Misplaced Pages

Talk:Persians: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:46, 2 March 2006 editAucaman (talk | contribs)2,729 edits →You're missing the point!!!← Previous edit Revision as of 14:47, 2 March 2006 edit undoAucaman (talk | contribs)2,729 edits →You're missing the point!!!Next edit →
Line 882: Line 882:
::Aryan comes with Indo-Iranian and means the same. Answer me now whats your problem ? -- ::] 14:23, Thursday 2 March 2006 (UTC) ::Aryan comes with Indo-Iranian and means the same. Answer me now whats your problem ? -- ::] 14:23, Thursday 2 March 2006 (UTC)


::The problem is that the use of the word meaning "Indo-Iranian" is no longer in technical use and I've given enough evidence to support this. Your sources are outdated and not significant. You're just wasting my time. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC) :::The problem is that the use of the word meaning "Indo-Iranian" is no longer in technical use and I've given enough evidence to support this. Your sources are outdated and not significant. You're just wasting my time. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


== Finish this nonsense == == Finish this nonsense ==

Revision as of 14:47, 2 March 2006

Archive
Archives

Disambiguation links

The large number of disambiguation links at the top of this article are not needed, because Persian is the disambiguation page for all the terms. Persian links to this article, Parsis, and Persian Empire, which is why I removed those links - unneeded links are not needed, see Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation. The link to Tajiks is appropriate to stay in, since it is not linked to at Persian. However, I see the reason for linking to the other pages, but it might be better to link directly to Persian instead, which both reduces the number of unneeded links and gives a wider range of alternate meanings. Thoughts? -- Natalya 17:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality problems

Iran has been occupied by Mongols, Turkic, and Arab peoples - each for more than 200 years. Modern Persian has lots of Arabic and Turkish loan words. You don't think this is part of their history? Aucaman 01:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


First of all, we are talking about Persians, not all Iranians. There are Turks and Arabs in Iran and they are just called what they are, Turks and Arabs. Second of all, I am unaware of any mass-migration of Arabs and Mongols into Iran while Iran was occupied by the Arab and Mongol armies. Unless you have a reliable source to prove that Persians, as an entire community, were genetically modified by the Arabs and Mongols, I will remove the "dispute" tag. --ManiF 01:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the difference between and ethnic group and a race. An ethnic group is determined by its language and culture, whereas a race is determined by history and lineage. This article is about ethnic groups. You can have Kurdish Persians or Arab Persians (those of Kurdish or Arab roots who identify with Persians culturally and linguistically). You can even have Persian Jews. But your definitions seem to come from works of Nazi Germany. Aucaman 02:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
It is true that many different invaders conquered and ruled Iran for many centuries. However, the numbers of those invaders were very small compared to large population of Persians and other Iranic groups. The number of invading Mongols (that means the entire army of Chingiz Khan) was max. 400.000, together with some Mongol nomads, the number was max. 1.5m. The same goes to the Turkic nomads of Central-Asia (up to the time of Seljuqs and Ottomans): always a very small number of invaders. The population of the Iranican population was more than 20m at that time. That's what experts say about this:
  • " ... Around the third century B.C., groups speaking Turkish languages (...) threatened empires in China, Tibet, India, Central Asia, before eventually arriving in Turkey ... genetic traces of their movement can sometimes be found, but they are often diluted, since the numbers of conquerors were always much smaller than the populations they conquered (p.125) ... Turks ... conquered Constantinople (Istanbul) in 1453. ... Replacement of Greek with Turkish ... Genetic effects of invasion were modest in Turkey. Their armies had few soldiers (...) invading Turkish populations would be small relative to the subject populations that had a long civilization and history ... " -
  • "... incoming minorities (...) conquer other populations and (...) impose their languages on them. The Altaic family spread in this fashion ..." -
  • "... many Armenian and Azeri types are derived from European and northern Caucasian types (p.1263) ... The U5 cluster ... in Europe ... although rare elsewhere in the Near east, are especially concentrated in the Kurds, Armenians and Azeris ... a hint of partial European ancestry for these populations – not entirely unexpected on historical and linguistic grounds (p.1264) ..." -
So, even in Turkey, the "genetic influence" of ORIGINAL Turks is modest (that means that the modern Turkish population is actually "Turkic-speaking Iranians, Armenians and Greeks"). All in one, one can say that Persians are an "ethnic group". Of course, the influence of Arabic as the language of Islam is important. But - theoretically - Persian could remove most of the Arabic words and replace them with Persian equivalents.
Tajik 14:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You are changing the subject. This article is about Persians who are an ethnic group, and a race. There are no "Kurdish Persians" or "Arab Persians". The fact that Iranian Jews are also referred to as "Persian Jews" is because "Persian" used to be a nationality as well, before 1930's and that's where the term comes from. Again, you just throw "strawman arguments" in when you can't substanciate any of your claims that Persians the ethnic group and race were somehow genetically modified by the Arabs and Mongols. --ManiF 02:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


