Talk:Iran: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:51, 20 April 2016 editVormeph (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users511 edits →Iran vs. Persia ← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:49, 20 April 2016 edit undoVormeph (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users511 edits →Iran vs. Persia Next edit →
Line 221:		Line 221:

	:{{ping\|UCaetano}} Ah, but you see this is where you're wrong: although the USA was called America since its unification, Persia was not known as Iran since its unification. In essence, Persia denotes usage from the unification under the Archaemnic Empire up until the Pahlavi Dynasty where in 1935 it was established that the term Iran be used instead. You're asserting that Persia remains in use. Can you point out a news article that refers to Iran as Persia in a modern sense? There's a challenge for ya. If you are successful, then I will retract my argument. But in case you are willing to bend over, I have a news article that claims my point very clearly. Enjoy reading, so suck it up and read: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21151350 ] (]) 11:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)		:{{ping\|UCaetano}} Ah, but you see this is where you're wrong: although the USA was called America since its unification, Persia was not known as Iran since its unification. In essence, Persia denotes usage from the unification under the Archaemnic Empire up until the Pahlavi Dynasty where in 1935 it was established that the term Iran be used instead. You're asserting that Persia remains in use. Can you point out a news article that refers to Iran as Persia in a modern sense? There's a challenge for ya. If you are successful, then I will retract my argument. But in case you are willing to bend over, I have a news article that claims my point very clearly. Enjoy reading, so suck it up and read: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21151350 ] (]) 11:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

			::{{ping\|LjL}}, {{ping\|UCaetano}} You guys are eunuchs to evade my questioning. I have provided a valid source which firmly backs up my claims that Iran is historically konwn as Persia. Now you're fidgeting and boiling up and crying to the Misplaced Pages admins to say that {{User\|Vormeph}} is winning the argument because he found sources more recent from a more respectable publisher than one which was made 20-30 years ago. Too much internet has fucked with your heads; go outside and get a glimpse of reality! Iran is not called Persia no more, which part of that don't you understand? ] (]) 14:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:49, 20 April 2016

Grammar mistake

I found a grammar mistake in first paragraph of this article. In First paragraph and in 7th line we have: "country that has both a Caspian Sea and Indian Ocean coastline. Iran has been of geostrategic importance because of its". Article "a" before "Caspian Sea" is not needed and I think correct text would be: "country that has both Caspian Sea and Indian Ocean coastline. Iran has been of geostrategic importance because of its".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotoodi (talk • contribs) 12:24, 24 March 2014‎ (UTC)

Fix the messed up syntax in bold red in the middle of the entry.

These edits from 4/30/2014 ( Current: "nearby regions wich would last for many centuries onwards." Correction: "nearby regions which would last for many centuries onwards."

Current: "Iran reached it's greatests extent since" Correction: "Iran reached its greatests extent since " )

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Foreverchang (talk • contribs) 01:38, 1 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Social Media and Women's Empowerment

Women living in Iran have encountered various challenges and obstacles socially, politically, economically, and psychologically that have affected character and integrity. In Iran today we see women’s rights activists have very little opportunity to voice their opinions. Although academics and lifelong learning is deemed valuable in Iran historically and religiously, there is legislation aimed to undermine women’s social and legal progress. An example is women’s rights to an education in Iran. The right to an education is increasingly viewed as a basic human right worldwide but it monitored and regulated in Iran. We see education is strongly correlated to economic growth and political stability. It nurtures awareness, liberation, critical thinking, and success.

The rise of independent women’s rights activists is due to developments in technologies and increasing participation in digital spaces. The reform movement in Iran in the 1990’s encouraged secular thought and feminist thinking. This challenged Iran’s traditional structure by raising self-awareness of social issues, notably women’s rights issues. The emergence of social media has been a great tool to abolish pre-conceived notions of Iranian Women and have gave them a platform to reach out to the world. The media shapes the worlds opinion by deciding what and what not to broadcast. Social media has aided the empowerment of women by attracting global recognition. It gives a voice to the most marginalized groups in society and energizes activists to spread information and create discussions around the world, instantly. Social issues can no longer be hidden from the world by the Iranian government because public scrutiny forces their actions into light, and holds them accountable for wrongful discourse. Bloggers continue to demand social justice and refuse to be silent, knowing there is a possibility of harassment or jail time.

