Talk:Persian language/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

nomenclature section

Someone had put a suggested merge template at the start of the nomenclature section suggesting that The announcement of the Academy of Persian Language and Literature be merged into this section. There doesn't seem to have been any discussion of that on this talk page and neither on the other one (where it isn't even mentioned) and where it is instead suggested that that article be merged into Academy of Persian Language and Literature which, to me, seems like a more appropriate place for it to go. I've deleted the merge template on this page and put a link to the article in instead as it is relevant. I'm not trying to be troublesome, I can see there's a lot of debate about this nomenclature issue, but I've not actually changed the body of the text. Hope that all makes sense and sounds okay. Iancaddy 23:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound abrupt, this is not the idea, but I honestly feel the benefit of that admin would be microscopic? Isn't there anywhere you could spend your time adding more value in wikipedia? I thought the article was just great this way. thanks --GeeeFlat 10:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It is Semitic Such a change would be no greater than that of other ancient nations, such as the ancient Persians, who, though of Indo-European (Japhetic) stock, later adopted the Semitic Aramaean language and writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.211.144 (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sulaiman mountains are in Pakistan

The last time I checked, the sulaiman mountain are found in Pakistan, which represents the south eastern boundary of the Iranian plateau, please correct this mistake in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.131.95 (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Referencing

I tried replacing the lengthy synatxful "harvard referencing" code at the bottom of the article with a much shorter html version. However I cant locate where Mace, Schmit, and Windfur are used in the text. So the replacement was incomplete. The person who introduced those references into the article must do this, since he/she knows best where the references are referring to, if at all.

Somebody please tend to this matter. The referencing version I introduced is much better since one can click from the reference listing back to the text in the article directly, whereas the harvard system cant do that.--Zereshk 00:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll check the history of the page to find out who added them, and perhaps we could contact the user. —Khoikhoi 00:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as for Mace & Windfur, the two along with Mahootian were added by an anon two years ago as a Bibliography. (edit) So I'm not so sure if it's for the text in the article or not. ("References" could also be simply a list of external links that are books) As for Schmit, still looking... —Khoikhoi 00:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

See this, this, and this. —Khoikhoi 00:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I moved the unreferenced references to a 'Further reading' section. I guess if we find a way to incorporate them into (actual) references, great. --jonsafari 04:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Diasystem?

Please notice the discussion at Talk:Diasystem.

Is it linguistically correct to say that Dari is a part of the Persian diasystem? --Amir E. Aharoni 09:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Map is original research

All,

The Map Image:Moderniranianlanguagesmap21.PNG which has been presented in this article as fact, is an original research work by User:Imperial78. It needs to be specified that the map is not necessarily objective, and is instead a user-created illustration.--Zereshk 02:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Number of Speakers

I don't understand where the figure for 61 million native speakers comes from? could it please be referenced and sourced because according to CIA Persians are 51% of Iran meaning Persian would have no more than 30 million Native speakers in Iran.

And ethnologue 3

55$Insertformulahere$ Farsi, Western [pes] 22,000,000 in Iran (1997).

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Iran

--Johnstevens5 03:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Persian_language/Archive_1#Number_of_native_speakers_of_Persian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Persian_language/Archive_1#Another_source_for_Persian

--jonsafari 21:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The CIA World Factbook is notably outdated and quite biased in a lot of it's information, especially concerning states or nations the US is currently hostile to or in a political fricassee with at the time of printing. Don't take it as literal gospel.

203.59.167.49 (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Persian in Tajikstan

Persian in Tajikstan is official but not shown in the map. It should be in dark green. Wirya 18:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Help with translation

I'm currently working on a script intended to create short articles on political parties on a variety of wikipedias simultaneously. However, in order for the technique to work I need help with translations to various languages. If you know any of the languages listed at User:Soman/Lang-Help, then please help by filling in the blanks. For example I need help with Farsi. Thanks, --Soman 15:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

ISO/FDIS 639-3

The infobox states that the English names for ISO/FDIS 639-3 'prs' and 'pes' are Eastern Persian and Western Persian. This is not what the standard actually is. Whether or not a prescriptivist notion states that the terms 'Eastern Farsi' and 'Western Farsi' are incorrect as the oft-cited [1] insists, the current article misrepresents ISO 639-3. I am not in the 'Farsi' camp. I am not in the 'Persian' camp. I simply think it's not a good thing to misrepresent what the ISO 639-3 says. This would be like stating that U+06CC is called 'ARABIC LETTER PERSIAN YEH'. It may not be popular, but that's what it's called in that particular standard. Either we can remove the ISO 639-3 section in the article to avoid saying Farsi, or we can accurately state what ISO 639-3 says. I'm fine with either way. –jonsafari 19:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• I should say I agree with you Jonsafari that it is not a good idea to misrepresent ISO, though I am in PERSIAN camp. -DrMoslehi 17:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC+3:30)
  • Actually, ISO 639-3 doesn't say anything yet because it doesn't exist. The Wikipedia page is jumping the gun a little bit. The only standard that currently exists is ISO 639-2, and it has "Persian" as the English name. See [2]. I don't really care enough to start an edit war over this, but I thought I'd point out the relevant facts here anyway, in case anybody else cares. --Wclark 06:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how widespsread the benefit of ISO referencing to the mainstream public is, which is the essential target group of wikipedia. The added value of that section is awfully limited, and just helps ISO commercially, but very few people care. I would estimate the proportion of the readers who care, or are understanting what ISO language referencing is at around 0.01% of the readers, therefore questioning whether this info is relevant, whether it is of wiki standards, and whether it helps readability Vs being a total digression. Also the international standrad ISO is mor NOT adopted than adopted by many around the world. Other than that the article is brilliant, though.--GeeeFlat 10:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Total Number of Persian Speakers

Iran

Here is up-to-date information from Joshua Project:Iran Population Breakdown by language. The data is recent and is based on UN estimate for 2006. According to this report, the following groups are the Persian-speaking people in Iran:

Persian 24,868,000 , Farsi, Western Persian, Dari 1,725,000 , Farsi, Eastern (Dari) Tajik, Tadzhik 61,000 , Tajiki Takistani 224,000 , Takestani ... UN Country Population (2006) 70,324,000

So, total persian speakers in Iran will be approximately 27,898,000 in 2007.

Afghanistan

Aimaq,Char 273,000 (Aimaq) Aimaq,Firozkohi 271,000 Aimaq, Hazara 211,000 Aimaq, Jamshidi 120,000 Aimaq, Taimani 541,000 Aimaq, Timuri 135,000 Hazara 2,572,000 (Hazaragi) Parsee 13,000 (Parsi-Dari) Persian 103,000 (Western Farsi) Persian, Dari 1,041,000 (Eastern Farsi) Tajik 7,149,000 (Tajiki Persian) Qizilbash 13,000 (Eastern Farsi)

... UN Country Population (2006) 31,082,000

So, total persian speakers in Afghanistan will be approximately 09,442,000 in 2006. Though there has never been an official sensus made in Afghanistan, after pashtoons 65% of the population, Tajiks make the second largest ethnic group in Afghanistan with an estimated 15% of the total population. The following link provides a very good insight about some of the unofficial sensus that has been made over the years in Afghanistan: http://www.hewad.com/ethnic.htm

                actually most pashtoons in afghanistan speak farsi as well so that would boost your persian speaking people in afghanistan up alittle bit :).

Tajikistan

Persian 79,000 (Western Farsi) Tajik 4,348,000 (Tajiki Persian)

... UN Country Population (2006) 6,591,000

So, total persian speakers in Tajikistan will be approximately 4,427,000 in 2006.

Uzbekistan

Persian 31,000 (Western Farsi) Tajik 1,293,000 (Tajiki)

... UN Country Population (2006) 26,980,000

So, total persian speakers in Uzbekistan will be approximately 1,324,000 in 2006.

Diaspora

United States Western Farsi 921,000 in 2006.

Turkey Western Farsi 832,000 in 2006.

Germany Western Farsi 110,000+ Eastern Farsi 120,000 total 230,000 in 2006.

United Arab Emirates Western Farsi 194,000 in 2006.

Canada Western Farsi 129,000 in 2006.

France Western Farsi 63,000.

Sweden Western Farsi 50,000.

UK Western Farsi 29,000.

Total diapora 2,448,000.