This Aucaman character is full of you know what. Give it up buddy, eithr put up a source that supports your outrageous statements about persians being a mix this group and that group or stop taking our time with your self-invented revisionist history. --194.170.175.5 06:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Please aim for dispassionate communication from now on, 194.; keep WP:Civility in mind. Thanks. El_C 11:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman, the majority here disagree with you on this matter and they have supported their statements with facts. All the ethnicity articles go with mainstream accepted historical theories, in regards to the origins of the people in question, not personal assumptions and conclusions. Please either provide a valid source to support your objection or remove the dispute tag as desired by the majority. --194.170.175.5 16:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)



Well let me explain myself again. Go to the Persian Empire article and look at the timeline on the right side. Not counting the Islamic Republic, 26 different empires have ruled over Iran. Out of these 26, 14 of them are NOT Iranian. They include pre-Iranian groups such as the Elamites, and various Turkic, Turkmen, Mongol, Greek, and Arab rulers. Go check. That means the majority of the people ruling Iran were not Iranian. You actually believe these people came in, conquered, and calmly left? You actually believe they left? Where did the Mongols go? Back to Mongolia??? Where did the Arabs go? No. These people remained occupiers for generations. In most cases they extended their roots into local populations. In light of what I've said, you really think think the following statement is accurate?

"The Persians of Iran are descended from the Iranian branch of the Indo-Iranians, an Aryan (Indo-European) (See:Aryan race) people that migrated to the region during the 2nd millennium BC, as well as indigenous populations such as the Elamites."

So first we had the Elamites and then the Iranians came, and life was happy thereafter? No contact with any other people, right? Now it is somehow "fair" to the Iranian people to ignore most of their history because it doesn't serve some racial theory of a pure "Aryan race"?

And no, the dispute tag will remain there until either the section is removed or replaced with something more accurate. Who says Persian is a race is a race anyway? Aucaman 16:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


Read what Tajik said again. Invading populations were small relative to the subject populations to have any significant "genetic influence" on the subject populations. Besides, this article is about Persians in particular. There are many established non-native Iranian populations such as Arabs who trace their roots to the occupiers you are talking about. You must either provide a direct reliable source to backup the validity of your argument, a source that supports your statement that "The modern Persians are an amalgamation of a wide variety of peoples" or remove the "dispute tag", and stop your bullying.

The comments indicate that the majority consensus that the Persians are mostly descended from Indo-Europeans. This a fact, supported by an overwhelming body of evidence. --ManiF 17:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

- Aucaman, the statement does not say "Persians are genetically 100% pure aryan blood"!! - it simply states where Persians came from. It is not an arguable fact. It is taught everyday in schools in Iran, and every other academical institute where this issue is discussed. You have no point but to give headache to Iranian Wikipedians. Stop wasting our time. --Kash 20:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The points made by Kash and ManiF are very true. Anyone who has studied the history of the Persian Empire knows that most people who currently live in Iran are in fact descendents of the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-Europeans. It is also true that Persia over the thousands of years has come in contact with many other cultures and people, but that does not mean they have some how entered our blood and have now changed Persians. The whole idea of this happening is nonsense and many people in this page agree with that. --(Aytakin) | Talk 21:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

To Mani and Aucaman

Both sides could you please tell me your point of view (with no personal attack to other) I couldn't get it from your comments, I've had an extensive study in Iranian history and if I wasn't a computer engineering I definitely would have been a Iranologist ! , jokes aside, I might be a help if you guys let me see your POV's. Amir86 18:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

picture

what is the matter with the picture on this page? every time I visit it has changed and now it is totally gone!! what is wrong with it?

Gol 02:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The picture which was up previously contained copyrighted elements which are not licensed for use on Misplaced Pages. Because our use here is merely decorative we can not claim fair use. A new collage which features only free images would be welcome. --Gmaxwell 03:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There are as many Persians in this world as there are Sumerians, Ancient Egyptians, Toltecs,and Neanderthals. The only thing Persian about the country of Iran is its geography. The Persian part exists neither etnically nor culturally.

I'm sorry, but that is by far the most volatile and uneducated comment I have ever read. The ethnicity and culture of the persians of from the time of the Achaemenids still exist to-day in Iran. Although it is true that many roots of Indo-Iranians exist in parts of europe, Asia, and Africa, it is even more true that Iran by far has the most connections to its past (PERSIA). --(Aytakin) | Talk 19:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

