| Revision as of 05:14, 16 March 2006 editZmmz (talk | contribs)3,855 edits →Persian← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:01, 25 December 2024 edit undoStarlife888999 (talk | contribs)6 edits since i'm unbanned i'm just gonna remove this nonsense I said so no one else gets confused!Tag: Manual revert |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=y}} |
|
{{ActiveDiscussMC}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups |importance=High }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Iran |importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Afghanistan|importance = high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Tajikistan| importance = high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Azerbaijan |importance=high }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Caucasia | importance=mid }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Turkey | importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Central Asia|class=|Uzbekistan=yes|Uzbekistan-importance=high|listas=|needs-infobox=|attention= |
|
|
|category=}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Old moves |
|
|
| list = |
|
|
* RM, Persian people → Persian speakers, '''No consensus''', 25 June 2008, ] |
|
|
* RM, Persian people → Persians, '''No consensus''', 3 January 2014, ] |
|
|
* RM, Persian people → Persians, <s>'''No consensus'''</s>, 15 July 2019, ] |
|
|
** MRV, overturned to '''moved''', 22 August 2019, ] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|counter = 9 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Persians/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{info| |
|
|
'''Page views of this article over the last 90 days:'''<br /> |
|
|
{{ PageViews graph | 90 |Persians| en.wikipedia.org }} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Changes to link == |
|
{| class="infobox" width="270px" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
!align="center"|]<br/>] |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
|}<!--Template:Archivebox--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consider adding Afghanistan/Tajikistans Tajiks as "Persians" |
|
==Archived== |
|
|
|
<nowiki> |
|
This page was too long and has been archived. See ]. Do not bring back all the discussions, but only the ones that are necessary. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
===Related groups=== |
|
|
There are several ethnic groups and communities which are either ethnically or linguistically related to the Persian people, living predominantly in Iran, and also within Afghanistan, the Caucasus, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates.<ref>{{cite web|year=2005|title=SociolinguistEssex X – 2005|publisher=]|page=10|url=http://www.essex.ac.uk/langling/documents/slx/slx_x_programme.pdf}}</ref> |
|
|
to |
|
|
===Related groups=== |
|
|
There are several ethnic groups and communities which are either ethnically or linguistically related to the Persian people, living predominantly in Iran, and also within Afghanistan, the Caucasus, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates.<ref>{{cite web|year=2005|title=SociolinguistEssex X – 2005|publisher=]|page=10|url=http://www.essex.ac.uk/langling/documents/slx/slx_x_programme.pdf}}</ref> |
|
|
</nowiki> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, didn't work as intended. Consider changing the publisher parameter from Essex University to University of Essex |
|
== Removed dispute == |
|
|
Reverted Arhive - you can't while dispute is still going and there has been significant efforts to stop it. I have tried to add the comments back, but its got a little messy and I dont know the proper way of fixing it. I blame Aucaman for archiving it all of a sudden, if an admin knows the best way to fix this all up, feel free to do so. --] 12:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, it has been made a point that the Persian ethnicity does not exist in the Persian language. Instead, Persian equates to Persian speaker or "Farsi zaban". Tajiks or Persians of Afghanistan and Tajikistan identify as the same. They identify from the city they come for e.g."Herati" or "Kabuli". I want to clarify that this is indicative of this article in Persian itself. You can see that a Persian is referred to as Persian speaker an in this case Tajiks are included. |
|
I have removed the dispute tag until Aucaman who is single-handedly challenging the world on this matter, can simply explain what it is, that he is disputing. --] 11:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Population? == |
|
: I think he doesn't want the word Aryan used, or at not used without some caveat that it is now considered offensive outside Iran and India. ] 12:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From where the population of persians are 70 million? All calculations i have done of official population estimates, from official 84, 88 and 90 million, taking in mind wikipedias ethnic groups in iran. Of 50 to 65 percent of irans population. It all falls from 42 to 58.5 million maximam. |
|
:: The mediation is still open at ], where majority are in favour of using this term. There has been no users reporting that they find it offensive so far. I don't understand why anyone would. It has nothing to do with Nazi Germany. --] 12:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note- According official estimates not my pov. Thanks. ] (]) 17:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
::: I agree with Kash. We have provided countless references that the term "Aryan" '''IS NOT''' offensive, period. The term is used by many Western scholarly sources in relation to Iran and Iranians--] 12:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Who even says modern Tajiks have anything to do with ancient Eastern Iranian peoples"? As far as I know. Tajik is an anyone who speaks Persian and they have mixed origins. ] (]) 23:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::: Using the term as an ethnicity is different to racism. We have said nothing about Jews, or even about Aryans being superior or anything like that. That was all Nazi propoganda. If he can't appreciate this, then it is his problem. Majority of users on the mediation have agreed that it has nothing to do with racism. --] 12:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Persians|answered=yes}} |
|
OK, sounds fair.] 17:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] (]) 09:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
There is no 60+ million persians around the world. The sources show that 60+ million speaks Farsi around the world but they are not Persians. Realable sources like Joshua Project and others shows that there are 42 million Persians around the world. So please put down that fake numbers |
|
|
:{{a note}}<!-- Template:ESp --> I partially agree with the IP. We shouldn't conflate Persian speakers with Persians, though I have no idea where they go the 42 million from. ] (]) 15:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{Not done}}: please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 16:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2024 == |
|
== Suggestion == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Persians|answered=yes}} |
|
I'd suggest some formulation on the order of: |
|
|
|
X=In contemporary terminology, people from Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan |
|
|
|
|
|
Y=In contemporary terminology, people from Afghanistan and Tajikistan |
|
: Persians have traditionally referred to themselves as Aryans, or the Noble people. The Sassanids called the heart of their empire Eranshar, Land of the Noble. The recent Pahlavi dynasty revived the term "Eran" or "Iran", insisting that this name was preferable to the "Persia" then being used by the European powers. |
|
|
|
The reason for this is that Uzbekistan is a Turkic country. Not a Persian one. ] (]) 15:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:] '''Not done for now''': please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 14:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