Approximate Total

25,818,000 + 12,442,000 + 4,427,000 + 1,324,000 + 2,448,000 =

Grand Total = 46,459,000 This is nowhere near 70 million. I think this data should be included as a lower bound. Heja Helweda 01:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Tajik classed as "Persian"? good sources Heja, where did the figures for 70 million native speakers arise from?

--Johnstevens5 17:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Joshua factbook is not an accurate source and the UN estimate is only a total population estimate. Just to show this, in the joshua estimate we have four separte category for Kurds:Kurd, Central 702,000 1.00 % Y 1.2 Islam Kurdish, Central

Kurd, Iranian 4,210,000 0.03 % Y 1.2 Islam Kurdish, Southern Kurd, Northern 204,000 0.00 % 0.00 % Y 1.1 Islam Kurdish, Northern Kurdi, Southern 3,061,000 Then when you click on Kurd Iranian, you have the same Kurdi , Southern!

According to CIA factbook source 51% of Iran speaks Persian (CIA factbook) as a native language and according to Encyclopedia of Encarta it is about 60%. Which would make 35-42 million. Considering the CIA factbook on Afghanistan 50% this would make 15.5 million, so that is 50.5-57.5 million between Iran and Afghanistan according to two sources. The population of Tajikistan is about 80% Tajik (CIA factbook) and has a population of over 7 million and that is then 5.6 million so this would make that is 56-63 million, there are approximately 3 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan and two million in Iran which is probably not part of the population figure of CIA factbook, and also large number of Tajiks in Uzbekistan(estimates vary from 5-10% to as much as 30%) and Russia (estimated to be 1 million Tajiks) as well as large number of Iranians, Afghans and Tajiks spread around the world. So this is easily 60-70 million. And this is a low end estimate, as many people are now native Persian speakers in Iran (for example Tehran) while their parents might not have been. --alidoostzadeh 17:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

For those listing figures from Joshua Project (a Christian database), please see WP:RS. It does not meet the criteria of a reliable source. DragonRouge 21:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

distinguishing vowel lengths

This article says: "Historically, Persian distinguished length: the long vowels /iː/, /uː/, /ɒː/ contrasting with the short vowels /e/, /o/, /æ/ respectively. Modern spoken Persian, however, generally does not make this distinction anymore." Well, I've never been to Iran, but my Persian teacher very much insists on distinguishing long over short vowels... Is she nitpicking or is the quoted claim incorrect? --Dijxtra 09:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In what way does your Persian teacher tell you to distinguish short vs. long vowels? Obviously there's an orthographic distinction (written vs. generally non-written), and poetry often makes this distinction in meter, but otherwise I'm not aware of a phonemic difference in modern spoken Iranian Persian. –jonsafari 17:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

For instance, in verb "to have" (I don't know how to transliterate, but I guess it would be something like "dashtan") there is diference in pronouncing first and second "a". Now, it might be she does that because she wan't us to remember that orthographic distinction...

BTW, is there a piece of software which make it possible for a user with latin keyboard to write in persian alphabet? --Dijxtra 15:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, another Persian learner! :-) I can't answer your question about the vowels, though. But about the keyboards, if you're using Windows, you can just load an additional Windows keyboard driver, they are all part of the standard Windows installation. Or, if you don't like the key layout as it comes for Persian, you can even roll your own, there's a thing called Microsoft Keyboard Layout Creator you can download. FellFairy 15:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but then I have to gues which key is which. I'd like some kind of program which gives me a bunch of buttons labeled with arabic graphemes and a space bar, and then I click on those to get myself a sentence :-) --Dijxtra 23:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your first question of the two a's in dashtan, they are more distinguished by location in the mouth than by length (timewise). This is similar to the various a's in English (eg. apple vs. father). That is, they are all very different sounds, and phonemically are not distinguished by length. A language that truly distinguishes vowels by length is, e.g. Japanese. Thus the Japanese words tsuki "moon" and tsūki "airflow" are pronounced the exact same (AFAIK), except that the 'u' in the second word is pronounced longer timewise than the first. It's good to think of the two Persian a's, as in dashtan, as competely separate, unrelated sounds, like 'i' and 'u'. This will make learning new words easier to remember.

Regarding your second question of typing Persian using a Latin keyboard, you might checkout this old site I wrote, with the latin 1:1 transliteration scheme listed below. –jonsafari 01:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You can easily access this online editor to type in Persian from almost any computer. If you must use a virtual keyboard, Postchi has such a service. But, it uses Arabic ي and ك instead of Persian ی and ک. Kaveh 03:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"osk.exe" is your friend. It's a visual keyboard thing that comes with Windows, and a link to it is usually installed under Accessories-Accessibility or some such. And for MS Office programs you can also download "MS Visual Keyboard". Both can be used together with any built-in Keyboard driver. FellFairy 08:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey um well sometimes short and long vowels can make different meanings from one word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.16.39 (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

About the two A's,in "dashtan",the first one is a long a [a as in article],and the second a is short,[a as in cat] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahrzad hbk (talk • contribs) 07:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Persian and Farsi

I really don't know why people make so much fuss about "Persian" versus "Farsi". Anyway, I think I once saw some information about when that "Farsi" name actually entered English. It was recent (like, 20th century), but not as recent as the article implies (after 1979). Must have been in one of those huge dictionaries from Oxford, don't remember exactly. I'll try and dig it out, okay? FellFairy 10:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

To Mardavich, re. your edit summary [3]("rv unverifiable source, my oxford dictionary has no such description, the current wording is correct, Farsi came to popular use AFTER 1979"): it's not "your" or "my" Oxford dictionary or some dictionary from Oxford. It's "the" Oxford English Dictionary. And it's the most authoritative source on the history of the English language there is. I'll give full quotes if necessary. FellFairy 10:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Mardavich reverted again, I think he would like to see a quote. Thanks :) - Francis Tyers · 10:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here goes. Just to make it clear again, this is from the online version of the big OED, not some other dictionary made by Oxford UP. Article on "Farsi", obviously. Attestations, ordered by year:

• 1878 "The transition from the ancient to the modern Persian is formed by the Parsee, or, as the Arabs call it, Farsi," (Chambers's Encycl.)
• 1926 "The present or modern Persian (which is invariably called Farsi by the modern Persians)." (Chambers's Encycl.)
• 1951 "In the old province of Fars, where Farsi (or Parsi), the language of Persia, originated." (N.B. Jopson, Persian Language)
• 1962 "Persian, or Farsi, the language of Iran, [...]" (Whittaker's Almanack)
• 1979 "One of the aides is the Press Secretary, who presents Farsi translations..of British Press reports." (Observer)
• 1980 "The disgusting state of the walls of the London Underground stations, defaced by slogans in Farsee or Arabic characters." (Times Lit. Suppl.)
• 1984 "It may still not be too late to put an end to the grotesque affectation of applying the name ‘Farsi’ to the language which for more than five hundred years has been known to English-speakers as Persian." (Bull. of the British Soc. of Middle Eastern Studies)

(From the Oxford English Dictionary, Full Version. 2005.)

Note: I discounted the first two, because here the authors were not themselves using the word but quoted it as a local usage. But in the examples from 1951 onwards, it's English-speaking authors simply using the name. Interesting is of course the last one, documenting the annoyance about the "affectation" of the name, which I mentioned in my edit. FellFairy 10:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The name "Farsi" was used by the US government to identify the language when training Peace Corps volunteers at least by 1973. Also, Wikipedia:Redirect recommends that alternate names used as inbound redirects should be listed in the first paragraph or two, so that the redirected reader is not confused. Do you think the placement of "Farsi "and "Parsi" at the top of the infobox is sufficient? --Blainster 18:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Persian or Farsi

Here http://how-to-learn-any-language.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4071&PN=1 [Specific Languages: Persian or Farsi] there has been a hot discussion about it. Some people say that it has nothing to do with the Academy of Persian language how we call it in English.

What's your opinion? If you have anything to write please don't deny.