History of Mixing of Persians and Arabs

  1. In 651-671, Ziad settled a permanant garrison of 50,000 Arabs of Tamim and Bakr from Basrah and Kufa at Merv, which became the main center for defense and expansion on the north-eastern frontier (in Khorasan) Encyclopaedia Iranica, p.208, under Arab Conquest of Iran.
  2. Whereas Arab settlement in western and southren Iran tended to be relatively small, the colonization of eastern Iran (Khorasan) was both extensive and systematic. Tribesmen of Bakr bin Wael were established in Qohestan and garrisons of troops were certainly quartered at Nishapur and Merv.This policy can be explained in part as an effort to relieve the surplus population pressures in the Iraqi camp cities (Encyclopaedia Iranica, p.213).
  3. In 730 CE, Jonayd bin Abd-al-Rahman sent 20,000 Arabs (half from Basrah and half from Kufa) to Khorasan. At the time of Qotayba bin Moslem governorship (early 8th century), there were 40,000 Basran, 7,000 Kufan troops in Khorasan, the Arabs coming from the tribes of Bakr, Tamim, Abd-al-Qays and Azd.
  4. Because of the distance from Iraq and the attractiveness of the country, large numbers of these soldiers acquired lands in villages throughout Khorasan, married local women or brought their families from Iraq, and settled permanently in the province. This implies that the Arab population in Khorasan must have been huge in comparison to that in western Iran. Even if the primary component of the Arab colony in Khorasan was limited to just the 50,000 families settled there by Rabi bin Ziad, the total Arab population would have to be estimated at close to a quarter of a million people.(Encyclopaedia Iranica, under Arab settlements in Iran,p.213).
  5. Because of the common danger on the Khorasani frontie, Iranians and Arabs overcame their initial antipathy and cooperated extensivle in military operations. In addition to military garrisons, the Arabs included merchants, artisans, religious scholars, landlords, peasants, beggards, vagabonds and badits. It was natural that in time these groups blended in with their Khorasani counterparts. These speacial circumstances in Khorasan, which integrated Arabs and Iranians into a common social fabric, facilitated the assimilation of Iranian culture by the Arabs and the gradual acceptance of much of Arab culture(above all the religion), by their Iranian subjects and peers..(Encyclopaedia Iranica, under Arab settlements in Iran,p.214). Heja Helweda 22:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

History of mixing of Persians and Arabs , Part II

  1. By 696, Arabs from the tribes of Rabia and Ejl were residing in Hamadan. The population of Qazvin seems to have been mainly Arab in the mid 9th century CE. Qom too became a predominantly Arab town: The Banu Asad moved to the Qom region during the revolt of Mokhtar bin Abi Obayda in 687 CE. Some of the Tamim established themselves in Jay(today Isfahan).
  2. During the Abbasid period many more Arabs moved into the eastern caliphate, especially into southern Persia.
  3. By the 10th century CE, most of the population of the town of Mahan, near Kerman had become Arab.
  4. Following the fall of the Abbasid dynasty, the flow of Arab immigrants into Persia gradually diminished, but nevertheless continued. In 1522, Shah Ismail I, gave lands in Khorasan and Fars province to refugees from the Ottoman Empire, including a group of Ghazali Arabs.
  5. In present-day Iran, there are still many families and tribes whose Arab origin can be traced.
  6. There are several groups of Arabs in central Persia. In the late 1890s, A. Houtum-Schindler wrote that certain families of Qom and Kashan call themselves Arabs, with very little semitic blood.
  7. In his list of the tribes of the Tehran region, M. Kayhan included six of Arab origin: Arab Hajji Agha Soltani(700 families), Arab Koti(600 families), Arab Mishmast(200 families), Arab Halwai(250 families), Arab Shahnani(150 families) and Arab Kushkali.
  8. According to J.M.Jouanin, in the early 1800s, there was an Arab tribe by the name of Ardestani that lived in the Ardestan area, midway between Kashan and Nain, and comprised some 6,000 individuals. (Encyclopaedia Iranica, under Arab tribes of Iran, pp.215-217).Heja Helweda 23:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

History of Mixing of Arabs and Persians, Part III

  1. Khorasan has a large Arab population. Many Arabs have settled down near Shahrud, where the inhabitants are designated as Arab o Ajam(Arabs and Iranians). By 1875, they had intermarried so extensively with Iranians and even Turks that the three groups were undistinguishable in feature and language. This tribe was called Bastami and was said to comprise some 12,000 to 15,000 individuals in the early 1800s.
  2. Further east, there are Arabs in the west of Nishapur, and there is a tribe by the name of Il-e Arab in west of Sarakhs. In 1950s, there were still two villages in that district in which Arabic was spoken.
  3. There are Arabs around both Kashmar and Torbat-e Jam, most of whom are Arab Mishmat. In the 1890s, the Arabs of Torbat-e Jam totaled some 4,000 families.
  4. There are also Arabs in the vicinity of Torbat-e Haydari. According to local tradition, they are descendants of some 1,000 Arab families that Nader Shah transplanted to Khorasan.
  5. Futher south, a large group of Arabs resides in the vicinity of Ferdows. Jouannin estimated their number at upwards to 20,000.
  6. Finally, most of the inhabitants of the Dehestan of Arabkhana (pop. 10,598 in 1951), southwest of Birjand are Arab.
  7. G.N. Curzon asserted that the Timuri who lived in northwestern Afghanistan and in the rural districts of Jannatabad, Torbat-e Jam, Tayebad and Khaf on the Persian side of the Afghan border, are of Arab origin.