: In the 19th and early 20th century, the term Aryan was much in vogue among Western linguists and ethnologists, as describing the peoples believed to have spread the Indo-European languages from Europe to India. German ethnologists elaborated theories claiming that Germany was the original home of the Aryans, who were a tall, blond, warrior people. These theories were adopted by the Nazis, who claimed to be defending the Aryan race from lesser races. The Nazi use of Aryan so discredited the word that it has been dropped from the acceptable vocabulary of Western science. It survives only in the compound "Indo-Aryan", used to describe the Indian branch of the Indo-European languages, and possibly, by extension, the people who spoke these languages. |
|
|
|
|
|
: The Persians, however, were using the word before it had a European vogue, and have continued to use it even after it has fallen out of favor in Western academia. Westerners who encounter the term are often jarred by the everyday use of a term that has evokes visions of genoicide for Westerners. Iranian social scientists, historians, and other researchers avoid the term when they are communicating with scientists outside Iran. |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd suggest that you put that at the beginning, or something like that, and then use Persian instead of Aryan. I think "Aryan" should be mentioned, but insisting on using it frequently is counter-productive. Iranians may believe that it should NOT have those connotations, but it does. You can't change language by fiat. Accept that Westerners are going to be uncomfortable and do as the Iranian researchers do: avoid the term that raises people's hackles. ] 12:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Zora is completely wrong here because the exact opposite case is true. Aryan is used in the Academic sense. See the Encyclopedia Iranica enteries on Aryan and Arya. (Articles 1631 and 1637) by two of them most eminent Iranian linguists of all times (Sir Harold Baily and Rudiger Schmitt). The funny thing is pan-Kurdist people like Heja use the EI and extrapolate facts that are not there, but yet when it comes to Aryans, he denies the same source. This is dishonesty in its purest form. (note I removed some comments on pan-Kurdists that had nothing to do with the article and I '''appreciate it''' if people do not change my own comments.). As per the word Aryan, I urge people to read the articles by the eminent scholar Asko Parapola. I have written on this issue of Aryans in the previous page. The fact of the matter is that Emil Beneviste considers this term to purely ethnic in the Old-Iranian sense. Furthemore the Greek inscription of Shapur clearly calls him the King of the Arya Ethnos. See the article on Eran Shahr in the Encyclopedia Iranica: "http://www.iranica.com/articles/v8f5/v8f545.html" as well. All this is sufficient proof enough that the Aryans were an ethnic group who are the linguistic and cultural ancestors of modern Iranians (speakers). Also racially, the arab and turkic invasion did not have much effect on Iranians and so we can assume that Iranians are mainly of Aryan+pre-Aryan stock. There is no way anyone can deny the high academic standard of Encyclopedia Iranica and eminent scholars like Asko Parapola and Gerhad Gnoli (see the book 'the idea of Iran'). For example look at this recent article (Parpola, Asko, 1988. The coming of the Aryans to Iran and India and the cultural and ethnic identity of the Dasas. Studia Orientalia 64: 195-302. Helsinki: The Finnish Oriental Society.). And as per the comment of Zora, Professor Parpola is not just a linguist. His work encompasses "archaeology, historical linguistics, history, cultural anthropology, and historical population genetics." and he is a major Academic with many refrenced articles. In fact it is safe to say that he is the top researcher in topics dealing with Aryans. When you have published a single article like that of Prof. Parpola, then please argue that Aryans were not a group of people. But today Aryans are the primarily linguistic/cultural/racial ancestors of modern Iranians. Here is another recent article by Professor Gerhad Gnoli of Italy that uses the term Aryan clearly in the Academic sense: . I request all debates about the historical validity of Aryans be removed since it is used frequently in Academia to refer to the ancient Iranian Persians and Medes. --] 06:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
C'mon, you guys aren't academics and you don't seem to read academic books. Here I've got two anthropology degrees, and I'm telling you that Aryan is deprecated; the WP article on Aryan is telling you that it's deprecated; Aucaman is telling you that he finds it offensive. I found this quote from an academic talking about the Indian use of Aryan... |
|
|
|
|
|
: “Why should it be so important that the Aryans … have been in the subcontinent since all eternity? That would come close to the Blut and Boden ideology of Nazism, with its Aryan rhetoric. Why the xenophobia? Does he really not see the parallel between Nazi attacks on synagogues in the 1930's and what happened in Ayodhya on December 6th?” (Zydenbos 1993) -- from a book by Edwin Bryant, Oxford University Press, 2000. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mention Aryan and people think of Nazis. Now you guys can bluff and bluster and say that you don't care, you'll use the word if you want but -- isn't that kind of counter-productive if you want encyclopedia readers to LIKE Persians? Do you really want them to think of Nazis when they think of Tehran? That's why I suggested making it clear that while Iranians routinely use the word, academics ''outside'' Iran use Proto-Indo-Iranian for the original peoples and Persian or Iranian for later groups. ] 14:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Who isn't an academic? You're not the only around here with a masters and it would be nice if you could stop making assumptions about others and whether or not they have a university degree. For a person who allegedly adheres to liberalism, you really do seem to enjoy this air of superiority that you feel a university degree grants you, though apparently you do not have a doctorate. ] 15:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: To Zora |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Your response shows that you do not have enough decency to admit you are wrong. On the contrary I have read many articles and books by eminent Western Scholars. You can ask anyone in the field and Professor Asko Parapola is the top researcher in the field of anthropological and archeological origins of the Aryans. You have zero publications whereas he has several hundered. |
|
|
|
|
|
::: The people that wrote the Encyclopedia Iranica articles on "Arya" and "Aryan" have hundreds of publications. YOU HAVE ZERO. |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Aryan(Iranian) has nothing to do with being offensive. It is just variant pronounciation of Iran. |
|
|
|
|
|
::: 1) Herodotus calls the Medes as Aryan. |
|
|
|
|
|
::: 2) Several Old Persian inscriptions call Persians Aryans. |
|
|
|
|
|
::: 3) Moses of Khoren the Armenian historian collectively calls Medes, Parthians, Persians as Aryans. |
|
|
|
|
|
::: 4) Kanishka at the Ratabak call his language Aryan. |
|
|
|
|
|
::: 5) The Avesta is full of this word being used in the ethnic sense. |
|
|
::: If I have to, I will copy & paste every single mentioning of this word, I will. But please read the link above and be honest. |
|
|
|
|
|
::: 6) The title Aryan is used in many Parthian names: Aryashahr, AryaSakht, AryaFarnak.. |
|
|
|
|
|
::: 7) The Sassanid Greek and Parthian inscriptions used Aryan equivalently to the middle Persian "Eran". Furthermore Shapurs Greek inscription says "ego ... tou Arianon ethnous despotes eimi" ( I am the king of the Aryan people). How much more clearer do you want? |
|
|
|
|
|
::: 8) 10th century historian Hamzeh Esfahani. In his famous book “the history of Prophets and Kings” he writes: “Aryan which is also called Pars is in the middle of these countries and these six countries surround it because the South East is in the hands China, the North of the Turks, the middle South is India, the middle North is Rome, and the South West and the North West is the Sudan and Berber lands”. |
|
|
|
|
|
::: 9) You lack academic credentials relatove to Profesor Parapola, Professor Frye, Professr Baily, Professor Witzel, Professor Gerhard Gnoli and Professor Rudiger Schmitt amongst many other great scholas that freely use this term without any political pressure. I will say it clearly. A nameless person like Zora has zero weight compared to such great scholars. |
