly as clear-cut as linguistic relationship. For one, ethnic groups mix; truly mixed languages are rare and most languages can be assigned to a specific linguistic family (or form a group of their own, in the case of isolated languages), meaning that there is a line of descendance from ancient to modern languages. A language has only one lineage, one parent language; people, however, have two parents. Even the Vedda and most Andamanese tribes have some Indian admixture nowadays, as far as I know, and many individuals do not speak their ancestral languages anymore but only Indo-Aryan languages such as Singhalese or Hindi, so they are now related to Iranians, both linguistically and biologically.

Ultimately, in the modern age, any ethnic group is related to any other, apart from truly isolated uncontacted peoples. And unlike linguistic relationships, there is no limit to biological relationship: ultimately, all humans are related to each other, and to all other living beings on the planet, so the concept of biological relationship is not helpful here.

By the way, the Dardic languages are now considered Indo-Aryan too, so there is no need to list the Dards separately. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the Dards are culturally distinct. I always supposed that "related" meant "ethnically related". We shouldn't reify language families, – there's no such thing as "Indo-European peoples" these days, – and biology has all the problems you pointed out. Rather, we should list groups that the people themselves see as being their relatives. — kwami (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a suggestion? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

l have changed it as "other indo-iranians". l think it is the best for now. Lamedumal (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Related" means related in every aspect obviously; linguistic, genetic, cultural or anything else, nearly not including all humans.-Raayen (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's your personal interpretation not academic. Other Indo-Iranians is not bad, but again it's a large ethno-linguistic group and linking to that article is not helpful. Because it already includes Iranian-speaking peoples/Iranics again. No point in such type of wikilinking. Clear values for this parameter are: Indo-Aryan peoples and Nuristani people. And genetics has nothing to do with this with this topic. Why? Because Iranic ethnic groups lived in a large part of Asia and Europe. Examples: Persian empire, Scythians, and Sarmatians. So they are related to a lot of other ethnicities. From Middle Easterns, Asians to Europeans or even Black Africans. Once upon a time Neanderthals lived in Iranian plateau and scientist say many non-African humans have Neanderthal genes. Then why not add Neanderthals?! Also genetics-only claims are against culture and language similarities. Why? Because then you are forced to remove some ancient and modern Iranics from this list. Hazaras, Aimaqs and Afro-Iranians are Persian (in any aspect). Have those ethnic groups are similar to ancient Persians like Cyrus and Darius? Obviously Not, but all of them are Persian. Hazara people are a mix of Iranic and Mongoloid groups, Afro-Iranians have direct connection to Black Africans. But the important factor is: All of them are Persian/Persianized (culturally and linguistically), so they are Persian too. I'll restore previous revision. Kalash is a branch of Indo-Aryans. So there is no need to mention it. Indo-Iranians are: Indic, Iranic, and Nuristani. Then two groups are necessary for that filed. Zyma (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Other indo-iranians" means "other groups" that are indo-iranian speaking excluding iranians. Thus, it is not including iranians. And they are indo-aryans, nuristani and dardic people-the same groups that you have mentioned, not very large- Some scholars claim that dards are indo aryans, some others say that they are not but still indo-iranians. So "other indo-iranians" is best for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamedumal (talk • contribs) 02:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the term indo-iranian thought as "ethno-linguistic"- that you try to embody- by many people whereas the terms "indo-aryans" and "nuristani people" thought as "genetics" or "racial". So, in order not to confuse them, i suggest that it should stay. ln other aspects i completely agree with you. Lamedumal (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, everything should be clear and SPECIFIC. I mentioned Slavic people article as an example for your. You see there is nothing such as "other Balto-Slavics" on that article, but just "Balts". Same goes for this article. We mention other groups of Indo-Iranians: Indics (Indo-Aryans) and Nuristanis. Because the Indo-Iranian branch has 3 specific branches. Not necessary to use "other Indo-Iranians". BUT if you write about Persians, you SHOULD use "other Iranian peoples". Why? Because Iranic branch have many ethnic groups and you can't add all of them to "related parameter". Zyma (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm you are right but dards are controversial. So we should add them to the section too. And i am going to change it as "Other indo-iranians: Nuristani people, Dardic people and lndo-Aryan people" what do yolu think? Lamedumal (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Try other parts of this article in tomorrow (next 24h). After 24 hours, because you are currently