(Encyclopaedia Iranica, p.217, under Arab tribes of Iran) Heja Helweda 23:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

History of mixing of Persians and Arabs, Part IV

  1. There are Arab tribes all along Iran's southern littoral. The most important are the Domuk, Ro'usa, Amrani, Obaydeli, Al-e Haram, Al-e 'Ali, Marzughi and Qawasim. The Domuk inhabit seven villages in Chah Kutah between Borazjan and Bushehr. In the early 1900s, they comprised 150 households. The Ro'usa inhabit 14 villages in an area extending from 11 km northwest of Khormoj(Bushehr province) to the mouth of the Mund river. In the early 1900s, they numbered some 1500 individuals.
  2. The Al-e Ali tribe live in the samll seaports of Tabuna, Charak and Dovvan, on the Qays(Kish) Island, and on the Shibkuh coast west of Bandar Lenga. In the early 1900s, they numbered some 3,500 individuals.
  3. In the Fars province, there is a large Arab tribe, the Il-e Arab of the Khamsa tribal confederacy. They have their summer quarters in northeast of Shiraz and their winter quarters in Sarvestan, Lar and Furg. In the 1940s, the tribe comprised some 11,100 families.
  4. Two formerly independent Arab tribes in the Fars province, the Baha-al-dini and the Shiri, have by now absorbed by the larger groups, the first by the Qashqai trbe and the second by the Arab Khumsa tribe.
  5. Jouanin mentions an Arab tribe by the name of Aghakhani which in the early 1800s, comprised some 20,000 individuals. Encyclopaedia Iranica, under Arab tribes of Iran, p.218-219). Heja Helweda 23:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

History of mixing of Persians and Arabs, Part V

  1. There are several Arab tribes in Kerman province. In the Sirjan region dwell the Ataallahi. Once numerous, they totaled some 6,000 individuals in the early 1800s. Also there are Arabkhani Sorkhi (250 families in 1930s), and Badui tribes (300 families in the 1930s). In the Pariz region are the Arab-e Hajji Hosayni who in 1920s numbered some 200 families.
  2. Jouannin cites an Arab tribe by the name of Kermani that comprised some 7,000 or 8,000 individuals in the early 1800s.
  3. Sedentary peasants and some 19th century travelers have given the name Araba to the majority of semi-nomadic tribes in the Tehran region. The Arabs seem to have established themselves long ago near the capital, Tehran, as is shown by the existence of a dehestan(village) to the south of Varamin named Behnam-e Arab. They were formerly numerous in the upper valleys of Karaj and Jajrud up to 1965. Their present summer quarters are in the high valley of Taleghan, in Larijan and in the mountains of Damavand.
  4. There is also another Arabic-speaking tribe inthe region of Tehran that of the Koti, originating from Shiraz. Some 300 families still move to the summer pastures in the upper valley of Lar. Several families have settled down on hill slopes in Damavand.(Encyclopaedia Iranica, under Arab tribes of Iran, pp. 219-220). Heja Helweda 23:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)



That may have been written by an unverifiable author, or written by an Student Encyclopedia because first of all Islamic law prohibited Arab Muslims from mixing with ``gentiles``(non-Arabs). Also, I clicked on the link you provided, it takes you to an empty page, then asks you to download an Adobe file. It may have been written by a student, but that certainly is not of encyclopedic magnitude. That seems to be the source you have, and although hard to label something, but with all due respect that Adobe file could be written by anyone. Don`t you think an important thing about a culture`s race would be written in at least one Encyclopedia, like Encyclopedia Britannica or a dictionary?Zmmz 06:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

All these extensive mixing of Arabs and Persians deserve some mention in the article.

Heja Helweda 23:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is this information under "mixing" of arabs and Persians? All it says is that there are Arab tribes, and they were in Iran at one point or another. There is no argument over the fact that Arabs exist in Iran. According to CIA worldbook, 3% of Iran is of Arab ethnicity. Now you can have all the wet dreams you want about some arabs and Iranians mixing, however it does not belong to Persian people article, I also recommend finding something else to do in your life beside wasting time. Thanks, --Kash 09:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sourced information

If you found materials from credible sources who oppose these information please inform me. Amir85 6:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Who are you addressing and what are you talking about? Aucaman 11:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The Word Aryan