|
|
|
|
|
::: 10) The eminent linguist Emile Benviste asserts that the Old Iranian Arya is documented solely as an ethnic name. This is unlike the old Indian. |
|
|
|
|
|
::: So you lose in all counts. I would appreciate the help of Iranian and non-Iranian friends who care about Academic honesty so that we may legally deal with this issue through Misplaced Pages, because these people have absolutely no proof for any of their arguments and can not refute any of the above claims. With the above historical facts, there is no challenge. ] 16:08, 8 March 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
==Dispute== |
|
|
Once again, all my edits to this article as being indiscriminantly reverted without any explanation. What does it mean for Persians to be "Aryan decendents"? Firstly, it's grammatically incorrect. Second, Aryan is not a race. What does this even mean? ]<sup>]</sup> 20:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: '''Aucaman''': The mediation case is about resolving the dispute. Please don't put it in the archive yet. Archive pages are not for ongoing discussions. --]<font color="green">]</font>] <sup>]|]</sup> 21:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Mediation == |
|
|
|
|
|
See ] |
|
|
|
|
|
== Whatever == |
|
|
|
|
|
Zora, shut your mouth. You know nothing. Aryan isn't even pronounced "air-yan." You say it ARE-EE-EN. I GUESS ARYANS BETTER MAKE UP A NEW NAME FOR THEIR PEOPLE CAUSE SOME JERKS FIND IT OFFENSIVE. Just cause the Germans got confused and decided they were Aryan means nothing. Zora, you are an idiot. Don't speak. Aryans live primarily in Iran and Northern India and also in Pakistan and Afghantistan. However, none of these countries are monoracial, so being from there doesn't mean you're an Aryan. If Aryan isn't a racial term THAN WHAT DID ARYANS USED TO CALL THEMSELVES, EH? What racial term did they use? Did they call themselves "indo-iranians" or the foreign word "persian," eh? See?!?! You're a moron. Go swallow a frisbee and die. |
|
|
{{Unsigned|24.16.240.225|--] 11:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Academic use or non-use of the word Aryan == |
|
|
|
|
|
Again another article which uses the word Aryan profusely: |
|
|
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/EJVS-7-3.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
The claim by some of these people that Aryan(which means Iran) has no use in Academia is totally debunked again and again. Also not only proto-Indo-Iranians, but old persians, medes,.. and etce called themselves Aryans and were referred to as such. |
|
|
{{Unsigned|128.113.62.234}} |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Again this is an excellent article and proves why anti-Iranians like Zora are completely wrong. Check out page 3. The article is from Harvard Professor and it shows that Zora is belligerently anti-Iranian due to the fact that she claims she knows more than Harvard Professors, Encyclopedias and many different scholars. I request the mediator to read this article and put an end to this aryan contorversy in this topic. |
|
|
--] 07:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Aryan tribes == |
|
|
|
|
|
That's really not a good phrase to use, because it is so horribly ambiguous in English. The word "Aryan" was coined to represent the people who were the speakers of proto-Indo-European (PIE, to use the contemporary shorthand). Scholars have been arguing about the homeland of the Aryans for two hundred years. At the end of the 19th century, German scholars insisted that all PIE-speakers came from an ancestral stock in ... Germany, and that the proper Aryan was tall and blond. This belief came to horrible fruition with the Nazis and is now avoided, if possible. |
|
|
|
|
|
I have been furiously reading archaeological, genetic, and linguistic texts in the last few days. The current belief seems to be that the PIE speakers were probably steppe peoples (Kurgan culture? Sintashta-Arkaim culture?) who mingled with folks from the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex, in the Urals and Central Asia, and then split, with one branch moving along the edge of the steppes towards Europe, and another branch, the ], moving down through central Asia and then splitting into Iranians and Indo-Aryans. Witzel puts the home of the tribes, when still combined, as the central plateau of Afghanistan, from which they flowed in both directions. |
|
|
|
|
|
In Persian and Sanskrit, the ancestors are Aryans. We can't use that word without explication in English, because it was annexed for the proto-Indo-Europeans. All we can say is that the original Iranians called themselves Aryans, and that term is still preserved in Persian. All this fuss and misery because people don't realize that the same sound, in two different languages, can have very different meanings. ] 08:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Read page 3, it is very very clear on who is Aryan. End of discussion. Also you claimed that the term is not used in the Academia and you still have not recanted your statement. Perhaps you think Harvard is not part of the academic world :))) --] 16:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No, we cannot say the ''....original Iranians called themselves Aryans'', because that would be implying that they may have been imposters, or burrowed the word. If the encyclopedias say the ] who settled in the Iranian plateau, others, should not attempt to tell an entire civilization what they should call themselves.] 08:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Most Iranians call themselves Iranian, not Aryan. So why not call them Iranians? I study Middle Persian and the word "Ērān šahr" is frequently used by the writers. You never see the world Arya (although Eran, which would later be Iran, is derived from it). Arya was only used in Avestan and some Old Persian writings. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Actually in middle Parthian, it is Aryan Shahr. Also Hamza Esfahani mentions that "Aryan which is the country of Parsi.." (I have quoted this already in the above. The point is that both Iranian and Aryan should be mentioned and the correct meaning of Aryan should be conveyed to everyone so that some racist Nazis or others do not take advantage of it, since it has nothing to do with them.--] 16:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I was talking about middle Persian. Read the article's name. We're talking about Persians here, not Parthians. The fact that "Arya" was already dropped from the Persian language in middle Persian shows that its reintroduction into the language was probably intentional. Also read by ]. It shows how the Nazis were instrumental in the introduction of racialist-nationalist phrases into the Persian language. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: The modern Persian language is actually a mixture of middle Parthian and middle Persian(Pahlavik) and both of these languages are merely dialects of each other. Actually Parthian had a great influence since the modern Persian language evoloved from Khorasan. And the term "Ary" was not dropped but just merely pronounciated as "Ir". The fact of the matter is that the Greek translation of Shapours inscription mentions "Aryan ethnos" as as direct translation of Iranian people. The Parthian also uses Aryan instead of Iran. The fact of the matter is that the Indo-Iranians did not consider themselves "indo-Iranians" but they called themselves Aryans. The fact of the matter is that the Old Persians like Dairus called themselves Aryan. The word Aryan is also attested in the 10 century A.D. history book by Hamza Esfahani. It is replete in the Avesta. Since the old Persians called themselves Aryans, then the term should be kept. You can't change history because of personal taste. Darius the King says: '' By the favor of Ahuramazda this is the inscription which I made. Besides, it was in Aryan, and on clay tablets and on parchment it was composed.'' Again Darius the King said: ''I am Darius the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage.'' (http://www.avesta.org/op/op.htm) And in the Elamite inscription Ahura Mazda is called the God of the "Hariyans". And since other people like Armenians, Greeks and etc. called Iranians as ''Aryans'', then the term is fully relavent to the article. In