Feminism and activism pose a direct threat to the current power balances in Iran. Media of all forms is a great way to raise important questions and start conversations about women’s lack of rights in Iran. Communication technologies including Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. creates a stage for awareness and participation. Digital and social media is a very powerful tool and one of the most effective ways to advocate for women’s rights. The future gains of these technology platforms are endless. We can note that technology presents its own challenges in itself, because it is difficult to regulate and is quickly revolving. Women contributing equally to society will have an immense impact on socio-economic, social, and political development. Women being allowed to participate in society will not only benefit women, but all Iranian citizens; and on a bigger scope, the world.

References

Mehran, Golnar. “Lifelong Learning: New Opportunities for Women in a Muslim Country (Iran).” Comparative Education 35.2 (1999): 201-15. Web 29 Mar 2015. Nafisi, Azar. “Empathy for Iran’s Women.” New Perspectives Quarterly 27.4 (2010): 34-7. Web. 1 April 2015. Odine, Maurice. “Role of Social Media in the Empowerment of Arab Women.” Global Media Journal 12.22 (2013): 1-30. Web 29 Mar 2015. Shavarini, Mitra. “The Social (and Economic) Implications of Being an Educated Women in Iran.” Harvard Educational Review 79.1 (2009): 132-40. Web. 29 Mar 2015. Shojaei, Seyedeh Nosrat, Ku Hasnita Ku Samsu, and Hossien Asayeseh. "Women in Politics: A Case Study of Iran." Journal of Politics and Law 3.2 (2010): 257-68. Web. 29 Mar 2015.

Wrong GDP numbers

I check Iranian economic numbers from time to time and it seems there are some suspicious activities trying to distort economic fact about Iran. Would you (anyone) please fix GDP numbers in the first column of the page (up Right side) according to the source pages they are linked to?

The official data for GDP numbers are normally linked to these two pages and normally the highest numbers are put into the country summary but what we are seeing now in IRAN page summery is that somebody changed GDP numbers while the linked sources are saying something totally different.

Please somebody fix IRAN's page economic data summery (up right side of the main article) according to its linked sources:

The links are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Thanks for your help

Typing Error in GDP (PPP)

The GDP (PPP) erroneously says "$1,357,028 million." I think this is obviously supposed to be "$1,357,028 billion." Can somebody please amend this as I cannot edit locked articles yet.

Thanks. Nutty 0-0 Professor (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Can someone put in an anthem

something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk2GYvhwUno

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Stick to sources! Paine 21:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Human Rights?

There are lots of reports about human rights in Iran by international NGOs but somehow editors managed to avoid them ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.240.65.154 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Problems of Pictures

@LouisAragon: Some pictures in the article are not suitable. I listed them below. Also, Mhhossein can help us.

In the Government and politics section, the text speaks about the Supreme Leader of Iran but the picture show face of Brazil's president and profiles of Ali Khamenei. I suggest this picture.

In the Demographics section, I added two pictures from famous place in Iran. Mashad and Qom are important place in Iran and Muslim community. So, two pictures must add in this section (this and this).

In the Foreign relations section, the current picture has POV problem and is not suitable photo for explaining of Iranian foreign relation. I suggest better picture that describe relation of Iran with other countries. The Iranian nuclear talks is suitable subject for explaining.Saff V. (talk) 07:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Saff V.: The proposed revisions are excessive and vandalizing (WP:VAN), and contain derivatives from political, personal and ideological orientations. (WP:TE, WP:JDLI)
The revisions are not applicable, with regard to the standards and regulations at the Misplaced Pages community.
Rye-96 (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Rye-96: I pinged LouisAragon, why you answer? Also, why my suggestions are VAN? Introducing an important place is personal and ideological orientation? I prefer to wait for answer of LouisAragon.Saff V. (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Saff V.: I don't see why you shouldn't use those pics; they're quite suitable. It's not uncommon for LouisAragon to suddenly enter a period when an edit is made without his agreement; he acts as though he owns the entire article. I wouldn't worry about it; you have my backing. By all means. Vormeph (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

There's already a picture relevant to the Iran nuclear deal there, so no need to add another one. The Supreme Leader picture currently there is way more illustrative than just a portrait, in that it shows that the Supreme Leader wields de facto power. And finally, photos of places have no logical connection the "Demographics" section, which is by definition about people. Rwenonah (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me Saff V.. Regarding the photos I think Rwenonah's right when he says "The Supreme Leader picture currently there is way more illustrative than just a portrait" and I agree that the photo of khamenei and ~~Putin~~ da Silva is far more relevant ~~than any other possible choice~~. However, I think photos like this and this are what the article needs. By the way, what are your suggestions for "Foreign relations section"? Mhhossein (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Saff V.: I suggest to add a photo of Khamenei and Putin if there's any. As you know Putin met Khamenei some months ago. Mhhossein (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Unification events?