Could somebody please tell me why there is such a desire to remove the word "Aryan" from this article ? IN EVERY SINGLE CREDIBLE HISTORICAL BOOK IT IS STATED THAT PERSIANS ARE ORIGINATED FROM AN AYRAN (INDO-IRANIAN) BRANCH. YOU WANDER HOW DID THEY FIGURE IT OUT ? BECAUSE ITS ALL RECORDED IN ANCIENT INSCRIPTOINS FROM DARIUS I's BEISTON TO SHAPUR I'S IN NAGH-I RUSTAM TO KHOSRAU II's ROCK RELIEVES IN TAQ-E BOSTAN TO MODERN HISTORY OF IRAN.Amir85 10:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This is why. You see how it says "No longer in technical use"? I'm not sure what sources you're talking about, but a lot of sources says that Persian is an Iranian language. This is mosly due to linguistic reasons, not racial or necessarily historical. The word "Aryan" simply has no place here. Can you tell me what you think it means and how you're using it? Aucaman 11:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Aryan (Ariaee) was the name those original Indo-iranians used and wanted to be called. While in India, where I'm living "No longer in technical use" but in Iran, Kurdistan and Afghanistan is pretty much in use. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language translation of Aryan looks superficial and incorrect, the original Indo-iranians unlike whats shown in media's they were blond-haired and blue-eyed just as is it depicted in Ajanta caves or Greek historian Xenophon described them. Its quite visible among Iranian people. Amir85 13:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
If you can prove that 51% of persians are blond-haired and blue-eyed then we can say majority of Persians are decendant from those Indo-iranian or Aryan or whatever you call it. But actually you never can prove that, because they are not. In fact Persians are an amalgamation of indigenois peoples of Iranian platue + Arabic imigrants + Mongolian imigrants + Turkic imigrants who have lived and resided there for thousands years. Modern Persians Aryan layer is too weak and only linguistic. Ancient Aryans have nothing to do with modern Fars (here Persian) people. Besides in the article I do not see any mention of "Fars" while the name of Modern Persians is "Fars".
AbdulRahman 13:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The description of Aryans as "blond-haired and blue-eyed" is a Nazi myth created in the 19th century. For example, the Parsi population of India who migrated to India right after the Arab conquest of Persia, and usually do not intermarry with with the local population, look anything but blond-haired and blue-eyed. It's a established fact that Persians are of Aryan lineage. Your assumptions about mass genetic influence of invading armies are what they are, mere assumptions, not fact. The burden of proof is on you, if you have any direct quote from a primary source that says "modern Persians are an amalgamation of this and that", please present it. --ManiF 18:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes blond-haired and blue-eyed" is one of hypotheses, the other one is dark-haired and green-eyed" which is more than others accepted and suppported. Also you are describing them in another way. By the way it shows that they are still unknown. and it questions who are the modern Farsis I mean their origin. You should write in the article that the origin of Farsis is not completely clear but they are thought to be desendant from those people that I mentioned above, in addition that some sources claim that they are mainly decendant from Aryans. AbdulRahman 12:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)



Interesting! I added the native name of Persians the word "Fars" to the article and fixed a link, some people reverted it, naming it's vandalism!!!! This is why I added the POV tag. Whenvere you correct that version you can remove that tag. Thanks. Never mind, fixed it.
Diyako Talk + 14:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Origins of Modern Persians

Please don't remove the information which is from a highly respected and neutral scholarly source (Encyclopaedia Iranica). The mixing of Persians with Arabs in Khorasan, Qom, Qazvin and Hamadan (dating back to 8th century CE) should be mentioned in the article. This is further evidence that not all modern Persians are from Aryan background. Moreover this is not about 3% Contemorary Arabs living in Khuzestan, rather it is about amalgam and mix of Persian and Arabs in the Persian heartlands of Internal Iranian Plateau and Khorasan. Of course these Arabs were eventually assimilated in the local population, but when talking about the origins of Persians, they should be mentioned.

  1. Because of the distance from Iraq and the attractiveness of the country, large numbers of these soldiers acquired lands in villages throughout Khorasan, married local women or brought their families from Iraq, and settled permanently in the province. This implies that the Arab population in Khorasan must have been huge in comparison to that in western Iran. Even if the primary component of the Arab colony in Khorasan was limited to just the 50,000 families settled there by Rabi bin Ziad, the total Arab population would have to be estimated at close to a quarter of a million people.(Encyclopaedia Iranica, under Arab settlements in Iran,p.213). (8th century CE)
  2. The population of Qazvin seems to have been mainly Arab in the mid 9th century CE. Qom too became a predominantly Arab town.(Encyclopaedia Iranica, under Arab tribes of Iran, pp.215-217).Heja Helweda 21:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