fact by introducing the correct manner that this historical term was used, then all so called nazi based theories will be made irrelavent since the modern Germans are not a descendant of Aryans. And by the way I.M. Diakonoff in his book the history of Medes said: "The only people that can be called Aryan and were called by others as Aryan are the Persians, Medes, Iranians of Central Asia (Khawarazmians, Parthians, Soghdians, Bactrian..), Indians and Scythians". So the article has nothing to do with Jews, WWII, Germans and etc. The ancient Persians were a branch of Aryans and the term is fully relavent to the article. Iran also means the land of Aryans and in Parthian it is called Aryan and in Greek it is called Ariana (Strabo). All these facts can not be brushed under the carpet because of modern political reasons. Fact of the matter is the evidence for the term is overwhelming and many scholars like Rudiger Schmitt, Prof. Witzel, Prof. Frye, Prof. Diakonoff, Prof. Beneviste, and others have used it. --] 03:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::: That article does not say anything about 'reintroduction of racialist-nationalist phrases into the Persian language'. It says how Iran told all the other countries to call us by the name 'Iran', which was already the name of the country in its own language. |
|
|
There was no introduction of any phrases in to the language. The language was there, the 'phrase' (I am guessing you are referring to IRAN here), was already the name of the country in the Persian language. Sure, the reason behind telling other countries was to call us by the proper name, which was ofcourse to do with the Aryanism in Iran, but this was no introduction in to the Persian language, it was introduction of an old name to outside world --] 22:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
That is misleading and inaccurate. Most Iranians refer to their ancestors, heritage, and ethnicity as that of ], or in english ]; much like the Bostonians of America calling themselves the Yankees. ] 08:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No the use of the word "Aryan" is more misleading than anything I've said here. You cannot deny the fact that most Iranians simply call themselves Iranians. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:They call themselves Iranian, thats their nation. The point our friend Zmmz is making here is the fact that they refer to their ancestors as the Aryans. You can't deny this, Aucaman. --] 15:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: That's why we are trying to reach a sensible compromise, e.g. |
|
|
::: ''], historically also referred to as ] (arya-), a name still in modern use in Iran and India'' |
|
|
:: A wording that doesn't deny the use of the name in Iran and, possibly, India but also casts some doubt on its use in english academic publications. The german wikipedia article, for example, states that ] are no longer referred to as '''Arier''' and that the hypothetical speakers of the ] are referred to as ]. The german equivalent of the word '''Aryan''' has dropped out of academic usage as well, as it seems. It could be that the word has a different connotation, even when used in english publications, in Iran or India - so please be careful in refuting use of the word entirely as well as in demanding its use categorically. --]<font color="green">]</font>] <sup>]/]</sup> 18:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Fasten, thanks for your efforts to reach a compromise. Is there any (Non-Iranian) source which talks about the origins of Iranians and does not mention the Aryan tribes? because 'historically' sounds like we are talking hundreds of years ago. --] 22:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, Fasten, I`m sorry but do you feel like it is appropriate to tell an entire culture and ethnicity to what to call themselves, or use a watered-down, wishy-washy language to describe their ancestors just because one or two users here don`t like that word? Can you imagine telling for example the Pols what or how to call themselves?] 23:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I would thank you for not calling me a ]. The modern description of the ethnicity of Iranians is Iranian, not Aryan but I don't claim to know the modern use of the word Aryan in Iran. You should, however, consider the possibility that different subcultures use the word differently. It is often the case that native words or translations of native words are used differently from mainstream use among english speaking persons of the same nationality. If Iranian people use the english word Aryan to refer to their ancestors that may differ from western academic usage of the word. According to ] both views should be represented. I don't think many Americans are offended that in german an ] is, besides the nationality, also a very large cookie. --] 11:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== This article should be read by everyone == |
|
|
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/EJVS-7-3.pdf |
|
|
It is by a major academian. Page 3 is very clear. I request such scholarly articles should be used in all discussions that deal with the Aryans. |
|
|
--] 08:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:We're talking about a very specific thing here. If they're Iranians, then they should be called Iranians. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Before discussing the content in detail let's please ask if the credibility of this source is accepted by all parties in the dispute? --]<font color="green">]</font>] <sup>]/]</sup> 15:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Yes it is. Not only because the person is from Harvard, but he is one of the foremost scholar on ancient Iranian and Indian languages. Also I have even lost track of what the dispute is, but I think a mention of Aryan is necessary. It is actually helpful to people that claim anti-racist cause, since it will deprive right-wing racist Nazis of such a term. |
|
|
--] 16:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: As much as I would like to discuss with you how that deprivation would be accomplished that is beside the point here. I would like to hear the position of ], ], ] and ], as some of the noisiest contributors to the dispute. --]<font color="green">]</font>] <sup>]/]</sup> 17:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Thanks I will just say one word on why it deprives them. Basically it shows that the term Arya/Aryan is exclusively used and attested in Iranian and Indian literature. That automaticalyl delegitimizes people that claim they are from the "pure Aryan race" when infact they do not speak Aryan languages. That is a poor Gypsy in Europe is more Aryan than a German! |
|
|
(Ali Doostzadeh). |
|
|
|
|
|
Ali, did you read the article? He puts Aryan in quotes, as a sign that he's not claiming to believe the idea ("scare quote") and on pages 3-4, he says: |
|
|
|
|
|
: However, the use of the word Ārya or Aryan to designate the speakers of all Indo-European (IE) languages or as the designation of a particular "race" is an aberration of many writers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and should be avoided. At least from Neolithic times onwards, language had little to do with "race"; language also cuts across ethnic groups and cultures, and had little to do with ancient states or with nationhood, as the use of Aramaic in the Persian empire, Latin in Medieval Europe and Persian in much of the Near East and in medieval India may indicate. |
|
|
|
|
|