Why Pahlavi dynasty is mentioned as a 'unification' event along with Safavid? Iran/Persian was unified before Pahlavi, it was just a transfer of power. True, there were some separatist movements before Pahlavi, which Reza Shah put down, but I don't believe it's a unification event to be mentioned here. The last unification event was Safavid, since then the country has been unified. Pahlavi dynasty must be removed from this section. BrokenMirror2 (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The name "Persia"

I take issue with the rationale for this edit by Vormeph. I do agree with the first part, namely that sourced content was removed by it; claiming that sourced content "is illogical because it doesn't come from an official context" is, however, itself illogical. The claim was correctly attributed to Ehsan Yarshater as WP:PRIMARY requires and not presented as fact, but subsequently, a claim was made that both Persia and Iran are used in cultural contexts and that was sourced by another independent source. Have you not come across WP:OFFICIAL before? It explains the WP:COMMONNAME policy in detail, showing that whether a name is "official" or not has virtually no relevance for Misplaced Pages's purposes. Of course, in this case, "Iran" is also a common name, and it's common and prominent enough to be this article's title (no one is disputing that); but the mere fact taht "Persia" is "not official" by no means prevents it from being able to be mentioned as an alternative name, if it is in considerable use. Since even Google's n-grams show it to be in relatively wide use even in recent publications, I'd say the burden is squarely on your side to remove the sourced content by actually showing that the claims made in it are false. Justifications that changes "reflect facts" without evidence (but actually removing existing contrary evidence) are not how Misplaced Pages is edited, and claiming that editors "live in another world" because they want WP:Verifiability instead of alleged WP:Truth aren't conducive to a good editing atmosphere. LjL (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@LjL: By what right should a country be known by another name? Should Netherlands have a similar statement that it should also be known as Holland? Should the USA be known as America? They're both validly referred thus, but that doesn't mean there should be a controversial statement on Misplaced Pages about it. Neither should there be so on here. You're using one's own opinion and judgement to justify fact; that's enough reason to remove the statement altogether. If anything, by acknowledging that Iran was once known as Persia is lenient enough. I don't think we should rely on the opinions of just one man who has no official ties to the Iranian government to decide what to name the country. The Iranian constitution does not mention the word Persia and all decrees and edicts made by the previous government are annulled by the current. So, your argument has no base because it's relying on the opinions of someone who lives in a past world. I'm in reality here, and the word Persia does not have any real meaning politically nor legally. It may do so historically, but that doesn't mean we should start calling it hither. Hence, to refer Iran historically as Persia is correct since Europeans in the past referred to it as such. Vormeph (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Vormeph: as I mentioned below, Netherlands already has such a statement saying it is "also known as Holland". Similarly for the other examples you mentioned, see blow. Perhaps you should actually read the articles you're trying to use as example? As to "right", English is its own language: Iran doesn't necessarily dictate how English speakers (or English Wikipedians) should call Iran. Germany is natively called "Deutschland", and the name "Germany" is completely different, yet it's what English uses; French uses "Allemagne" for the same country. Shall they all start referring to it as "Deutschland" just because the German constitution does not mention the words "Germany" or "Allemagne"? That's a silly argument. Find sources about how "Persia" is used in modern English, and we can talk. For now, we have sources saying it is used for the country in a cultural context, and that's what matters. LjL (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@LjL: If you read news or hear them, you'll also find that the bespoken country is referred to as Iran, not Persia. There's no Islamic Republic of Persia, there's an Islamic Republic of Iran. There's no Persian- this and that. Suffice it to say your argument is already defeated since English speakers already refer to Iran as such. I have never come across someone who refers to Iran as Persia. Either you're an Iranian nationalist or just delusional to think that Iran is also known as Persia. How can you draw an entire article's name based on the opinions of just one person? If that's the case, then something is VERY wrong. That's why such sourced content was removed; it lacked a basis to be recognised as what the majority viewed. That professor you cited was old and born almost a century ago; he lives in the past. Your sources are dated, and if you refuse to acknowledge that then I suggest you walk along the streets of your local town and ask the inhabitants what Persia is, then ask what Iran is. Most people would know what the latter is, but not the former. You are the one who is refusing to acknowledge that reality; you are the one who is insisting that using the opinion's of an outdated professor are reliable. I am simply enlightening you on this fact, so you can sit down while I make the required changes that you ought to accept. :-) Vormeph (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Iran vs. Persia