I don't think anyone has ever said that it's not called Farsi in Persian. The fact of the matter is, we have German language, not Deutsche Sprache, we have French language, not Langue française... We have Spanish language, not Idioma castellano; Hebrew language, not עברית (nor `Ivrith, although I see someone did make עברית into a redirect...); Japanese language, not 日本語 (nor Nihhongo, and again, 日本語 is only a redirect); and Russian language, not Русский язык (nor Russkij jazyk). What is so special about Persian that it deserves to be listed as Farsi instead of as Persian? Tomer^talk 07:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's one big difference between the "German"/"Deutsch" case and the "Persian"/"Farsi" case, isn't there? Nobody does in fact use "Deutsch" in English. But people do use "Farsi" in English. Some people don't like to hear it. But other people use it, and that's a fact. So, "Farsi", whether we like it or not, is now a name in English, while "Deutsch" is not. And it's in the dictionaries of English too. I'm not saying we should treat it as the main or preferred name, of course. But isn't Wikipedia all about observing what's actually done out there in the real world, not about prescribing what should be done? FellFairy 07:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, but Persian is used in academic contexts way more than Farsi (for better or worse). And TShilo2's examples are wrong, I don't think anyone is advocating Zaboni farsi. It would be good to have an article on Iranian Persian though. - Francis Tyers · 08:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Academy of Persian language is the ultimate authority on this matter and they have made their position very clear. Farsi is a new phenomena in common usage in English, Persian is the correct name for the language in English. --Mardavich 10:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Where did I say anything to the contrary? I'm not sure what an ultimate authority is, but it sounds kind of scary! :) - Francis Tyers · 10:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

According WP:VERIFY, the burdon of proof is on the user who makes an edit and attributes it to a source. I have the latest full version of Oxford dictionary in front of me, and there is no mention of Farsi's origins in English language. Please verify this claim before before adding it to the article. --Mardavich 10:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me the full reference citation for the edition you have before yourself? - Francis Tyers · 10:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If you don't have the quotation above, perhaps you should contact Oxford University Press for a refund! :) You know, mistakes can happen ;) - Francis Tyers · 10:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm telling you that I have the latest full version of Oxford dictionary , and you tell me "it can be verified. Perhaps you should go to the library and check?". Have you checked it? If it can be verified, then why don't you go ahead and verify it here by posting a screen shot. --Mardavich 10:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see above for a quote from the OED. - Francis Tyers · 10:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You can scroll up by using the bar on your right (or left) or alternatively using the scroll wheel (if your mouse is equipt with one). Alternatively click here. - Francis Tyers · 10:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Above where? The OED quotes you're citing have nothing to do with the origins of the word Farsi in English and when it entered the language. Please don't ignore the question, If the Oxford claim can be verified, you are so sure that it can be verified, then why don't you provide us with a screen shot? --Mardavich 10:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you are familiar with the Oxford English Dictionary, Mardy my man, that is a list of usages ordered by the year. And thus! lo! it is how the history of the word in the English language is presented to users of the runcible, r'honourable, ruminant dictionary! (ok, maybe I was going a bit over the top with ruminant). - Francis Tyers · 10:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't play with words. You know perfectly well what my problem is. I'm not disputing Oxford, I'm disputing what's being attributed to Oxford Dictionary with no direct quote, link or anything verifiable. --Mardavich 10:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's the screenshot. [4]. Now, Mardavich, please do give us the full title and ISBN of the book on your desk that you thought was the OED. Not everything that has the words "Oxford", "English" and "dictionary" printed on its cover is the OED, you know. There are several works with very similar titles, but completely different content. FellFairy 11:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Now now Fells, don't lets be beastly to the chap! I'm sure it was an honest mistake :) - Francis Tyers · 12:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Now where in your screenshot does it say "Farsi was borrowed into English as an alternative form beginning in the mid-20th century and became commonplace in English-speaking countries" which is what you're attributing to Oxford and has not be verified. Let me remind you that according to WP:Verify, "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain" , so please provide evidence (screenshot) of that particular sentence which I quoted and you have attributed to Oxford, or it will be removed. --Mardavich 12:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ever heard of the difference between literal quoting and summarizing a source? Both is legitimate. In this case, "became commonplace" really belonged to the earlier version of the text, my bad, I've removed it from that sentence because it is better attributed to the other source (the one you gave). "mid-20th century" logically follows from the dates quoted, because that's just how this dictionary works. The attestations are always to be understood as representative examples of the earliest known use, so if the earliest one is from 1951, that's the time it was borrowed, roughly. FellFairy 12:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR, you just can't just make your own conclusions based on your own POV interpretations of what a source says. The quote "Farsi was borrowed into English as an alternative form beginning in the mid-20th century" is still original research and should be removed from the article. --Mardavich 12:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the usage of dictionaries? All signs point to "no"! :) - Francis Tyers · 12:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Farsi was borrowed into English as an alternative form beginning in the mid-20th century" is still an original research, contrary to wikipedia's no original research rule outlined at WP:OR. Please remove that quote, Wikipedia articles are not a place for personal speculations and observations. --Mardavich 12:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What exactly of that sentence are you disputing? "Was borrowed"? Well, what else, of course it was linguistic borrowing, they didn't simply invent it. Want to replace it with "first occurred"? Okay with me. "as an alternative form"? Well, what else, it didn't become the only form now, did it. Want to leave it out? Okay with me. "in the mid-20th century"? Well, how else would you describe the date 1951? Want to replace the whole sentence with "Its first recorded use in English was in the mid-20th century" or something like that? Okay with me. Or my distinction between "use" (after 1951) and "mention" (earlier examples)? If you don't like that, then by all means go ahead and say it entered English earlier, in 1878. FellFairy 12:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, wikipedia has a no original research rule outlined at WP:OR which explicitly states : "'Articles may not contain any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position'." Your analysis or arguments may even be right, but you just can't add your own analysis or arguments to the article based on secondary published arguments. Therefore, "Farsi was borrowed into English as an alternative form beginning in the mid-20th century" is original research, please remove it from the article. --Mardavich 13:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The keyword here being, of course, ...to advance a position. What position exactly, do you think, am I advancing if I prefer "was borrowed" over "first occurred", and "in the mid-20th century" over "in 1951" (or "in 1878", for that matter)? I'm simply summarizing the published literature, which is definitely not disallowed by any Wikipedia rule that I've seen. Feel free to replace the sentence with a more accurate wording if you can think of one. I won't hold it against you as a 3RR violation as long as you don't just simply erase it. FellFairy 13:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The words "borrowed", "alternative" etc have a lot of POV implications that " serve to advance a position". "Farsi was borrowed into English as an alternative form beginning in the mid-20th century" is neither sourced nor cited. It's original research, it should be removed from the article per WP:OR. --Mardavich 13:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How is ";The first appearence of the term 'Farsi' in the English language, as reported by the Oxford English Dictionary was 1878" ? Or perhaps you have an alternative wording you would prefer? Work with us, not against us! :) - Francis Tyers · 13:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How about "Neologism "Farsi" appears to have been first used in English in the mid-20th century" ? --Mardavich 13:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is better if we attribute it to the OED, and I'm not sure we can say "neologism", as that may be original research. How about "According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term 'Farsi' was first used in English in the mid-20th century" ? - Francis Tyers · 14:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, but can you make it "appears to have been first used" to make it more NPOV. Oh and please remove the dispute tag while you are at it. Cheers. --Mardavich 14:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay with me too. FellFairy 14:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, thanks :) PS. See discussion at Talk:Bandar-Lengeh County. - Francis Tyers · 14:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Latin *Persianus

Why does the Latin form of Persian have an asterisk next to it (in the nomenclature section)? Is it unattested/reconstructed, the normal denotation of * in historical linguisitcs? I find it hard to believe Persianus is unattested in Latin. Or maybe someone just put it there by accident. –jonsafari 16:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's at least unattested in any of the dictionaries I have looked at. The usual form is Persicus; in Greek it is Περσικός. --Jpbrenna 21:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess it begs the question, what source is there to back up the *Persianus reconstruction? As far as I can tell, this was the edit that added this unattested Latin form. –jonsafari 23:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be my job here to consult the OED. Actually, the "*Persianus" is listed there too, with the asterisk. I'm not sure I understand it correctly though. What it seems to be saying is that English at some time (during the Renaissance?) created "Persian" by way of analogy with other words in "-ian". Like as if there had been a Latin form "Persianus". Earlier, English had slightly different forms, also from the word "Pers-" but with different endings. Taken from French apparently. FellFairy 23:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have access to the OED, so I can't write a specific citation in the article. Would you be able to write the specific reference in the nomenclature etymology section? Does the OED support exactly the other derivational forms mentioned in the article? Thanks. –jonsafari 18:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Arabic script in Wikipedia

A guideline on whether or not to italicize Arabic (and all scripts other than Latin) is being debated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italics in Cyrillic and Greek characters. - - Evv 17:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The consensus so far seems to be what is commonplace already: English text is non-italics, Latin script transliteration/romanization is italics, non-Latin script is non-italics. –jonsafari 18:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Farsi References

There are 15 sources used in the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad entry for which an editor has requested verification with the {{check}} tag. These sources are in Farsi. I don't read it, and I don't have a translator for it. I don't suppose anyone here is feeling philanthropic and cares to help out another editor? I'd be happy to verify some English sources if you have any, or do any other gruntwork that doesn't require the understanding of Farsi. I don't think there's a "proper" place to ask for this sort of help, but if there's a better place, please let me know. Thanks! Vir4030 03:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Translators available is probably the best place to look for help. There are currently 3 Persian to English translators listed. 203.109.240.93 19:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

More Persian speakers

" CIA World Factbook, based on old data, there are 71 million native speakers of Persian in Iran [1], Afghanistan [2], Tajikistan [3] and Uzbekistan [4] and there are about the same number other peoples who can speak Persian throughout the world."