Read what Kash said to you, there is no argument over the fact that Arabs exist in Iran. According to CIA worldbook, 3% of Iran is of Arab ethnicity, but that has nothing to do with Persians' article. Stop pulling the strawman argument, trying to prove that somehow because of the fact that Arabs exist in Iran, the modern Persians are "an amalgam of Arabs and other races", Encyclopaedia Iranica does not make such statement. That's your own assumption driven by your political beliefs and agenda, stop misquoting Iranica out of context. You don't have a direct quote from a primary source that says "modern Persians are a mix of this and that". It's an established fact, as verified by Encyclopedia Britannica and Iranica that Persians are of Aryan lineage. As Tajik already explained, the numbers of those invaders and settlers were very small compared to large population of Persians and other Iranic groups, to have any "lasting impact" on the genetics of the larger native population. --ManiF 22:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I have not said they are not Aryan, I was just saying their extensive ethnic mix with Arabs should be mentioned. Again the 3% figure is for the existing Arabs in Khuzestan and south of Iran. What I am talking about is Arabs in Khorasan and central Iran, who came to Iranbetween eighth and ninth century and were assimmilated in the local persians. They are counted now as Persians not Arabs, and are Persian speaking, however their origins go back to the early Muslim Armies. After all no single ethnic group is pure. There is no such thing.Heja Helweda 02:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


Look at this map, the 3% figure for the Iranian Arabs is not limited to Arabs in Khuzestan, it also includes ethnic Arabs in places such as Khorasan and central Iran. There are ethnic Arabs throughout Iran. Not all Iranians are Persians. This article, however, is about ethnic Persians and your selective and out-of-context quotes are only meant to flame and aggravate people. Iran is not Khorasan, Khorasan is one of dozens of provinces nationwide, Persians don't just live in Khorasan, your quotes do not support your contention that the whole Persian cumminty had extensive ethnic mix with Arabs, and that's only your assumption. Now, as I said before, and let me make this excruciatingly clear, you don't have a direct quote from a primary source that catagorically says "modern Persians are a mix", primarily because this is simply a false notion. --ManiF 03:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not talking about present, but 800 AD, when the Persians and Arabs mixed. Many of those Arabs assimilated and their descendants consider themselves to be Persian,. while in fact they have Arab ancestry. Where do think the Seyyeds have come from? We have many many Persian Seyyeds in Iran. The very term of seyyed (a descendant of Prophet's family) is cear indication of Arab mix with Persians. Moreover if you read the paragraph more carefully, I have also included Qom, Qazvin and Hamadan. I am not just talking about Khorasan region.Heja Helweda 03:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, stop pulling the strawman argument and provide a primary source that catagorically says "Persians and Arabs mixed". Also, there are hundreds of cities and regions in Iran, your "examples" of Arab settlements in three or four regions don't support your main argument (assumption) that there was "extensive ethnic mix" between Arabs and the larger Persian population. If your assumption is correct, then you shouldn't have any problems finding a reliable source that supports your assumption by catagorically stating that modern Persians are "an amalgam of Arabs and others". --ManiF 03:57, 28 February 2006
Calm down please. I never intended to say Persians are amalgam or something. Persians clearly have their roots at 2,500 years ago (Achamenids), but along the way they have mixed with other people (like Arabs) in certain regions like Khorasan, Qom, Qazvin. Come on after all the Shrine of Hazrat-e Massoumeh is in Qom and the Shrine of the eighth Imam is in Mashad. But one might say they did not mix in some other regions (may be like Shiraz, let's say).Heja Helweda 04:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
You never intended to say that Persians are amalgam or something? That's exactly what you originally said and what you've been trying to "prove" with out-of-context quotes and etc. Small groups of Persians may have intermarried with invaders but the numbers of those invaders and settlers were very small compared to large population of Persians, to have any lasting impact on the genetics of the Persians as a race and ethnicity. --ManiF 04:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Mixing does not necessarily mean the original race is wiped out or completely changed, and by the way the evidence is just for certain regions. Did I ever say Persians in all of Iran were completely changed? Of course not. Just in certain regions, which happen to be religious centers now like Khorasan and Qom.Heja Helweda 04:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Persians: No Evidence of Being Racially Mixed with Arabs

Heja Helweda, Aucun, or other users; your Encyclopedia Iranica source is unverifiable. I clicked on it, and an Adobe file opens. A saved Adobe file is not a reliable source. Do you have any authoritative sources like Encyclopedia Britannica, or the Columbia Encyclopedia? Unfortunately I have to say, as to your statement that “Persians are mixed racially with Arabs” is inaccurate, as a matter of fact, it is false. I am not sure which books and references you are reading, but they are certainly far from main stream beliefs. Actually, out of all the invaders of Iran (Greeks etc.), it was the Arabs that did not racially mix with Persians. The reason for that is Islam strictly prohibits mixing racially with gentiles (non-Muslims). Keep in mind, during the invasion Islam was at its beginning, so the fevers of fundamentalism must have been high, and Islamic laws more strictly followed. This is actually one of the main reasons that the ancient land of Babylon slowly became an Arab country; Iraq. Basically, the Caliphs and the rest stayed within the borders of Iran; mostly ruling from there. This fact is mentioned in many Islamic literatures and along with the fact that even today, the over-whelming majority of Iranians ARE of their original ancestral roots: Persian, Gilaki, Tajik, Baluchi, Azari, and Kurds etc. Even in the south, in cities like Khuzestan, they are mostly Persians. So, I am not sure what gives when you imply they are many Arabs mixed with Iranians, and it to be mentioned in an article named `Persian People`? I also don’t get it that you and some others are actively trying to undermine the Indo-Aryan lineage of Iranians. Good, or bad, and with all these different sub-ethnicities in Iran, the Aryans (Medes and others), nevertheless, the ancestors of this country. So, why do you feel you need to erase and rewrite this article? Zmmz 03:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