@LjL:, @Rwenonah:, @WilliamThweatt: This issue has to be resolved through a mutual discussion regarding whether the country Iran is also referred to as Persia. I'm not against the use of the term Persia, but it's used only in historical contexts; think Prince of Persia or Persian people. I don't know why there's much sensitivity surrounding the issue, but as far as I'm concerned it's pretentious by itself to insist that Iran is referred to as Persia. It's like calling the Netherlands as Holland; USA as America; Russia as USSR; or the United Kingdom as England. The former and latter terms are not the same and refer to either constituent countries, regions or countries that no longer exist. Persia as a country still exists, but it's under another name: Iran. I don't need sources to cite common sense; but if I must cite sources to cite stupidity then I will. I shouldn't have to make this discussion thread, but the latter reason is what advocates it. As for all of you, I hope you all get over your egos and realise that Iran is referred to as such, not by Persia. Vormeph (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You linked to America but perhaps you failed to noticed that it acutally does redirect to United States, and the very introductory statement of that article says The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, U.S., USA, or America), so that makes your example rather a counter-example to your line of reasoning. Holland is just a part of the Netherlands, but the article actually does mention that The name Holland is also frequently used to refer informally to the whole of the country of the Netherlands. So, again, this is weakening your position. Few people would refer to the United Kingdom as "England" in normal English, though they would use "Britain", and the United Kindom article mentions that, saying that The term Britain is often used as synonym for the United Kingdom. As to the USSR, that encompassed Russia and more countries (much like the European Union does now); it stopped existing, and Russia (or officially speaking the Russian Federation) still exists like before.

Do you have any other point against your own rationale (aside from personalizing the discussions by making it about egos)? LjL (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The fact you just referred to Iran as Persia under another name above shows why it should be included as an alternative name. Rwenonah (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rwenonah:, @LjL: All arguments have already been made; but in Iran's case it's a naming issue. The use of Persia implies a historical context because of the way it has been used by Iranologists, in contrast to use of the term Iran which has a more modern basis. Hence, it's correct to say that Persia is what Iran is historically known by, but it's not what it is synonymous with in a political context. I propose that we introduce a section called Name which addresses this, since the etymology section has become bloated with all sorts of information regarding it. Vormeph (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@McGeddon: Just so you are aware, http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsMiddEast/EasternPersia.htm states that the term Persia is used to refer to Iran in cultural and historical matters. Hence, for Iran to be historically known as Persia is correct. It's not also known by that name. This is what you're failing to take into account. You also fail to take into account that ANY royal decrees are annulled following the deposition of that monarch. Vormeph (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

That source explicitly goes on to say that "The official modern use of 'Iran' began in 1935, at the request of Reza Shah of the Pahlevis, although in 1959 it was accepted that both this and 'Persia' were valid.", and the article body echoes that ("Today, both Persia and Iran are used in cultural contexts"). The lede should not contradict this by stating that usage of "Persia" is purely historical. --McGeddon (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@McGeddon: You fail to take into account that any decrees made before 1979 were annulled following the revolution. That's implied in its event. Use of Persia and Iran in cultural contexts may be correct and it will also be correct to say that Persia is what Iran is historically known by. If that's the case, then it would be acceptable to say that Iran is historically and culturally known as Persia as an amendment. The condition is you must rescind your report of me. Vormeph (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You are not in the position here to impose conditions. This is not a political forum. Please stop edit warring and trying to push your POV. UCaetano (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@UCaetano: As far as I'm aware, the POV I'm advocating exists within the sources itself. Iran is historically known as Persia.