The box on the right hand side of the article says that the total number of Persian speakers is only 110 Million. The Cia world fact book says that number should be 142 Million, therefore I am editing the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.66.84 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 25 November 2006.

Yes, but to add those numbers up would be original research. There are other factors as well. Do you have any sources that specifically say there are 142 million Persian-speakers? Khoikhoi 23:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is one source already given in the text (a BBC article in which scholars on Persian literature say that the language is spoken by ca. 200m people). However, I think that any number higher than 100m for the native speakers is unrealistic. For the time being, we should keep the 70m.

Tājik 15:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Iraqi President

The article claims that the president of Iraq as well as four other nations speaks Persian. I could find no information whether Jalal Talabani or Nouri al-Maliki speaks Persian.--Fox Mccloud 02:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Jalal Talabani speaks Persian with native fluency, he's regularly interviewed on Persian-language radios and TV stations. Here is a source: It is the fourth visit by Talabani, who speaks fluent Farsi, since he took office. --Mardavich 02:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mardavich. --Fox Mccloud 21:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

so-called Persian language is not related to the Persian Tribe who established the Persian Empire by the aid of Medians,eventually demolished by Alexander the Great. And also the Geographical origion of this language is not the residence area of Persians, situated in the South of "Iran" and locally named "FARS". The geographical origion of this language is the "Central Asia". That is why all pioneer poets of this language are from this area, mainly situated in Afghanistan, Uzbakistan and Tajikistan.The original speakers of this language,that speak it more perfectly than "Iranians", are called TAJIK.Therefore, "Persian" or "Farsi" is a wrong name for this language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.151.48 (talk • contribs)

Do you have any references to support your theory? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.125.71.13 (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Interesting theory, but why can't we share?! it's only fair.. :) --Rayis 09:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Who changed the trivia section?

The Trivia section was written very elegantly previously. Now, not only it lacks some of the facts and the objectivity it had before but it also needs an English makeover... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.181.222.89 (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Cazimi?

Hey just a question on an individual word: does anyone know whether the word "Cazimi" is an Arabic or Persian word? It supposedly means "in the heart of the Sun" or "heart of the Sun." The article might be miscategorized, that's why I'm checking here just to make sure that it's not in the wrong category. It's a technical astronomical/astrological term, fairly old it seems; does anyone know this? Are their any native speakers afoot that would know this or the word's origin(s)? --172.128.131.86 15:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC) im a native speaker and i've never heard of that word so i guess its arabic!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.16.39 (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's make this article good

This article seems to have more or less plateaued these past few months. I think it could be a good article with a few changes here and there. What do you all think needs to be done to the article to make it absolutely ready for an official good article review and subsequent nomination? –jonsafari 05:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

(copied in from your talk page)

Here are some immediate thoughts:

• References need to be cleaned up and standardised -- also needs more citations.
• The difference between Iranian Persian and Persian needs to be distinguished.
• Section on "Modern Persian influence on other languages" and "Vocabulary" can probably be merged.
• The Writing systems section should be cleaned up a bit so that it covers all the major writing systems used for Persian.
• Trivia section should be removed.
• Not sure how useful the comparison table is.
• The phonology section needs tightening to mention changes in vowels between the varieties.
• No mention of Early New Persian.

Basically I think the main problem with the article as it is written currently is the confusion between talking about Iranian Persian (e.g. the standardised variety spoken in Iran), and Persian which is a catch-all term for all of the standards spoken. If we are talking about the catch-all term, we should be careful not to assume that the Iranian variety is the "standard to which all other standards aspire".

Consider sections like:

Lexical confusion in the West between terms like Farsi, Dari and Tajiki often leads to an underestimation of the breadth of the influence of Persian in Southwest Asia, which is quite important and is a legacy of the millennia-long existence of a Persian cultural sphere, perhaps because this cultural sphere functioned differently than modern nationalism in the West. Other Iranian languages are closely related as well.

It might be a good idea to arrange the sections more in the order of Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages/Template?

All in all, I wouldn't support it for GA right now... mainly because of the lack of references. I'd be interested in working with you to get it up to GA quality though. Hope this review has been of help, - Francis Tyers · 10:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Lexical confusion in the West..."

The section beginning with "Lexical confusion in the West" does not appear to contribute to the article. It generalizes a full half of the world, and doesn't seem to belong in this entry. I mean, what I read that sentence as saying is "Westerners don't understand the difference between local languages because they don't think too much of Persian." I think it shows bias and is irrelevant. ?? 71.252.43.218 —Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures comment was added at 10:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. –jonsafari (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. I'll try removing it, but you know how the chaps here are. - Francis Tyers · 07:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Orthography/Writing system

I think the Orthography section could probably use some cutting. I'm not sure that it is necessary to deal with stuff like ZWNJ in this particular article (it would be more suited to Perso-Arabic script or Persian alphabet. - Francis Tyers · 23:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

More equal treatment should be given to the various historical and current writing systems. This should be an overview afterall. - Francis Tyers · 00:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

More general suggestions for improvement

• The grammar section could do with some expansion. The grammar section needs a major reworking.
• I may be completely off here, but hasn't Early New Persian been missed out of the history section. I think the historical progression was something like Old Persian -> Middle Persian -> Early New Persian -> Modern Persian, but I may have misread something somewhere.
• The current example is a bit trivial. It is good as everyone knows it, but perhaps a more interesting and representative sample could be found. Perhaps also some samples from other standards of Persian?
• External links need pruning, but if I do that I'll probably just get reverted. Bear in mind Wikipedia:External links!
• The nomenclature section is oversized, but again, if I trim it I will get reverted. It could be summarised in two paragraphs (one about etymology, one about current usage).
• Phonology section needs to be expanded.
• Some of the stuff like "former rank", "found their way" need to be removed or replaced with something more encyclopaedic.

- Francis Tyers · 00:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Mazandaran

I noticed that in the map, Mazandaran is not included in persian speaking area. This is wrong. Although Mazandarani language exists in Mazandaran, Persian is the native language of the big majority of people there and almost the native language of all Urban society in Mazandaran.Sangak 20:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

number of speakers of Persian as a second language

Do we have any source for that? It stands to reason that most Iranians speak Persian, so that would amount to some 30 M non-native speakers already. Plus there are maybe 1.5 million non-native speakers of Tajiki. Throw in another half-million here and there, and we are at 32 million as a number that will probably be readily accepted by anyone. Even 35 million sounds reasonable (but "reasonable" isn't the same as "sourced"). How are you going to account for another 10 to 15 million non-native speakers? dab (𒁳) 08:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Persian and Pashtu are the two official languages of Afghanistan and according to Iranica, 90% of people in Afghanistan can speak Persian. However, I think mentioning "at least 30 million non-native speaker" is enough (and "at least 92 million speaker population total"). Jahangard 09:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

that's right. If this is true, ca. 40 million second language speakers (and 100 M total) will be a reasonable estimate. dab (𒁳) 20:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Actually in Iran 96% understand Persian (according to Hamshahri newspaper and 98% in Tehran). It is the native language (if you include subdialects like Gilaki, Mazandarani, Lur) of 65%. But for the purpose of argument if you include standard Tehrani Persian it is 58% according to CIA factbook. So that is 39-40 million in Iran. Now take Afghanistan 50% (CIA factbook) is native. that is 15 million right there. So you are above 50 million. Finally Tajikistan and Tajiks in the USSR (according to some western sources 40% of Uzbekistan is Tajik) and Afghan refugees in Pakistan easily numbers 10 million. So 62 million is actually very low end estimate. There is large number of Tajiks in Russia as well and large number of Iranians outside of Iran and large number in Iraq, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Pakistan, India..So it is hard to tell but 62 million seems to be the low end. --alidoostzadeh 01:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You include Gileki as a dialect? - Francis Tyers · 08:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