involved in an edit war. And remember Wikipedia is not a F-grade or Zero-grade nationalistic/ethno-centric forum OR your personal blog. Zyma (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who say that it is my "personal blog"? Despite my edits are very similar with yours, you forced everybody to accept yours-despite there are admins that are not agree with you-and do not try to reach a consensus. I opened this title: "Related groups" to discuss it. I am not edit warrior or something. You should change your behavior and attitudes towards others who are not agree with you.Lamedumal (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about Turkic peoples then? There are no "related groups" part in the article. Mongols, Manchu-Tungus, Koreans vica versa? Lamedumal (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's because the Turkic LANGUAGES are not clearly (!) related to any other language or group of languages. Altaic is an old and popular idea that's still supported by part of academics, but opposed by many others as unproven. So Wikipedia should err on the side of caution, in this case the null hypothesis (that a language or language family is effectively isolated). Which only shows again that in practice, the "related groups" fields is about languages, not genes. No ethnic group is related to any other in EVERY aspect, hell, given that there is probably no "genetically pure" ethnic group, even the members of one specific ethnic group aren't all necessarily related to all others in every aspect! My favourite example is the German politician Philipp Rösler, because he has Vietnamese parents and looks the part (and there is no doubt that genetic analysis would confirm his East Asian affinities), but speaks no word of Vietnamese, has no connection to Vietnam (possibly never even visited the country) and identifies as ethnically 100% German because he was adopted as a baby. So he is genetically 0% German, but ethnically 100% German. Does this mean that Germans and Vietnamese are related? And that Germans and Germans are sometimes unrelated? Or would you refuse to acknowledge Rösler as a "real German"? Do you see the problem with biologism now? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I agree with you; but this rule is not appling in all articles in wikipedia. For instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_people this article does not include Ethiophians who speak Amharic. That's the reason why I am confused. Otherwise, you are totally right. Lamedumal (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, maybe it is slightly out of the topic, the page of Semitic peoples need an infobox. Lamedumal (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just warned you to stop your wrong edits, because you are not familiar with this topic (ethnicity). Both article and discussion history plus edit summaries show the situation. Just compare your edits before and after my notes. You accepted my revision (old accepted revision) and just added some additional words to it (good but unnecessary). Don't you agree? It's good that you try to collaborate instead of your previous "hack & slash" edits. As a new editor, you learned something new. Wikipedia archives all of your activities, so just focus on your future edits. Okay? Clear enough? Zyma (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, there are admins that are not agree with it. So it is normal to confuse. Many people confuse it with genetics. But yes, I accepted your revision. In order to prevent the article from wrong edits because of confusing it with the "genetics" -just like I done- I have embodied the linguistic relationship with additional words. And your previous behaviors seem to me very "rude". Because you labelled me as edit-warrior, sock, etc. But it is not problem now. Kind regards. Lamedumal (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cimmerians

The ethnicity of Cimmerians is uncertain. They were Iranic OR another Indo-European group (maybe Thracians) ruled by Iranian elites. If there are no strong theories about their Iranic origin, it's better to remove Cimmerians from ancient section OR clarify it. Zyma (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I am going to fix it according to article of Cimmerians. Lamedumal (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just clarify. If you have reliable sources about their Iranian origin, add them. Cimmerians article needs some edits too (lead section and origin section). Zyma (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have the book of Herodothos. I am going to check the Cimmerian section. Lamedumal (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kurds are not iranian

Well I don't understand at all: how can we say that kurds are iranians or aryans? It's a pseudo-science, because yes kurds speak an iranians languages, but can we say that they are also iranians? Persians refuse them and they allways cooperate with Turkey to assimilate them as yours! --Alsace38 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well Sparky, by definition if you are a native speaker of an Iranian language, you are grouped in with "Iranian peoples." Sort of like how Latin speakers are defined. It has nothing to do with race or personal opinion. The Scythian 17:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kurds are iranic, genetics testnings have confirmed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.208.13.100 (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current Infobox