The article does not in fact support your position. ] 18:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Actually this is a different article and there is no quotes. Read page 3 totally. "The term Arya is the self designation of ancient Iranians... The ancient Iranians too called themselves ariia.. and the name of the country Iran is derived from the word itself. Speakers of Aryans..compromise the following culturally diverse group: West Iranians , Ancient medes, the modern Kurds, Baluchis and Persians as well as the Tajiks. Now where is the so called quotes you keep talking about it. The article is replete with the word Aryan. Even the title has no quotes. It is an article "Autochthonous Aryans? The evidence from Old Indian and Iranian tests". The word Aryan is used '''350''' times in this article, virtually none of them without quotes and yet you had the audacity to claim that is not used in the Academia! I am inclined to believe that you are here just for the sake of arguing . (Ali Doostzadeh) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: Can we, '''please''', agree on the credibility of the source before we use it to argument for either side? --]<font color="green">]</font>] <sup>]/]</sup> 18:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: This is a credible article. Ali is just misinterpreting it. I followed the link he gave, I read the article, I copied the quote warning against careless use of Aryan on pages 3 and 4. I'm perfectly willing to accept Fasten's proposed compromise. ] 18:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: This is what you quoted. ''However, the use of the word Ārya or Aryan to designate the speakers of all Indo-European (IE) languages or as the designation of a particular "race" is an aberration of many writers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and should be avoided.'' I totally agree. The use of Aryan as the other has shown is language, culture and ethnicity. Not race! So read the rest of it as well from the same page. ''The term '''Arya is the self designation''' of ancient Iranians... The ancient eastern Iranians too called themselves '''ariia'''.. and '''the name of the country Iran is derived from the word itself'''. Speakers of Aryans..compromise the following culturally diverse group: West Iranians , Ancient medes, the modern Kurds, Baluchis and Persians as well as the Tajiks.'' (Ali Doostzadeh) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:: I agreed again. But Zora and Aucaman haven't responded yet. Why not? I think they should respond with a yes or no. If it is no, then they have to provide their credentials relative to this Harvard Professor. Of course they think they know more than a Harvard Professor! who has spent a lifetime researching the subject!! I think it is the job of the mediator to agree with the side that has the stronger evidence. The article is all the evidence that is needed about the legitimacy and the use of terms such as "Aryan culture, Aryan language, Aryan ethnicity". So to say the Persians or Baluchs or Pashtuns are an Ethnic Aryan group is totally legitimate by all historical accounts. (See page 3). Note 350 times there is the use of Aryan and yet Zora claims the term is out-dated in the Academia whereas the article is just from the past couple of years or so! (Ali Doostzadeh) |
|
|
|
|
|
I thought that was an interesting article and I cited several sentences from it, saying that the term Aryan, in English, was confusing and inexact. Witzel in fact uses the terms Indo-Iranians, Iranians, and Indo-Aryans, which do in fact seem to be the terms of art today. I just don't understand how you can be asserting that the article says the exact opposite of what it in fact DOES say. |
|
|
|
|
|
The proposed compromise, which used those terms and then explained that Aryan was still in use in India and Iran, seemed NPOV to me, acknowledging both the academic and popular usages. |
|
|
|
|
|
I have been hesitating to rewrite the para, because my immersion in the issues is still recent and I have a lot of reading I want to finish. But perhaps a rewrite might solve this problem. I've noticed that edit wars hinging on a single disputed word can often by expanding the section, to give room for all views to be presented. ] 06:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm going to take out that first sentence for now. It goes a long way toward meeting my concerns. It is also '''not sourced'''. There's no way one can scientifically prove that Persian people are "descendants of Aryans". We can make statements like "the Persian language is close to other Aryanic languages" or something like that, but the use of ] language has to stop. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
What is it that is not sourced? Britannica says "'''Persians, Kurds, and speakers of other Indo-European languages in Iran are descendants of the Aryan tribes that began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the 2nd millennium BC."''' |
|
|
|
|
|
: Because that is not what academics accept now. Genetic testing has gone far towards establishing that the spread of a language and culture does not necessarily mean the spread of genes. This is still cutting edge stuff, and it hasn't necessarily made it into older encyclopedias. If you're using a set of encyclopedias printed in 1980, of course it isn't going to have any of this stuff. But here it is in the Witzel article you keep citing and haven't read: |
|
|
|
|
|
:: MALLORY's model is, in effect, a rephrasing of what EHRET had described in 1988 in more general terms (derived from Africa): an immigrating civilization joins the local one, transforms it by taking on many of its aspects and then sets in move a recurrent, billiard-like spread of this innovative culture. In the end, no one at the start of the process may be genetically linked to anyone at the end of the process. (This is precisely what seems to have happened in the case of |
|
|
Aryanization of S. Asia). |
|
|
|
|
|
Witzel is extremely critical of theories that presuppose material culture = culture = language = race. That WAS the norm for older archaeology, and that's what everyone learned at school. But that is not generally accepted now. ] 08:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not all Persians today are descendant of Aryans today , NO RACE HAS STAYED PURE, but that did not stop Britannica from mentioning it did it? we have the right to mention the same thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 08:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I already said that nobody is pure. Yes genes are not the same as language and not all Persian speakers today are pure Aryans and I mentioned that 100 times before but saying that they are '''descendant''' of the Aryans does not mean that each and every Persians is a pure Aryan today. Britannica does not think it is wrong and has mentioned it when they and other major encyclopedias decide to change it then we should too. all the other aricles mention the Origin of ethnic groups while I am sure you agree they are not all pure today, still the original ancestors are mentioned. And also, please do not edit my post. There is enough space for you to make your own post. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 10:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Gol, there is nothing wrong with inserting comments in someone else's posts. It is done all the time. As long as one indents and signs. It saves having to quote. As for the descendants bit -- people speak Persian who don't have ANY genetic connection with the Indo-Iranians. That is the whole point of the Witzel quote. The old paradigm of the invading Aryan hordes is dead. ] 10:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I think you are trying to brush aside my point. Yes there are Persians today who are not related genetically to original group. But there are also Germans today who are not related to original group and French and Arabs…etc but their original ancestors are still mentioned. Why not the same here? Saying that Persians are '''descendant''' of Aryans does not mean all Persians today are pure Aryans, only a 5 years old would think that, who can even imagine a group of people staying same for over 3000 years? I am sure the scholars of Britannic, knew this fact and by mentioning it they did not meant to imply all Persian today are Pure Aryans. The fact that no racial group is completely pure is not something that was determined yesterday! it has been around for a long time. I am sure you know that but still the origins are mentioned. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 10:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The term "descendant" has a very specific and strong meaning. When you say Persians are descendants of Aryans that actually does imply means they're pure. I suggest we mention that Iranian tribes moved into the Iranian plateau but don't exactly call Persians descendants from them. |
|
|
|
|
|