People of Mazandaran are native speakers of persian or at least as native as Mazandarani! Big majority of Mazandarani people (almost all urban population) do not speak Mazandarani or are bilingual. Sangak 16:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You would like to rising the number of native speakers, this is not a respectful way, If you really would like to promote this language, do it by some other actions, Also i wrote 50% of modern persian, what is considered as standard tehrani dialect today, are arabic words, which is a fact, and not a lie, and many educational books even the books of my school refering to it --Ali 19:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Parsi-e-Dari

Actually ferdowsi uses both Dari and Parsi..So does Hafez, Sa'adi , Nezami, Naser Khosrow and other Persian poets. Modern Persian is a direct descendant of Middle Persian. Parsi-e-Dari is the Khorasani dialect of middle Persian. Also people of Afghanistan are diverse as other people of region. So Dari is a another name for Parsi. (Deutch, German, Almani) being another example. Where-as the term Parsi is more general though and can refer to other Iranic dialects. (same with Pahlavi). Ferdowsi calls it one place: Parsi-e-Dari and I think that is the best clarification. Since other forms of Parsi existed. --alidoostzadeh 08:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Haleh Esfandiari

Hello, could a Persian language expert provide the Persian spelling of her name at the Haleh Esfandiari article? Many thanks, Badagnani 06:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be very nice if someone could add the Persian spelling for this name, thank you. Badagnani 00:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ash-e anar

Hello, could a Persian language provide the Persian spelling at the Ash-e anar article? Than you, Badagnani 00:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

IPA2

Please see the discussion at Talk:IPA2. Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni 08:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Iranian Scouting

Can someone please render Aamaadeh Baash (Be Prepared), the Scout Motto, into Persian script? Thanks! Chris 03:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC) yeah,in persian script its this way: آماده باش —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahrzad hbk (talk • contribs) 07:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Romanization of Persian

Please see the discussion at Talk:Romanization of Persian. Any input is welcome. Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni 07:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Flags

Any objection if I trim the veritable fruit salad of decorative flags from the infobox? --John 17:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed all flags from the infobox. It looks a lot less cluttered, and no information was lost. --John 14:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Nomenclature 2

In the section it is stated, that "The international language encoding standard ISO 639-1 uses the code "fa", as its coding system is based on the local names." I believe, the marked information is incorrect. Cf. Hungarian "hu", but the endonym is magyar, Japanese "jp" but endonym nihongo. Szabi 13:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO the Nomenclature section is much too long, and much too prominent (coming so early in the article). This looks to me like a section that has clearly been a subject of controversy, and has therefore been edited over time into a state where it represents a political compromise, rather than part of an effective presentation of information.--76.93.42.50 (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

recent change re: BMWs

Someone added something ridiculous about Persians and Armenians that is mildly offensive. I suggest it be removed.

208.27.111.130 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Modern Persian"

This article should give a diachronic overview of the Persian language, while Modern Persian should be a separate article discussing the modern language. Compare Greek language vs. Modern Greek, Aramaic language vs. Neo-Aramaic or Hebrew language vs. Ivrit. Persian, Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew and arguably Tamil are the only languages the name of which is applied to stages spanning more than 2,000 years. These four (or five) special cases deserve a treatment of the language as a whole separate from the article on the modern language. --dab (𒁳) 17:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew language has very little to do with ancient Persian language aswell as modern day Parsi. Ramtashaniku (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Dbachman was using Hebrew as an example, not suggesting a linguistic relationship between Persian and Hebrew. –jonsafari (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with dbachmann. - Francis Tyers · 08:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I know this is late, but I'll pipe in. I have no problem with dbachman's proposal. My only hesitation is that it would require significant restructuring of this article (and others). –jonsafari (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Question? Why both Ibrahim and Ebrahim

I note that Ibrahim and it's listed names tend to be predominantly Arab and Ebrahim and it's listed names tend to be predominantly Persian. Is it be a 'way back when' geographic and/or religious transliterational difference between Arabic and Persian. Is there an idenifiable source for this difference? Any ideas? Listed names from sub-Saharan Africa seem to show less correlation and may be related to the former colonial power's preference. This note also posted at Talk:Romanization_of_Arabic Appreciated, memnoonam. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Historical linguistics is your friend. See Persian_phonology#Historical_shifts. Specifically, Early New Persian [ɪ] > Modern Iranian Persian [e]. Thus Tajik would still use the original [ɪ] for this name. –jonsafari (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Need spelling for word

Need spelling for "sayr" (meaning "journey"), as used in early Islamic and Sufi poetry and treatises. Also, is this term used in Arabic? The only similar word I can find is "safr," and "sair" in Arabic means something different. Badagnani (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be <span=2 style="font-size: 20pt">سير, as in <span=2 style="font-size: 20pt">سير و سلوك. Badagnani (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

سیر و سفر (Seir o Safar) in today iran has a meaning of travelling for having fun but سیر و سلوک means a mystical change.as you said seyr in arabic means change. Bbadree (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If the words are so closely related, which language is the origin? Badagnani (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In Arabic, سير sayer, or as you spelled it sayr, means "walking a path" the verb, sar, means walked (a path) it can also mean travel, in Arabic: sert-o-kol-a-doroob means "I traveled all over", it can also mean, the way somone follows a rule, or a tradtition, as in behavior. That is why, it is paired with Solouk سلوك, in saying, Sayer wa Solouk, to mean the "ways and behaviors" (of someone) Therefor, I think سير is Arabic, also being a 3-letter root: S-I-R (Arabic: س - ي - ر ) --Ranyno (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Need assistance at Lute

This text appears at the article Lute:

“ The words "lute" and "oud" may have derived from Arabic al‘ud (العود; literally "the wood"), though recent research by Eckhard Neubauer suggests that ‘ud may simply be an Arabized version of the Persian name rud, which meant "string," "stringed instrument," or "lute." ”

Is it correct, and, if so, what is the Persian spelling and etymology for "rud"? Badagnani (talk) 02:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Well, I doubt the Persian origin being rud. Plus, in Arabic 'Ud doesn't mean wood, at least, not litrally: 'Ud means a branch, as in a branch of a tree, it implies wood, but 'Ud in arabic is specific to thin branches, not thick, for which one would be called far' فرع In the middle east people say: idrab ala el 'ud اضرب على العود which means hit the 'ud, litrally. this refers very specifically to the strings of the instrument. Why? In Arabic 'Ud comes from the verb 'ada. Means, something that comes back, that is, flexible (physically). If you hit a branch carrying a rose, it comes back at you. Same for the strings of the instrument! Henceforth, 'Ud is called عود because literally "it comes back" or more clearly "it responds" Also, the 'Ud is many times played using a small piece of a naturally scented branch of a tree, the same that perfumes are made out of. So the name could refer to that classical way of playing the 'Ud too. Ranyno (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

MOS on Persian vs. Farsi

I am of the opinion that the usage of either Persian or Farsi should be standardized in the Manual of Style. I do not have a preference one way or the other which one is chosen, but I'd like some consistency in articles. For now I'm basing it on Persian as in this article. Peter Deer (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(Sigh) There are those who do not subscribe to this false dichotomy. This is an informative read from a well-known scholar in this field. –jonsafari (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Farsi vs Persian

Farsi should not redirect here. This article should be called Farsi with Persian redirecting here. 69.235.9.128 (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Need Persian assistance

Need Persian script at Reshteh. Badagnani (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Image

I'm curious as to what the image in Persian_language#Vowels means. There doesn't seem to be a caption.Bless sins (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Old Persian attestation

What does the second sentence here actually mean: "The earliest dateable example of the language is the Behistun Inscription of the Achaemenid Darius I (r. 522 BC - ca. 486 BC). Although purportedly older texts also exist (such as the inscription on the tomb of Cyrus II at Pasargadae), these are actually younger examples of the language." How can an older text be a younger example of the language? Was the Behistun Inscription using an archaic form in its time? Is there a dispute about the age of the other texts? If so, why is the writer so certain they are younger? Did the sculptors of Cyrus II's tomb have a time machine? As well as being confusing, this isn't even supported by a reference. --193.172.19.20 (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Need Persian script