I don't know why the users removed Cyrus the Great and added a lot of unknown and not-well-known people (both ancient ones and modern ones) to this infobox?! The current infobox is more similar to a promotional box than an ethnic group infobox. For example, who added Negar Javaherian to this infobox?! I'll edit infobox to represent more famous Iranics from old times to modern time. --Zyma (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the article there are given two Orthodox Churches - Orthodox Church and Georgian Orthodox; shouldn't the latter one be deleted? As I know both are about the Ossetians and the latter one is just sub-group of the first. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

image

Why you have misrepresented the "Ancient Persian Nobility" as "Ancient Mede Nobility" while in its own source, mentioned in the file history, it is clearly cited as "Ancient Persian"? This is an obvious manipulating with the information and sources. This is the link of its source which is used in Wikipedia: http://www.siue.edu/COSTUMES/PLATE2BX.HTML I had changed it back into its right form, again it is now written as "Mede". You should either be honest and loyal to your sources or just abuse them. By the way, the costume of the couple, with Achaemenian hats, is clearly "Ancient Persian", while Medes had round hats and tight fit dresses as depicted in the walls and staircases of Persepolis. Please correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.201.106.42 (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader in wikimedia commons describe it as "Ancient Mede nobility". Click on the image in order to see it. lf you think that the description is wrong, you should to use the wikimedia commons instead of wikipedia to complain it. Lamedumal (talk) 11:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for your help. I did it. One can see that in the history file of Wikimedia commons even the description had been "Persian nobility", but it was wrongfully changed into "Median nobility". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.201.106.42 (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But in the given source the original title under the photo says "Vornehme Meder", which means "Ancient Medes" in German. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is right, I saw the small description under the picture. Though I am not convinced the costumes belong to Medes. I don't see any objection to add a few related pictures, so I just added three pictures: in western Iranians, a picture from Persepolis of Persian guards, and a Sasanian coin, depicting Hormezd I. In gallery from the same source as "Ancient Mede nobility" I have added a plate showing ancient Persian costumes. Also I put an Achaemenids link to wikipedia in "See also" section. Best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.201.106.42 (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The costumes of 2 peoples could be similar as they were related peoples to each other. But the source is the source. Thanks for your unbiased position. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zoroastrians in India

Should we insert the name of these two group?

Irani (India) – The Irani are an ethno-religious community in South Asia; they belong to the Zoroastrians who emigrated from Iran to South Asia 16th to 18th century. They are culturally, linguistically and socially distinct from the Parsis, who — although also Zoroastrians — arrived on the subcontinent over 1,200 years ago from the Pars region of Persia.
Parsi – A Parsi or Parsee /ˈpɑrsiː/ is a member of one of the two Zoroastrian communities found throughout South Asia. They are legally and ethnically distinct from the Iranis even though both groups descend from Persian Zoroastrians. --Zyma (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Couldn't be more Iranian. — kwami (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami:Language does not matter? Parsis speak Gujarati language and it's not Iranian/Iranic. I know both Iranis and Parsis are Iranian in any aspect, but I'm confused which ethnic groups can be categorized/classified as "Iranian peoples". Iranian-speaking peoples? or any ethnic group with Iranian background, culture, and religion? --Zyma (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity is a matter of self-identification. Language is only relevant to the extent that it influences people's self-identification. If people don't feel they're ethnically Iranian, but only Persian or Kurdish or Ossete or whatever, so that we have to rely on language, then there's really no such thing as Iranian people, and this article should be redirected to Iranian languages. If people feel they are Iranian (and not just Persian), even though they speak Gujarati or Turkish or Arabic, then there is an Iranian ethnicity. Imagine Kurds in Turkey, who only speak Turkish: They see themselves as being Kurds, not Turks. So: do Persians, Parsis, Pashtuns, Kurds, and Ossetes think of themselves as being one people, or part of a coherent group of peoples? If so, then "Iranian" is a real thing. If not, it's an invention of linguists or historians. Compare Indo-Iranian, or Indo-European, which are discoveries of linguistics are not matters of ethnicity. — kwami (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, then I will add them to this article. --Zyma (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ma'mun

somebody is removing Ma'mun as Iranian, while he was half Iranian. In most wikipedia articles those halfs are also considered as belongings to either of two ethnic groups. The image template above the article also lacks 5 people to complete yet.-Raayen (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