When some source does not suit our personal views, it is not appropriate to accuse the source. Instead think for a moment and try to make the article neutral.Heja Helweda 04:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The reason for that is Islam strictly prohibits mixing racially with gentiles (non-Muslims). That's wrong. The third Imam, Imam Hussein married a Sassanids princess named Shahrbanou. Her shrine is around Tehran (Bibi Shahrbanou). The Arabs did mix both at the highest levels and also at the local level.Heja Helweda 04:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Your source is fine, but you are quoting it out of context trying to imply something that is not true. Persians were not genetically changed by Arabs or anyone else. --ManiF 04:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Where did I say they were genetically changed. I just said they mixed with Arabs, i.e., they intermarried, and it was the Arabs who were eventually assimilated in the Persian population not the other way around. (for the basic reason that Persians were the majority)Heja Helweda 04:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


I am sorry, but it is hard to make an argument that seems so revolutionary as yours does credible--or for that matter any argument credible--if one does not have the right sources. I really would like to see what you are saying in an Encyclopedia. The link you provided for Encyclopedia Iranica is an Adobe file, and it is the only one you seem to have. That is not to say that after the 1979 Revolution many Iranians emigrated to foreign countries like Arabia, Dubai, Japan, Poland, England etc., etc. Obviuosly some of these Iranians have married foreigners, including the Polish, Arabs, and others, however, that is a different thing than you stating Iranians in Iran are mixed with Arabs. Have you ever been to that country ? Zmmz 04:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Adobe file is not a good reason to throw away a scholarly source.Heja Helweda 04:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


Yes, it is not a good reason, but I have to tell you that file could have been written by anyone, although I believe you when you say you trust it. Nevertheless, do you not agree that such an important information about a country’s race would be mentioned in an Encyclopedia?Zmmz 04:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


Actually, you bring up a good and factual point that I was going to mention as well. That would be the fact that the two out of an almost minute number of Persian-Arab marriages are one, Imam Hussein and Queen Shahrbanu, and the other was the Shah of Iran and Queen Fawzieh of Egypt. Of course we know Imam Hussein was a rebel and an outsider to the ruling Arabs at that time, so he certainly may not have adhered to the strict Arab laws then. And, the ruling Sunni Arabs unfortunately killed the innocent Imam at the end. By the way, the law that Muslims were not to mix with non-Muslims or gentiles comes from the Arabic literature and Arab Muslim scholars. These are some of basic laws of Islam. They did not want the decedents of the prophet marrying foreigners. That is a fact. Also, don’t you think that if there was such a revolutionary concept of Persians being so mixed with Arabs that we would know of more Persian-Arab marriages that might have come from the royal houses of the Caliphs? Do you know of mix marriages between an Arabian Caliph and a Persian, or vice versa, besides the exception of Imam Hussein? Did you also know about a new genetic study that states most of the Near East people have almost the same genetic make-up? They include Tajiks, Kurds, Azaries, people from Samarkand and Afghanistan that are eerily close to their Iranian counter parts, and ancestors like the Medes. Zmmz 04:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


Let`s not also forget that no nation is an island. Certainly even Iranians in Iran have a few people mixed with Indians (specially Parsees), many Armenians, some Arabs, some Turks, and even to a lower extent some Russians and Israelies. That is a fact. However, the numbers are not nearly significant enough to imply any mass assimiliation.Zmmz 04:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for fixing the article I 100% agree with whoever did it. Pervious version, obviously written by a very biased person, who was taking information out of context, gave the impression that Persian are “Arabs” by blood and only speak Persian!!!