Need Persian script at Sangak. Badagnani (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

There's a lot of too-ing and fro-ing over the inclusion of Farsi in the lead. A local name? Yes Farsi and Parsi are, but they're very well known in English speaking countries, and since there's a hard redirect, they should be in the lead. How they are at the moment (non bolded, with the local pronunciations) is a compromise. It does not give equivalent status - Persian language is still bolded, these are in the local pronunciation section, non-bolded, and in italics. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The lead is not a compromise, since it would necessarily give all the local names, or none. "Farsi" is only the language as spoken in Iran. See This informative read from a well-known scholar in this field. Badagnani (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

But the lead does not claim that "Farsi" is the only language spoken in Iran. Farsi is already in the lead, in IPA phonetic alphabet and Perso-Arabic script - this merely allows readers to see a transliteration of the words into English. It allows the reader who has never heard "Persian language" to see that "Farsi" is a local name, and that Persian language is the generic term for the languages in English. Finally, I'm aware of these problems, having dealt with them in other languages, so I'm not unsympathetic! Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the link above, or the Persian language article? If you had, you would not have made the comment you did. As stated several times already, and noted in the link and article itself, Farsi is only one dialect of the Persian language; others, which are not called "Farsi," but which have other names, are spoken in nations near Iran. Please read all of those, then comment again here once you've done so. Badagnani (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Iran

what all do you know abput it/? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.68.18.152 (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit

I have reverted the recent edit by User:Francis Tyers. Ethnologue acually does consider Tajik a dialect of Persian: here and here. Tājik (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Article is POV

If you pseudo-experts of Persian language ask me about the accuracy of this article than I would tell you most of it is nothing else as only POVs. You can decide to rewrite this article again by using every single source, be it a modern or an old one...or I will ask for deleting the entire article, at least for inhibition! It´s very sad to see how people try to explain a 5000 years old language by their own views and pseudo-links to any christian sects--Draco of Utopia (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Punjabi language and literature

Punjabi, an intercontinental of Punjab language has borrowed significant words from Persian language. Panjabi scripture and the writings of numerous Panjabi poets such as Data Ganj Baksh and coins of various Empires up until 1849 included Persian script and language. Punjabi (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Use in Iraq?

I see that according to http://www.ethnologue.org/show_country.asp?name=IQ there are 227,000 speakers of Western Farsi in Iraq (1993 figures). This seems a fairly significant number, yet Iraq doesn't seem to be mentioned in this article, not even in the longer "spoken in" list in the infobox. Should it be? Not being an expert I'll leave it to others to decide... 86.161.42.75 (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC).

Some OR removed, article still in bad shape

I removed some blatant WP:OR about the number of speakers, some user had used the CIA Factbook to calculate their very own and rather optimistic number of native Persian speakers. Please use sources in the future. I also removed a statement about UNESCO as it's not relevant in the introduction and the suggestion never went through, making it far from noteworthy. I added a fact tag to the number of speakers in the infobox and removed the "source" as it did not come even close to support the number of speakers claimed by the fact box. I've also corrected some language mistakes in the intro. All in all, this article is a bit of a mess with too much POV and OR in many sections. JdeJ (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Vocabulary Section

Dear Editors, the article says that Persian Language influenced "Afro-Asiatic languages like Assyrian and Arabic" Yet, the source (numbered 20) leads to a Persian Website, that translates to "Information Not Found!" I am a fluent speaker of Arabic, and Aramaic, have no knowledge of any Persian vocabulary in neither one, Assyrian being the eastern dialect, so to speak, of Aramaic language. I believe this information is misleading, and needs either to be deleted, or to be well-sourced. ~~16:30 GMT, December 28, 2008 Ranyno (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Number of Speakers

The number of speakers seems to shift in interpretation a great deal. The revision from 26 million to 56 million is both implausible (it suggests that more people speak Farsi outside of Iran than inside Iran, for example) and based on the questionable data of the CIA World Factbook (see previous entry in this discussion... not mine by the way). Unless accurate, VERIFIABLE data can be provided for non-Iranian speakers (e.g., those in native speakers in Tajikistan, the US, Canada. etc.), I would suggest that we keep with the existing estimate for Farsi of 26 million. --User:David A. Victor 10 Jamuary 2010

First of all, please post new comments where they belong, that makes them easier to find. No argument has been put forward for why the CIA World Factbook entry would be "questionable", except for an anonymous user claiming so one year ago. That is hardly noteworthy. The number you want to inser list only the number of speakers in Iran, not those in Afghanistan, Tajikistan and in the rather large Iranian diasporta. So while you have not provided any proof that the World Factbook entry would be wrong, there is no doubt about your figure being wrong. The source itself is fine, it is your interpretation of it that is faulty as you fail to acknowledge the existence of Iranian speakers outside Iran. In applying such an interpretation of the source, you're making yourself guilty of violation WP:OR as you try to insert your own, faulty, understanding of the source and not what the source actually says. All you can source with it is the number of Persian speakers in Iran and that is not the topic here. Please stop edit-warring and try to provide some arguments for why you think there is no Iranian speakers outside of Iran and why you think the World Factbook is not a credible source. All you've claimed this far is WP:IDONTLIKEIT and that is not good enough. (Oh, last and least, it's not 2010).JdeJ (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

David A. Victor continues to remove the CIA World Factbook as a source, claiming that it is not a good source. Sorry, but that argument is void. We don't have the right to remove source just because we dislike them, we have to provide arguments for why they are reliable as David A. Victor has not yet provided a single argument for why the World Factbook would not be reliable. The source he is using does not present the number of native Persian native speakers, only the number of speakers in Iran. I have explained this repeatedly, but David A. Victor just keeps reverting without presenting any reason to do so except his WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is starting to look like vandalism, as he does not argue his case but just keeps on reverting. I find it astoninishing that someone claiming to be an academic does not understand how to use and interpret sources. If it were true that he is an academic and that this is his field (something I consider highly unlikely), then surely he would be able to find some academic sources supporting his arguments so that he would not have to resort to edit-warring without providing any argument for doing so.JdeJ (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Need Persian

Need Persian script at Kabab torsh. Badagnani (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Badagnani (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Need Persian

Need Persian script at Banu Ilyas. Badagnani (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Badagnani (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Need Persian help

Can someone add the Persian word for "bag" at Habban? Badagnani (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is currently under proposed deletion. Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 01:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Anon IP

I have revrted these edits by an anon IP. Tajik (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Alveolar Tap or Trill?

This page says the alveolar tap is the allophone of the trill, but Persian phonology says the trill is the allophone of the tap. Which version is correct? Can someone fix it? Mountleek (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this. It has been fixed. –jonsafari (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Creating a demographic article

Anyone agree? It would be like the 'List of countries by Kurdish-speaking population' Wikipage, it would give a better idea of the number of speakers and we can remove the long-winding list in the current infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdf169 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. List of countries by Persian-speaking population? Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 18:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits on Arabic influence

The sources brought say Persian was influenced by Arabic, i.e. the word "absorbed" does not quite reflect the reality, because the process was not deliberate. Atabəy (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the sources that were not linugistic specific and not written by linguists or experts in the area (that was 2 of the three). The amount of Arabic vocabulary varies per text, conversation, dictionary and etc. True if you look an English dictionary, 90% o the words are Latin but many of these words are not used. So I gave statistics from linguistic/scholars of the language. However what you referenced with regards to "heavily influenced" is about the meters of poetry ('Aruz, 'Mathnawi and etc.) rather than loan word which the author users "many". --Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Also absorbed a considerable is taken straight from here. [5]