:As for other articles, most of the descriptions are very comprehensive discuss relations with other groups. I only looked at ] and ], but you can look at any other group. This is the only article where people are discussing notions of purity for over 2000 years. ]<sup>]</sup> 11:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nobody has said that Persians have stayed pure over 2000 years and saying that they are descendent of Aryans will not imply that they have stayed pure for such as long time. This is common sense in my opinion. Does not look different from other articles about other ethnicities. We can say the '''original''' group of Persians were the descendant of Aryans if you like it better. To make sure no extremely uninformed and irrational reader makes a mistake of thinking these people have stayed pure for 3000 years!! (Professional scholars of Britannica were not half as worried as you and Zora are or they would not mention this term!!) |
|
|
|
|
|
However, as I recall your problem was not with implying that Persians are 100% pure but with the term Aryan itself. And here you are just trying to change Aryan to Iranians. How about saying '''Aryan tribes''' moved to Iranian plateau? Will that be OK for you? |
|
|
|
|
|
] 11:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The term "]-speaking" is acceptable by me, although I still don't know '''what's wrong with calling them Iranian?''' Persians are ], not ] or any other Indo-Iranian group. |
|
|
|
|
|
:And good thing you brought up Britannica. Let's look at their : ''"In the 19th century the term was used as a synonym for “Indo-European” and also, more restrictively, to refer to the Indo-Iranian languages (q.v.). '''It is now used in linguistics only in the sense of the term ] languages (q.v.).'''"'' ]<sup>]</sup> 11:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''what's wrong with calling them Iranian?''' |
|
|
|
|
|
What is wrong with mentioning their origin? You can not refuse that by just asking “what is wrong with calling them Iranian” that is not a proper reason not to call them descendent of Aryans. Britannic did not say they are descendant of '''Aryan speaking people'''. If it was necessary to distinguish it would since it has the best scholars and as Ali mentioned it is not just the language but the culture as well. More importantly the definition of the term Aryan, whatever it is, should be defined in the Aryan page. |
|
|
|
|
|
We can even say they are descendants of Aryans who came to Iranian plateau and eventually mixed with the original inhabitants, so that no idiot would think that these people by a miracle have stayed pure for over 3000 years!! |
|
|
|
|
|
] 17:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Witzel states: |
|
|
: ''§1. Terminology: At the outset, it has to be underlined that the term Ārya (whence, Aryan) is the selfdesignation of the ancient Iranians and of those Indian groups speaking Vedic Sanskrit and other Old Indo-Aryan (OIA) languages and dialects. Both peoples called themselves and their language årya or arya ...'' |
|
|
|
|
|
The word has been used to describe different groups even when it was in current use. Even if there are groups (e.g. english speaking Iranians) who assign a specific meaning to the '''english''' word Aryan ] requires that different views are equally represented. What you want is a ] in wording. --] 16:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== What people choose to overlook == |
|
|
|
|
|
People overlook the fact that no Persian speaker in Iran calls himself "Persian". This is only done in the west where the term Persian and Iranian in many instances have become equivalent. The Persian speakers (and this does not just include tehrani Persian dialect but host of other dialects from the North to South) in Iran have from ancient times called themselves '''Iranian'''. Now the term Iranian in the ancient times was called ''' airyanem'''(avesta) and Arya (old Persia). So just saying Persians speak an Aryan language is one fourth of the truth. Persians from ancient times to today have called themselves as '''Iranian''' and more importantly were known as '''Aryans'''. And the word Iranian stems from Arya/Aryan. This does not mean racial purity, but the fact is Iranians (Aryans) have Aryan culture, language, myths, customs and etc. For example Germans were overran by Huns and the Huns controlled the Germanic tribes for a while. But yet the Germans consider themselves Germans and not Huns although there are some Hun genes there for sure. It is the same issue here. No modern Persian (dialect or standard) speaker in Iran calls himself Persian. They call themselves Iranian (Aryan in the ancient times). The fact of the matter is Professor. Witzel amongst many other sources considers Persian as Aryan. |
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a quote from Encyclopedia Britannica: |
|
|
|
|
|
'' |
|
|
Iran is a multilingual and diverse cultural society, and the majority of the population is extremely young. Nearly one-half of the people speak Farsi, and another one-fourth speak some other Indo-European language or dialect. '''These are descendants of the Aryan tribes, whose origins are lost in antiquity.''''' |
|
|
(Britannica, 2004 under Iran) |
|
|
|
|
|
So Aryan language does not do justice. The fact is Iranians call themselves from ancient times as Iranians (Aryans). The name Iran is just the modern pronounciation of the word Aryan (Old Persian). Not even the Indians have kept this name for themselves and only Iranians have. We have Aryan myths as part of our culture, see the Shahnama. We have Aryan(Iranian) customs: Nowruz, Mehregan, Tiregan, Sizdah Bedar.. So the term Aryan and Iranian are synonomous and the word Aryan morphed into Iran only in middle Persian, although there are examples of the word "Aryan" in post-Islamic text, as Hamza Esfahani used the form "Aryan" and not Iran, in describing Iranian lands. The term Aryan and Iran are the same as demonstrated by dozens of linguistics and sources. The Old Persians and Medes called themselves Arya and during the Sassanid times the pronounciation of Middle Persian changed this word to Ir and plural Iran (Aryan). So the article should mention these facts and not just the term Aryan language. Also I doubt the people here are more knowledgable than the Prof. Witzel who uses the term freely. The ancient Indo-Iranians who have left the modern Iranian his customs, myths, language and lineage (note I didn't say pure) called themselves as Arya and we have still kept this name through the name Iran. |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 16:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: That seems to be in contradiction with your earlier statement: |
|
|
:: ''Yes it is. Not only because the person is from Harvard, but he is one of the foremost scholar on ancient Iranian and Indian languages.'' |
|
|
: What made you change your mind? --] 14:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Looks like someone might be editing my text. I did not contradict my position and it is clear: (Ancient Iranian persians considered themselves Aryans). The modern Persians are descendants of ancient Iranians (Aryans) and Zoroastrians and they speak their language, practice their culture and have their myths (Shahnameh). Modern Persians do not call themselves "Persians" or even "Paarsi", but they call themselves Irani/Iranian which is just the continuiation of the term Aryan. Also note the Encyclopedia Britannica made a clear point here: ''Iran is a multilingual and diverse cultural society, and the majority of the population is extremely young. Nearly one-half of the people speak Farsi, and another one-fourth speak some other Indo-European language or dialect. '''These are descendants of the Aryan tribes, whose origins are lost in antiquity.''''' --] 17:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Sorry, I misread your earlier statement to suddenly doubt Prof. Witzel. --] 10:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Absurd statement== |
|
|
This is one of the most absurd statements I've seen in a long time: |
|
|
|
|
|
:<i>"The Persians of Iran are descendents of the ] tribes who were a branch of the ]s, an Indo-European people that migrated to the region during the 2nd millennium BC, as well as indigenous populations such as the Elamites."</i> |
|
|
|
|
|