Yes, but it is ALSO called Persia today. You are pushing to remove the current usage of that name. The burden is on YOU to convince the other editors. You ARE edit warring (and doing it again and again, you've been blocked before for this), so even if McGeddon would "rescind" his report of your edit warring (which will NOT happen), I'd would report you myself. UCaetano (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@UCaetano: That is nonsense! Iran also called Persia today? Read any online news regarding Iran; have you ever seen the word Persia come up alongside it? NO. If there's something historical (pre-1935) about Iran, then yes it would be referred to as Persia. That's valid because Iran is historically known as Persia. This is what you're failing to grasp. You're rejecting common sense here mate. Vormeph (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm on your naughty list and should not talk to you per your own request. Please get a moderator to solve this issue. As it stands, you do not have consensus. Thanks. UCaetano (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@UCaetano: You are barred from using my talk page in communicating with me. Outside my user space, all discussions are purely professional. The discussion hasn't ended, and the country Persia does not have a legal status within the UN. The UN labels what you call Persia as Iran. If Iran were also known as Persia it would actually be noted in the UN. Vormeph (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

WP is not the UN, in case you haven't noticed. The US isn't listed as "America" in the UN. "also known as" is not about official names. So you're not even wrong. UCaetano (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@UCaetano: Ah, but you see this is where you're wrong: although the USA was called America since its unification, Persia was not known as Iran since its unification. In essence, Persia denotes usage from the unification under the Archaemnic Empire up until the Pahlavi Dynasty where in 1935 it was established that the term Iran be used instead. You're asserting that Persia remains in use. Can you point out a news article that refers to Iran as Persia in a modern sense? There's a challenge for ya. If you are successful, then I will retract my argument. But in case you are willing to bend over, I have a news article that claims my point very clearly. Enjoy reading, so suck it up and read: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21151350 Vormeph (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@LjL:, @UCaetano: You guys are eunuchs to evade my questioning. I have provided a valid source which firmly backs up my claims that Iran is historically konwn as Persia. Now you're fidgeting and boiling up and crying to the Misplaced Pages admins to say that Vormeph (talk · contribs) is winning the argument because he found sources more recent from a more respectable publisher than one which was made 20-30 years ago. Too much internet has fucked with your heads; go outside and get a glimpse of reality! Iran is not called Persia no more, which part of that don't you understand? Vormeph (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Categories:

Revision as of 11:51, 20 April 2016 editVormeph (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users511 edits →Iran vs. Persia ← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:49, 20 April 2016 edit undoVormeph (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users511 edits →Iran vs. Persia Next edit →
Line 221:		Line 221:

	:{{ping\|UCaetano}} Ah, but you see this is where you're wrong: although the USA was called America since its unification, Persia was not known as Iran since its unification. In essence, Persia denotes usage from the unification under the Archaemnic Empire up until the Pahlavi Dynasty where in 1935 it was established that the term Iran be used instead. You're asserting that Persia remains in use. Can you point out a news article that refers to Iran as Persia in a modern sense? There's a challenge for ya. If you are successful, then I will retract my argument. But in case you are willing to bend over, I have a news article that claims my point very clearly. Enjoy reading, so suck it up and read: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21151350 ] (]) 11:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)		:{{ping\|UCaetano}} Ah, but you see this is where you're wrong: although the USA was called America since its unification, Persia was not known as Iran since its unification. In essence, Persia denotes usage from the unification under the Archaemnic Empire up until the Pahlavi Dynasty where in 1935 it was established that the term Iran be used instead. You're asserting that Persia remains in use. Can you point out a news article that refers to Iran as Persia in a modern sense? There's a challenge for ya. If you are successful, then I will retract my argument. But in case you are willing to bend over, I have a news article that claims my point very clearly. Enjoy reading, so suck it up and read: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21151350 ] (]) 11:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

			::{{ping\|LjL}}, {{ping\|UCaetano}} You guys are eunuchs to evade my questioning. I have provided a valid source which firmly backs up my claims that Iran is historically konwn as Persia. Now you're fidgeting and boiling up and crying to the Misplaced Pages admins to say that {{User\|Vormeph}} is winning the argument because he found sources more recent from a more respectable publisher than one which was made 20-30 years ago. Too much internet has fucked with your heads; go outside and get a glimpse of reality! Iran is not called Persia no more, which part of that don't you understand? ] (]) 14:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)