Language help needed on wiki "Imagine Peace" page

Help is needed to edit the Persian listing on Imagine Peace Tower to show the proper characters in that language. Photograph of this panel is at Wikipedia Commons and the characters used should depict this exactly even if some would translate the English phrase "Imagine Peace" differently. Thanks.Irv (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

recent edit

Some users add "Farsi" to the lead. This can not be there. This article is about "Persian language" and not "Farsi". Also 1. The local names (Parsi, Tajik, Dari) have been mentioned in the article, 2. If we add Parsi in the lead people will want Tajik and Dari too. I propose leaving the article as it is.--Xashaiar (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Like it or not, English speakers *do* use "Farsi" in reference to the Persian language. See the Oxford English Dictionary if you have one, or if not, you can see the pertinent information above on this page at #Persian and Farsi (and the discussion continues in the next section as well). Farsi is a notable name for this language in English, so it should be included in bold letters in the lead sentence. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Enccylopaedia is not a high-school text book. And no, I do not use Oxford dictionary to be misguided by "Farsi is alternative name for Persian" because I use SKJÆRVØ, or JERMIAS, or other (all non-Iranian if you want) top experts on Persian language to conclude the fact that "Modern period south-western Iranian language is called Persian and is known locally as (Parsi/Farsi, Tajik, Dari)". I am sure Oxford Dictionary knows it. None of these three variants have special statue. Having said that, you are right that "Farsi is a widespread alternative name", but this reference to Persian as Farsi is wrong. If you need RS mentioning this inaccuracy please check the history page of this article or let me know. We have already redirect of Farsi to this page. And according to WP:LEAD 1. WP:CONS is needed. 2. in parenthesis we can put the alternative names. If most people agree with you, then let Farsi be mentioned in bold in the lead. I will have no problem.--Xashaiar (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If referring to Persian as "Farsi" is inaccurate, we can discuss that in the article (with references to reliable sources, of course), but it does not change the fact that the name Farsi is used by English-speakers to mean Persian language. An encyclopedia is descriptive in terms of reporting on how a word is used, not prescriptive in terms of telling the reader how a word should be used. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Still mysterious! How can we mention "or Farsi" in bold as synonymous with "Persian language" and then discuss in the article that this synonymy is inaccurate. "accuracy" is apparently the last concern in wikipedia. By accuracy I mean how undisputed scholars of the subject start their articles.--Xashaiar (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

As is the case with any authoritative book of reference, the "accuracy" of the usage is secondary to the fact of the usage. Sometimes people say "momentum" when they more accurately mean inertia, but that doesn't mean it's not worth mentioning that it is a usage in common practice. I wouldn't go so far as to say that "momentum" is synonymous with "inertia" in English, but "Farsi" when it is used in English is always synonymous with "Persian language". To reiterate, it is not our place as editors of an encyclopedia to prescribe how a word should be used, but to report on how a word is used in English. Any question of the underlying accuracy of a common usage comes second. This is not a matter of POV, it's a matter of sticking to reliable sources (such as the OED). Wilhelm_meis (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether its been mentioned or not, but i thought it worth pointing out as a form of comparison. The name of the country on the island of ireland that isn't part of the UK is known as ireland in english but eire in irish. In other words the actual name of the 'republic of ireland' in irish is eire, but you don't call it eire UNLESS you're talking/writing in irish; the styleguides of various british news organisations point that out (as more importantly in that article does the irish constitution). Thats why the wiki article in english leads with Ireland, with Eire as the 'alternative' local name.Zaq12wsx (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As it should. The difference here is that while "Eire" is understood to be the Irish name for Ireland and is not used in English as an English name for Ireland, "Farsi" on the other hand is used in English as an alternative English name for Persian language. Thank you for bringing it up. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This example is irrelevant. Please point to specific Wikipedia policy pages that supports addition of Farsi 1. In lead, 2. In bold 3. In the lead twice (because it has been mentioned in the lead once more). According to WP:LEAD this issue must be resolved through CONS. You have respected none of these.Xashaiar (talk) 09:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Again I refer you to the previous discussion at #Persian and Farsi and continuing to #Persian or Farsi, supporting the use of "Farsi" in English as far back as 1951 and with gradually increasing currency since. Specifically, from attestations in the OED:

• 1878 "The transition from the ancient to the modern Persian is formed by the Parsee, or, as the Arabs call it, Farsi," (Chambers's Encycl.)
• 1926 "The present or modern Persian (which is invariably called Farsi by the modern Persians)." (Chambers's Encycl.)
• 1951 "In the old province of Fars, where Farsi (or Parsi), the language of Persia, originated." (N.B. Jopson, Persian Language)
• 1962 "Persian, or Farsi, the language of Iran, [...]" (Whittaker's Almanack)
• 1979 "One of the aides is the Press Secretary, who presents Farsi translations..of British Press reports." (Observer)
• 1980 "The disgusting state of the walls of the London Underground stations, defaced by slogans in Farsee or Arabic characters." (Times Lit. Suppl.)
• 1984 "It may still not be too late to put an end to the grotesque affectation of applying the name ‘Farsi’ to the language which for more than five hundred years has been known to English-speakers as Persian." (Bull. of the British Soc. of Middle Eastern Studies)

(From the Oxford English Dictionary, Full Version. 2005.)

The term should be in boldface per WP:MOSBOLD#Boldface. As to appearing twice, I agree that it is not ideal to have the same word appear twice in the first sentence, but it is both a local (endonymic) name and an English (exonymic) synonym for Persian language. I'm not sure how to avoid putting twice, once inside the (parentheses) as an endonymic name and once in bold as an English synonym. Do you have another solution to this? Also, what would you like to see as proof of a consensus? A poll? I'll go ahead and start one below. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting! I have never heard such arguments: you first wrongly claim that "Farsi is synonym for Persian language", then give me the page WP:MOSBOLD#Boldface. Thanks! Persian language is "Persian language" with three famous dialects: Farsi/Parsi, Dari, Tajik. Language of Iran is sometime called Farsi outside Iran, that's correct, but this page is not about language of Iran... I do not know how I should explain this obvious matter.Xashaiar (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You have never heard that "Farsi" when used in the English language refers to the Persian language? Surely you jest! Or you have never been pointed directly to the pertinent section of a policy or guide in lieu of replicating its text. I'm not sure all English speakers make the distinction you point out. Please note the attestation above dated 1984, for instance. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Farsi as an English synonym

Resolved

 – Suggestion withdrawn

Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 06:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The question has come up whether or not there is consensus behind the word Farsi as an English synonym for Persian language in the lead. Please discuss. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• It's meaningless to have polls about whether Farsi language is synonym for Persian language or not (for facts you should look at reliable sources, not polls among Wikipedians). Also, being synonym doesn't have a binary value. For most concepts, there are several synonyms with different frequencies of usage and slightly different meaning (or different usage). This case is somehow similar to the case of the word Mohammedan (see [6] and [7] for its usage in English books and academic papers). It has been used in the English language (as a synonym of Muslim) and it's been attested much before the word "Farsi". It's good to mention this issue somewhere in the page Muslim, but not necessarily in the first sentence (and in boldface). Alefbe (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

At least we will have an indication of where consensus lies. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Also I should add that the usage of the two terms is not exactly the same. For most of those who use the term "Farsi language" in English texts, it's not clear whether they refer to Persian language as a whole or only the contemporary variety of Persian language in Iranian Media. This issue is addressed in details in its own section. Alefbe (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get into an edit war over it. You claim a silent consensus, but this is the weakest possible argument for consensus. Please refer to Don't revert for "no consensus". Consensus was to include Farsi as an English synonym, a while back (again, see the discussion above), but then it was removed. I realize that consensus can change, and it may have, so I initiated this discussion to clarify what consensus currently is. Let's please discuss before editing. And please don't get into an edit war over it under any circumstances. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

About edit consensus, you changed the stable version which was there and so you broke the consensus. Referring to an old discussion in 2006 (where only 2 users advocated your opinion and one of them, "FellFeiry", was clearly a single-purpose sock-puppet) is meaningless. Alefbe (talk) 04:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Farsi should not be put in the first sentence in bold. As Alefbe said, somewhere in the section below is much more suitable, if it has to be mentioned. Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 04:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to how the term is used linguistically, questions begin to form, similiar to those lame IQ test questions. If Farsi is Persian and Persian is Farsi (ala synonym), and Dari and Tajiki are dialects of the same language that Farsi is a dialect of, are Dari and Tajiki therefore not Persian? That's without even bringing accents into question, like the Encyclopedia Islamica mentions the Tehrani accent. --Afghana ^[talk] 04:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the answers to these questions are what so vexed the author of the 1984 quote in the OED. My position has little to do with the accuracy or validity of English speakers using "Farsi" as a synonym, only the fact that a considerable section of them do use "Farsi" to mean "Persian language". I'll agree that it's imprecise, but it does seem to be so used. I won't push my view onto anyone. If consensus is against me, I will respect the consensus. I'm still trying to figure out where that consensus is. Indeed, the initial response at least seems to be against "Farsi" as an English synonym, but what does everyone else think? Thank you for your thoughtful responses. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 10:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In further note, I see that there was only one editor arguing against the two above, but I readily concede that a discussion between only three editors is a poor indication of consensus. A third editor seemed to pop in under the assumption that "Farsi" in English means "Persian language". Do you have compelling evidence that the one editor was a sockpuppet, or is that a hunch? Just curious. Thank you. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Whilst it is accurate to say that a good many English speakers believe the terms are equivalent, much contemporary work in the academia has clearly shown this is unacceptable. It wouldn't be wrong to mention that often in the English world the terms are incorrectly used as one, but it would be to state it in an article as a fact that is acceptable in actual linguistic discussion of the language. It's a misconception of terminology among those not familiar with the subject and should be noted as such. --Afghana ^[talk] 00:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Farsi is not an equivalent of Persian, it's just a local name of one of the Western variants of Persian, spoken in Iran. --Kurdo777 (talk) 04:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about actual usage, Kurdo, not correct usage. Alas, I see there is consensus against presenting Farsi as a term in English usage in the first sentence. I know when to leave well enough alone. I have removed the poll, since I was the only one to comment there. Had there been others, I would have simply closed it. But I will humbly withdraw my suggestion to include Farsi in the first sentence, in recognition of consensus. Thank you all for your comments! This what WP:BRD is for. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 06:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone please verify