"Aryans" are now a '''branch''' of Indo-Iranians??? And Indo-European is an ethnicity? Some people here don't know the difference between a linguistic group and a racial/ethnic group. Someone needs to go in there and change this. I tried and it was reverted without any reason. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Some scholars beleive that the proto indo-european speakers (thought to originate somewhere north of the caspian) spoke a single language(called the proto indo-european tongue). This later developed into a vast array of languages as they migrated outwards.] 08:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::There's also no evidence that all Indo-European people spoke the same language any time in the past. I don't think it's relevant to this article anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
::You also never answered any of my questions, although they weren't directed at you in the first place. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I guess thats why its called a hypothesis and not a fact. Some scholars theorize on it based on structural similarities betwen IE languages and so on. Ethnic groups arent necessarily based on a common origin. Its all in identification. ] 09:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Again none of this is in any way related to this article or the questions I've raised about a specific sentence in the article. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
the sentence should read, ''"The Persians of Iran are descendents of the ], who were a branch of the ]s, that migrated to the region during the ca. the 9th century BC''. It was just a misuse of "Aryan". The Indo-Iranians are so named because they are made up of ] and ]. There is no evidence of 2nd millennium Iranians in the region, they started to appear around 900 BC. ] <small>]</small> 13:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Number of Persian-americans == |
|
|
|
|
|
The 2002 US census recorded just 338,266 americans with '''"Iranian"''' ancestry. |
|
|
No resource is more reliable to this regard as the US census bureau . If 900,000 or so persian americans existed (as some persian nationalists claim), wouldnt they have declared themselves as such ? |
|
|
|
|
|
Even that 338,266 is an grossly exaggerated figure because Persians are only '''one''' of the ethnic groups that constitute Iran - numbering just 51% of the total population according to the CIA factbook. A good number of those 338,266 "Iranian-americans" are likely to be belonging to '''non'''-persian ethnic groups in Iran such as Kurds, azeris, lurs, gilaki, arabs, baloch, turkmen and so on. If anything the 338,266 is an absolute maximum for the number of persian-americans. |
|
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, the 913,000 figure espoused by some persians comes from the Joshua People's project. This evangelical site has huge discrepancies when it comes to population data. For instance it gives a figure of only 977,000 for Serbs within Bosnia-Herzegovina, whereas the real figure is 1,479,930. In other words, it is unreliable. Nowhere as reliable as an established institution of statistics such as the US census bureau, which leaves the declaration of ethnicity/ancestry to the person(s) in question as opposed to an unauthoritative estimate.] 08:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: 913,000 figure is more accurate as most Iranians identify themselves as "Asian" or "White" in the US census. |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.niacouncil.org/faq2.asp#2 |
|
|
|
|
|
'''''How many Iranian-Americans are there in the U.S.?''' |
|
|
|
|
|
It is estimated that there are upwards of one million Iranians in the United States. |
|
|
They are dispersed throughout the country and have large concentrations in metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., New York, and Chicago.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ifs_news/hi/newsid_4730000/newsid_4738200/nb_wm_4738232.stm |
|
|
|
|
|
''More than 600,000 Iranians live in Los Angeles many of whom are critical of the regime in Tehran.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 08:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Haha . So youre comparing a random news article to an official professionally conducted census by the US census bureau ? Are you for real ? |
|
|
Why didnt those 600,000 iranians you mention declare themselves to be iranian? The question was not filed under race(white, black, asian, native american) but under ancestry(german, irish, japanese etc). Huge difference. |
|
|
If anything, the Iranian-american number of 338,266 should be multiplied by a factor of 0.51 to obtain the persian-american population, seeing as Persians form just 51% of Iran. Reverting back, sorry] 08:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: BBC is not a random site. National Iranian American Council is not a random site. United States census is based on what people report themselves as. Many Iranians don't identify themselves as Iranian due to political conflict between USA and Iran. The actual number of Iranians in United States in between 1 to 1.5 million, at least 900,000 of whom are Persian. |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.niacouncil.org/pressreleases/press008.asp |
|
|
|
|
|
''While there are problems with the way the census is administered, the biggest reason why we expect to be under-represented is that many people who received the long form failed to mark themselves as "Iranian". This may have been due to the poor design of the census form or because of the individual's privacy concerns.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 09:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:BBC and the Iranian site you mention do not have a scientific way of carrying out polls in the US the way US Census Bureau does. See ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::According to total population of Persians is 27 million?! Is it exact?<b><font color="#00aa00">]</font>] </b>] 09:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Well we already have two good sources on the population in Iran. You can add yours as a third source if you want, but the source is not significant enough to rule out the other ones. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: What are the two good sources? There has only been two census done in Iran and thats it. One in 1935 and one in 1993. I really doubt there are 99,000 Persians in Afghanistan. The site seems like another ethnologue wannabe with the exact same information copy & pasted. In fact they give reference to ethnologue, so it is not a new source. I have about three sources: Britannica, CIA Factbook, Encarta. --] 15:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Outsider's 2c.: Why don't you guys just include both figures, as you already did for those within Iran? While I agree the Joshua website isn't particularly trustworthy, as it doesn't document its own sources in detail, the argument that the US census might be underreporting strikes me as reasonable, and the Joshua figure isn't even the highest one around (some sources that have been used for other countries seem to be reporting even higher figures for the US.) The census figure might be given some precedence, though, because it's the only officially endorsed and transparently verifiable one. ] <small><sup>]|]</sup></small> 09:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Okay I'll add both. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::It's strange! Some people choose some points of a source which are in their interests and ignore others which they do not like. wich shows a higher number for Persians in US has a much lower number for Persians in Iran as well as total population of Persian people. I'm not sure why some people prefer to censor the same source which is in some cases even supported by themselves.<b><font color="#00aa00">]</font>] </b>] 10:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Excellent point. ]<sup>]</sup> 11:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The joshua source is just the ethnologue source and they give references to it, so it is not new source. I doubt any of these Christian missionary sites which are not scientific, can be deemed as reliable. The Joshua source for example gives just a reference to ethnologue. Also there are other sources (CIA factbook, Britannica, Encarta, Encyclopedia of Orient), besides two actual censuses in Iran (1993 and 1935). Here is another missionary site for example: |
|
|
http://www.acts.edu/oldmissions/Iranhist1.html |