It is usually done for the nations which don't have enough prominent representatives to put in the infobox. But Iranian peoples have quite a lot people to show here instead half-Iranians. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of a adding a Arab Abbasid caliph who is only Iranian on his mother's side, then why not add someone who is actually of full Iranian origin? there are so many people to add but you instead chose al-Ma'mun, who was an Arab Abbasid caliph. One more last thing, how are my edits nationalistic? (which you mentioned before) i mean i am not the one constantly having a edit war against other people on articles about ethnicity just because i want to change something to something else which i like better. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding him, instead of others seemingly full Iranians, would benefit most. Also look at other people's articles in Wikipedia, in many of them the half-bloods were added. It is good for humanity.-Raayen (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bad argument, he was an Abbasid, thus an Arab, having some Iranian descent doesn't make him one. You don't see people putting other Abbasid caliphs on the Turkish people articles just because some of them had Turkic origins on their mother's side. In your logic that's the same like calling a Sasanian king for a Turk because he had some Turkic origins. We have so many famous Iranian people but you instead choose an Abbasid Arab? --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reason why I vote changing it to Iranic peoples instead to avoid confusion between the two. I even had Iranic cited but somebody keeps removing these citations from here and other articles. Maybe should all discuss it here?69.165.246.181 (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think also the halfbloods shouldn't be put in the infobox. Diako ^{« Talk »} 07:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous people of Iran should be included

Somebody has removed this collective part, although it was confirmed by sources :

“

The Iranian peoples comprise the present day Persians, Tajiks, Ossetians, Kurds, Pashtuns, Balochs, Lurs, and their sub-groups of the historic Elamites, Peoples of Jiroft civilization, Mannaeans, Lullubi,^[1] Gutians,^[1] Cyrtians,^[2] Carduchi, ^[3], Medes, Massagetaes, Sarmatians, Scythians, Parthians, Alans, Bactrians, Soghdians and other people of Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Iranian plateau. Other possible groups are the Cimmerians who are mostly supposed to have been related to either Iranian or Thracian speaking groups, or at least to have been ruled by an Iranian elite and Xiongnu of probable Saka origin.

”

The present Iranian people are blended peoples of indigenous people of Iran and Aryan people of central Asia.-Raayen (talk)

Let me make it short and say no. Why you ask? well because people such as the Elamites, the Mannaeans..etc were not Iranians. End of discussion. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it means anything to me;

Thomas Bois, The Kurds. "Father Thomas Bois was born in Dunkirk in 1900 and entered the Dominican Order in 1919. In 1927 he was sent to the Middle East where he studied Arabic, Sureth and Kurdish. From the beginning he took a special interest in the Kurdish people and published articles on the language, literature, history, customs and religion of this little known people." This person does not appear to have any academic specialization in this field, clearly none to state "present day Iranian peoples...[]...consist of Elamites, Peoples of Jiroft civilization, Mannaeans, Lullubi or Gutians".
Encyclopedia Iranica, "Carduchi" by M. Dandamayev. I see nothing mentioning how the Cyrtians have any connection to modern Iranian peoples. Do you have a quote from this source?
The Cambridge History of Iran: The Median and Achamenian Periods. I could find no viewable page 257 in this book. Do you have a quote? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Hazara and Anti-Tajik edits by Pan-Aryan users

Some Iranian nationalist users (or pro-Iran) started to remove Hazara and Tajik ethnicities from any Persian-related article. They deny Iranian origin of Hazara and Tajik. Just because Hazaras and some Tajiks have Mongoloid or Asian phenotype and don't fit in their so-called Aryan stock! If only Aryans are Iranian, then many of Iranians are not Iranin too, because they are similar to their neighboring Arabs and other Semitic peoples. Hazaras and Tajiks share same language, culture, history with Persians. They're same people. Hazara are a mix of Iranians and Mongols, but every aspect of their ethnicity is Iranian/Persian. Tajiks are just a Central Asian branch of Persians. So why those nationalist user destroy wiki articles? Why good editors allow them to do this? If Hazara and Tajiks are not Iranian (because of Mongolic/Turkic mixes), what about Arabid/Semitic Iranians who use Persian identity? Iranians always attack Afghans and Tajiks, but they don't know that all of these people are same before the creation of these political borders. --69.22.169.254 (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xiongnu?