Can someone with access to the source please verify that this recent anon edit is supported by the attributed source? Thank you. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Google books, it should be forty percent. --Afghana ^[talk] 00:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

It has already been changed back to forty percent. Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 00:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for checking up on that! Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Number of Persian Speakers & Ethnologue NOT Being a Reliable source

I am not sure why Ethnologue is used as it is not really a reliable source. Here is why: 1. Ethnologue uses some % from 2001, the others from 1998, some from current year, etc. For example the number of Persian Speakers in Afghanistan [8] is based on a 1996 estimate. The number of Persian speakers of Iran is based on a 1997 estimate. [9] Iranian literacy rate is from 1995 [10] . 2.In the same source, the number of other ethnic minorities is like that too. For example take a look at Aimaq number, the population estimate is based on year 1993 data. Number of Azerbaijani Turkic speakers is based on a 2001 estimate. The numbers presented chronologically inconsistent. 3.Population in both of these countries have changes significantly & such estimate are WAY out of date.

I propose that we eliminate Ethnologue & its estimates. It is inconsitent and not reliable.--Ddd0dd (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Help with the "Example for the Persian"

the example in the end of the "Persian language" have political meaning ..

it can be change to anytihng els.."not political meaning ..."

thank u all for making wikipedia rich place of info ...but also keep out the political things , hate things and the bad things away from here : )

ahoj

bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.131.148 (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetical

EDITORS: Please list the countries Alphabetical - A-Z, not Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan.

Word Formation

"dânande dân + -ande one who knows Adjective // dânandegi dân + -ande + -i knowing Noun" I'm no Persian expert, but surely "one who knows" is a noun and "knowing" is an adjective(?) I might thing it meant "knowing" as a gerund, but the use of the -i suffix to indicate "pertaining to university (owtte)" earlier in the table, means I've rather dismissed that idea. Could somebody with knowledge of the language verify this (and update the table)? LaFoiblesse 2007-05-30 00:09 (GMT)

The map needs to be corrected

According to the map used here, Vojvodina is an independent country. That is not the case, the map should be corrected or removed.Jeppiz (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

weliqufgl3ih4t

tyurtyhuerub 456yu 65u54u 54u 5u7 4u67u 67u67u5ryhju6u 65 u546hyu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.48.191 (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Banning of Farsi/Dari from Pakistan

Article should make references to the fact that Colonial rulers, such as Britain banned the use of Farsi/Dari from areas under their rule, notably in Pakistan-a language used up until the early 1900's, in order to erase and minimize the historical and traditional influence it had on the region and to better integrate it into its vast South Asian Empire. The British ban is well documented, and the replacement of Persian with Urdu was a dileberate policy of by the colonial rulers. Pakistan's national poet and pioneer of the country, Allama Iqbal (known as Iqbal Lahori in Iran) also chose Persian as the national language to unite the people. Despite the banning of the language, nearly all of Pakistan's ancient monuments, historical scripts, poems and couplets are still in the Persian script, the country still boasts a resilient yet decreasing number of Persian speakers(2-3 million), its national anthem is written in Persian, and the language still holds a position of significant importance for the people of the country.

Wrong! Persian was a lingua franca of the upper classes in South Asia (particularly under the Mughals, but other rulers as well) but only among the upper classes. The average person did not speak Persian but his or her own native language, be it Punjabi, Bengali, Gujarati or Hindustani (all of which were being heavily influenced by Persian of course, however coarsified). Persian did gradually disappear, with the British ban being the final straw, but it was something affecting the education policies of upper-class people across South Asia, not a phenomenon unique to Pakistan. And the ban itself was not as significant as some make it out to be. Persian had already been more or less been largely replaced with Urdu and English by that time. Even after the "ban", people could still get an education in Persian, it just wouldn't be as socially useful as it was before. Nevertheless many Parsis studied it in Indology depts in British-run colleges, as well as Muslims studying in madrasas or Hindus given "classical education". Allama Iqbal did not choose Persian to be a national language so much as write extensively in both Persian and Urdu. Urdu, of course, is a heavily Persianized literary variant of Hindustani. That is what the anthem is written in, Urdu (the national language of Pakistan), not Persian. In contemporary Pakistan, very few people speak Persian or know a word of it (other than Persian derived words in the Urdu language). The only Persian speakers in Pakistan are the Afghan refugees and perhaps a small pocket or two in Balochistan. End of story. Period. Afghan Historian (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Strange map removed

This article featured a map claiming to show where Persian is spoken. It contained some strange information, such as a relatively large part of Azeri territory being Persian speaking. Stranger still, it also included a map of "Greater Persia". It cannot be a historical map, as the borders matched today's borders, except that all of Uzbekistan, all of Turkmenistan, all of Azerbaijan etc etc were part of Greater Persia. A map of where Persian is spoken would be great, but it need to be accurate and not include strange information of any other kind.Jeppiz (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

When should "farsi" be replaced by "persian"

I understand there is now, or has been, controversy over the name to be used, in the English language wikipedia for the language alternately known as Persian/Parsi/Farsi/Dari. I have no dog in that fight. But I do have, on my watchlist, numerous articles where I explicitly used [[farsi (language)|farsi]] because I was directly quoting one of the articles' references. Due to WP:VER I think we should stick to the original wording in quoted passages that use "Farsi", without regard to whether experts want to deprecate "Farsi".

Every so often I check, and find someone has changed all the references to "farsi" to "persian" -- usually without any explanation, or any checking of the article's talk pages.

I think we should stick with the original choice from our references, even when we are paraphrasing, or summarizing the reference, rather than directly quoting the reference. The references I was using were all documents prepared by officers in the US military. These officiers were, frankly, careless. They were certainly capable of using "Farsi", even when they didn't mean "Persian". About a dozen Guantanamo captives had their continued detention in Guantanamo justified by their acknowledgement that they had been associated with Islamic parties their interrogators assumed, without checking, were affiliated with the Taliban, but which were rather among the parties that made up the "Northern Alliance". In other words they were on our side. Geo Swan (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Skjærvø

The article cites Skjærvø for the proposition that According to available documents, Persian language is the only[23] Iranian language whose all three Old, Middle, and New stages are known to represent one and the same language; i.e. New Persian is a direct descendent of Middle and Old Persian.[22] This seems to be a misunderstanding of both Skjærvø's article and basic linguistics. While it is correct to say that New Persian is a direct descendant of Middle and Old Persian. It is incorrect to say that other languages have no antecedents, even if we do not possess written versions of those antecedents. The above proposition also ignores the differences that have caused linguists to recognize the three languages as distinct. The text should be corrected to just say that New Persian is a direct descendant of Middle and Old Persian. Are any editors opposed to this correction? If so why? --Bejnar (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You are right. I changed "only Iranian language" to "one Iranian language". The previous version was correct if read correctly: "according to available documents". Also note that Skjærvø talks about difficulty of establishing genetic relations between new Iranian languages and their Old and Middle from. Hope it addressed your concerns. Xashaiar (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The current version is according to the cited source and there is no need to change it. The key is the word "attested". Alefbe (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

lkhiglkkjäpoikäpkiä, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.153.210 (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)