|
|
Also I disagree with most of these sites in their classifications. Note the site above classifies speakers as Mazandarani, Tati (which means Persian in Turkish), Dari-Farsi as non-Persian, which is not true. I am from the region myself and my parents do not speak standard Persian. |
|
|
|
|
|
Also note the wikipedia entery on Jews says they are descendants of ancient Israelites (I am not sure why there is no mentioning of Khazars?) and those who converted. I think we can say the same here, the Persians are descendants of ancient Aryans and those that have been assimilated into Iranians. Also please do not confine the term to speakers of standard Tehrani Persian, since Tehrani Persian is just the original Khorasani dialect of Pahlavi that spread after Islam. There are other groups of Pahlavi(middle Persian) dialect speakers (including myself). It is the same with Kurds I might add, they have various dialects, but they are considered one unit. |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 16:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Two notes on terminology== |
|
|
|
|
|
{{main|Misplaced Pages:Disputed terms}} |
|
|
===Aryan=== |
|
|
This is not "Misplaced Pages" but "the English Misplaced Pages". All words used in this Encyclopedia are in ] and have the meanings and ]s of English words. |
|
|
|
|
|
Now, most of us, especially those of middle age and above (or younger ones who have studied European history) know that the term ''Aryan'' was used in ] propaganda. It represented an ideal type of human being and was a an essential part of the Nazi justification for conquering or wiping out other "]s". |
|
|
|
|
|
In the English-speaking world, primarily the West, Nazism is all but discredited, and ] generally frowned upon. |
|
|
|
|
|
So the association of ''Aryan'' with ] appears to link Iranians with Nazis. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:: 2500 years ago Darius called himself Aryan, 1700 Kanishka called his writing Aryan. The Avesta dated between 3200-2700 years ago is also replete with this word. I do not think the Germans were part of history back then. The issue has nothing to do with Nazism, Genocide and etc. For example maybe to the Rwandan Tutsis, the term Hutu could be offensive. That does not mean that some groups should censure it. So by explaining the correct term of Aryan, any distortion of the history of this word is actually corrected. --] 16:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Persian=== |
|
|
Also, the English word ''Persia'' may not be "what Iranians call their country" because they hardly ever use English when talking or writing about their country. |
|
|
|
|
|
This point, as well as the point above, are relevant because Misplaced Pages contributors sometimes dispute what is the "correct", "true" or "proper" name for a group of people. |
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, what they call themselves may not be what English-speaking people call them. And even different schools of thought within the English-speaking world use different English words. |
|
|
|
|
|
So may I suggest that we (1) use the most-commonly-used English words (for a group of people) in our English Misplaced Pages articles; (2) mention every other significant word used for them, even if it's not generally used by English speakers? --] 14:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I definitely agree with Uncle Ed`s suggestions; both Iran and Persia should be used. And in regards to the word ], here are a few notes, |
|
|
*Aryan is not a self designation, as it is a historical name given to certain etnicities. |
|
|
*It's used in english language by almost all of the scholary sources in relation to Iran and Iranians. |
|
|
*No further, inaccurate explanation about the word Aryan is necessary, when it's used by many Western sources in regards to Iranians` origin. These notions are backed-up by all the major encyclopedias, such as ]] 04:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Sigh. Much evidence has been cited saying that Aryan, in English, is a deprecated term and used only in reference to ''past'' disputes in modern historical/linguistic/population genetic writing. ] 04:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, that is a repetitive argument that you and user Aucaman keep insisting on, all any reasonable editor has to do is simply open-up a dictionary and look up the word ] and ]; I’ll leave it at that--here`s one from the ] dictionary. Thanks] 04:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: No Zora, this has been discussed over and over, you and I both know the term "Aryan" is not deprecated in English, in regard to Iran and Iranians. The term is still used by many scholarly sources in relation to Iran and Iranians. --] 04:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
If we were arguing about plate tectonics and I said "X's study published in 2003 says Y, and that seems to be the consensus in the field right now" and you said, "No, that can't be right, this dictionary, published in 1980, says X is wrong", people would see that your argument is invalid. However, this is social science, not geology, and many readers don't seem to be as wary of deprecated notions (many of which have become become entrenched in popular culture). But -- I'm OK with having your views up there, for readers to judge, as long as the more current ones are presented too. ] 05:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the last time I checked my ] dictionary, and ] are of the 2005 edition. But, readers should look it up for themselves, and as such this dispute will be proven to have no real basis.] 05:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
Consider adding Afghanistan/Tajikistans Tajiks as "Persians"
===Related groups===
There are several ethnic groups and communities which are either ethnically or linguistically related to the Persian people, living predominantly in Iran, and also within Afghanistan, the Caucasus, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates.<ref>{{cite web|year=2005|title=SociolinguistEssex X – 2005|publisher=]|page=10|url=http://www.essex.ac.uk/langling/documents/slx/slx_x_programme.pdf}}</ref>
to
===Related groups===
There are several ethnic groups and communities which are either ethnically or linguistically related to the Persian people, living predominantly in Iran, and also within Afghanistan, the Caucasus, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates.<ref>{{cite web|year=2005|title=SociolinguistEssex X – 2005|publisher=]|page=10|url=http://www.essex.ac.uk/langling/documents/slx/slx_x_programme.pdf}}</ref>
Sorry, didn't work as intended. Consider changing the publisher parameter from Essex University to University of Essex
Again, it has been made a point that the Persian ethnicity does not exist in the Persian language. Instead, Persian equates to Persian speaker or "Farsi zaban". Tajiks or Persians of Afghanistan and Tajikistan identify as the same. They identify from the city they come for e.g."Herati" or "Kabuli". I want to clarify that this is indicative of this article in Persian itself. You can see that a Persian is referred to as Persian speaker an in this case Tajiks are included. فارسی
From where the population of persians are 70 million? All calculations i have done of official population estimates, from official 84, 88 and 90 million, taking in mind wikipedias ethnic groups in iran. Of 50 to 65 percent of irans population. It all falls from 42 to 58.5 million maximam.
There is no 60+ million persians around the world. The sources show that 60+ million speaks Farsi around the world but they are not Persians. Realable sources like Joshua Project and others shows that there are 42 million Persians around the world. So please put down that fake numbers
X=In contemporary terminology, people from Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan
Y=In contemporary terminology, people from Afghanistan and Tajikistan
The reason for this is that Uzbekistan is a Turkic country. Not a Persian one. 80.42.151.129 (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
Note: I partially agree with the IP. We shouldn't conflate Persian speakers with Persians, though I have no idea where they go the 42 million from. M.Bitton (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. PianoDan (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the