According to article's lead sec. Xiongnu's were "probably" iranian/saka. There is no academic consensus on that and also mainstream theory, they were turkic or at least altaic speaking people. It is simply WP:UNDUE and it should be remove.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then why added similar "possible" groups (your edit) to Turkic peoples article? Why you don't remove those Huns, Xiongnu, Wusun from that article, but you want to remove similar section from this article? Huh? --188.158.111.41 (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian or Persian People?

Can somebody explain to me why we need two different article to explain same people? Shouldn't Iranian people includes Persian people. Mohammed al-Bukhari (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan-i Sabbah was an Arab

Hassan-i Sabbah wasn't Iranian but an Arab, originally from Yemen. User without username (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked IP

This IP has been blocked but made this redundant edit which hasn't been corrected yet.[[8]] Implying as if Persian and Tajik is interchangeable which it is NOT.

If someone could fix it per the dif I linked, that would be great

- 94.210.203.230 (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics sections needs a complete rewrite/revision

Balkans? Serbs? Albanians? Italians?... Next time add Croats and Bosniaks too! It's over-laughable content (current revision). Major genetic markers of Iranians are J2 (Greco-Anatolian, Mesopotamian, Near Eastern), G (Caucasian, Alanian [Sarmatian]), and R1a (Aryan). Iranians are close to other Western Asians (Anatolian Turks and some Arabs), people of Caucasus (Armenians, Azeris, Georgians), North Indians and Central Asians. Even the Iranian branch of R1a is not similar to Eastern Europeans (Balts and Slavs), because these groups separated 5000 years ago at least. Iranians do not fit in the European category or Semitic. They're just Mesopotamians with Aryan influences, so they're only close to inhabitants of Historical Greater Iran (Asia Minor, Iraq, Caucasus, Central Asia). --103.41.63.12 (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An ip from "JAPAN" (among blacklisted ips)...Firstly use your own ip dear proxy abuser sock. lnterestingly, in the past, a Turkish sock master claimed the same things with you (" iranians are mesopotamians") -Tirgil34 again?- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.219.135.240 (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 February 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The opposing votes make valid points, and outnumber support votes. (non-admin closure) — Amakuru (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian peoples → Iranic peoples – To distinguish between this ethno-linguistic group and Iranian (from Iran). 188.158.71.179 (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein Can you comment on this? I have also made requests similar to this to be moved to titles in the style of Iranians. Alternatively I was wondering whether a longer and more descriptive title might work. Greg Kaye 22:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose – This is a special case, really. However, the proposed title simply isn't used very often. Take a look at this Ngrams report. "Iranian peoples" wins out by a huge margin. There is nothing wrong with the status quo, as "peoples" provides adequate disambiguation. I also oppose GregKaye's suggestion of "Iranians", which is much too vague. In this special case, the extra disambiguation is necessary. He might have better luck trying to rename Persian people as Persians. RGloucester — ☎ 02:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense. Your research fails to differenciate Iranic peoples (speakers of Iranian languages, a large part of whom is not resident of Iran) that this article is about, from the residents of the present-day Iran, a large part of whom are not Iranic. Khestwol (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- I think the element that makes Iranian peoples more useable than Iranic is the fact that the internal limits between groups inside the cluster is not very clear : as examples there is no clear distinction between a Tajik and a Persian or there is no real definition that can distinguish a Zaza from a Southern Kurd of Turkey , same is true about a Feyli Kurd from a Lur ; that means compared to Turkish/Turkic , Iranian /Iranic is not so in use because the limits between an Azeri-Uzbek with a Turkish citizen of Turkey is pretty clear but between the various Iranian peoples is not .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The internal ethnic divisions between Germanic peoples, Turkic peoples, Indo-Aryan peoples, etc are not so clear either. The proposed title Iranic peoples seems perfectly ok. Khestwol (talk) 04:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT: "Iranian", in its common usage as a demonym, means a resident of Iran. Simply saying "Iranian" can mean anyone from Iran, including the large number of Azeris, Turkmens, and Arabs of Iran who do not natively speak Iranian/Iranic languages. To refer to only native speakers of Iranian/Iranic languages including those living outside Iran, it makes more sense and is less ambiguous to use "Iranic". Khestwol (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Khestwol. Although Iranian people is more common in Google Books (also there it includes not only Iranian peoples but Iranians as a nation, as you can see if look at some books that it gives as a result), it causes confusion both by the users from Iran, who start to include here the people from Iran (who have either Turkic or Arab background), and the users from Iranic people outside Iran who try to prove that some ethnic groups (Kurds, Ossetians, etc.) are not Iranian. Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I did not search for "Iranian people" in my Ngrams search. I searched for "Iranian peoples", with the "s", implying plurality. There is no confusion of "Iranian people" with "Iranian peoples", nor is there any justification for choosing "Iranic peoples", which has never been common. You seem to have misinterpeted this request. The proposal is not to move to "Iranian people" or "Iranic people". There is no singular "Iranic people". That's a non-existent term. The proposal is to move to "Iranic peoples" from "Iranian peoples". The plurality of the "peoples" provides adequate disambiguation from "Iranian people", which is why it is extremely dominant in sources. RGloucester — ☎ 21:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I made a mistake in wording here. I also searched Iranic peoples vs Iranian peoples. But look at a list of some books that the search gives in its first and second pages:

Iran's Diverse Peoples: A Reference Sourcebook

Iranian challenge : hearing

Continuity in Iranian Identity: Resilience of a Cultural Heritage

China and Iran: Ancient Partners in a Post-Imperial World

Iranian Irony: Marxists Becoming Muslims

Iranian Intellectuals in the Twentieth Century

Energy and the Iranian economy : hearing

The American Rhetorical Construction of the Iranian Nuclear Threat

Political Parties: Selected Entries from Encyclopaedia of the World of Islam

Iran and Its Place Among Nations

So 10 of 20 results in the first 2 pages when you search for Iranian peoples are about Iranian nation, not ethnic groups compromising Iranian-speaking peoples. You can research it by yourself if you want. That was my point. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. RGloucester — ☎ 22:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then give some arguments in order I can understand my incorrectness. What was incorrect in all my comments?

I admitted that Iranian peoples is more common
I just said there are confusions by the users; e.g. the recent edit war in Kurds page and this edit here.
I said when you search Iranian peoples the results also include books and articles about the population of Iran, and gave some examples above.

That's all. If any arguments against, I am open for discussion. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per COMMONNAME. — kwami (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and reasong given by RGloucester---> please see ngram link above. Mbcap (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

we zaza are kurds !

pls delete this fake map

we dimli/zaza are kurds..!

turkey trys to divide kurds"!

greets

^ ^a ^b Thomas Bois, The Kurds, 159 pp., 1966. (see p.10)
^ Encyclopedia Iranica, "Carduchi" by M. Dandamayev
^ Ilya Gershevitch, William Bayne Fisher, The Cambridge History of Iran: The Median and Achamenian Periods, 964 pp., Cambridge University Press, 1985, ISBN 0-521-20091-1, ISBN 978-0-521-20091-2, (see footnote of p.257)

[bois-1] Thomas Bois, The Kurds, 159 pp., 1966. (see p.10)

[2] Encyclopedia Iranica, "Carduchi" by M. Dandamayev

[Ilya_Gershevitch_1985,_p.257-3] Ilya Gershevitch, William Bayne Fisher, The Cambridge History of Iran: The Median and Achamenian Periods, 964 pp., Cambridge University Press, 1985, ISBN 0-521-20091-1, ISBN 978-0-521-20091-2, (see footnote of p.257)

[1]

[2]

[3]