Gol 05:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with defining Persians as a race is that you then have to genetically define them. Are Balochis part of the Persian "race"? It is a moot issue. Ahwazi Arabs of Khuzestan have some history of inter-marriage with Persian tribes such as the Bakhtiari who are also indigenous to that province. Are they Persian or Arab? Persian is a cultural and linguistic category, but Persia/Iran has always been multi-racial and more than just Pars. I n s e r t f o r m u l a h e r e {\displaystyle Insertformulahere}


They are identified first and foremost as Iranians; Persian is an English word causing slight confusions.Zmmz 19:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

STOP with the ANTI-Iranian POV

If you don't like Iranians go and find something else to do, you keep coming here and trying to make our life difficult, but we will not give up. The truth is down in history and history will not be 'deleted' so give up, because WE WONT. --Kash 10:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


Myself I'm half Kurdish, and I can assure you that I'm ashamed of the fact that the majority of the individuals continuously vandalizing these pages are Kurdish separatists (plus a few more religiously inspired and politically motivated individuals of Arab and Jewish ancestry) seeking to use wikipedia as a platform for their own political/racial/religious agendas. In the end, we have the necessary might and means to defend truth, objectivity, and history, and and we shall never give up. --ManiF 21:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
There are also a lot of Iranians (such as myself) who don't blindly follow nationalistic race origin theories. I've been accused of being "anti-Iranian" here, but I think those self-appointed representatives of Iranians who are misrepresenting them are as anti-Iranian as one can be. Bad news for the real anti-Iranians: most Iranians today don't subscribe to racist theories imposed on them by outsiders. (Most of these theories about the origins the origins of Iranians were brought to Iran by Iranian scholars studying in Germany or German scholars visiting Iran.) Aucaman 04:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Better definition

Persians are an ethnic group. An ethnic group is identified by both language and culture. There are Persians outside Iran who don't even speak Persian (but still identify themselves as Persian due to cultural/ethnic reasons). I've changed the definition to reflect this. Aucaman 10:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


As supported by the majority consensus, Persians are an ethnic/racial/linguistic group of Aryan lineage, not just a linguistic group as you are cleverly trying to give that impression. Your "Better definition" is considered sneaky vandalism under wikipedia rules as it's changing the broader definition of Persians. In order to make such drastic change, you would first need a majority consensus, please stop bullying your POV. --ManiF 20:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
This means that at least half the Iranian population is not Persian because they are not "racially" Persian. In fact, Persia was a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic empire with great tolerance towards non-Farsi groups. The idea of Aryanism is a supremacist ideology advanced by Persian extremists. I n s e r t f o r m u l a h e r e {\displaystyle Insertformulahere}
What are you even talking about? I was actually trying to broaden the definition we had. Here's the definition we had:
"The Persians of Iran are an Iranian people who speak the Persian language, of Indo-European lineage."
This is the definition I proposed:
"The Persians of Iran are an ethnic group identified by a sense of sharing a common Persian culture and having a Persian mother tongue."
This is a more accurate definition and is modeled after Turkish people. The information you had is not accurate for the reasons I gave at the beginning of this section. This is the 21st century. You have children of mixed marriages who identify with both cultures. Exclusionism is discouraged. Name any modern Persian politician and I'll break down his ethnic history for you. In most cases they're not pure Persians.
I'm going to insert some dispute tags to warn other users of inaccuracies. Do not remove them unless my concerns are fully addressed.
And stop calling my edits vandalism. I've explained my reasoning and there's no consensus against me. What are you even talking about? I'm the one bringing up the issue. It has never been discussed before, so there's no consensus. Do you know what consensus means? this is what it means. While we're at it, let's look up the definition of Aryan. See how it says "No longer in technical use"? Good. Hopefully I'm not misunderstood. Aucaman 01:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


You are in a minority here. The majority of users here (ManiF, Kash, Tajik, Zmmz, Amir85, Gol, Aytakin, 194.170.175.5) have fully addressed your concerns and voiced their opinion in favour of the version which you reverted without a consensus. That's called Sneaky vandalism. Also, placing a dispute tag to bully your POV is a clear violation of policies and regulations of wikipedia, so please stop vandalizing this article. --ManiF 02:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
No, other users have not commented on my proposed changes and you yourself have not addressed them. What's wrong with my definition? It is the definition you see in German people and Turkish people, both very nationalistic groups. Aucaman 02:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


All the mentioned users have already commented in favour of the the version which you reverted without a consensus. There is a clear majority consensus on the issue of origins of Persians. As for addressing your issues, they have already been addressed on this very page by different users citing different sources. You are simply repeating yourself and you may never be satisfied as your intentions are to bully your POV no matter what. --ManiF 03:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Aucaman one person, being you, finding the factual statement that original Iranians were from Indo-European, or Aryan lineage offensive, or undesirable, it does not mean you can keep reverting and going against consensus. Either provide valid sources to support your claims, ] wait until respond to see if there is a consensus, or stop making this article your personal pet-project. This is being disruptive at this point. Zmmz 03:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to provide sources for saying that the contents of this article are currently unverifiable. You need to provide sources. Indo-European is an ethnic group? I've also provided sources challenging the use of the word "Aryan" but still have to see one academic source that says "Persians are of Aryan lineage". Aucaman 03:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Aucaman , I`m curious, do you agree with the current introduction to this article as it is now? What changes do you propose, and why? Zmmz 03:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Aucaman I am not sure how you could say there is not any sources that say Iranians are decendents of an Aryan-Indo-European lineage. Which literature have you been studying? I looked at four major encyclopedias and dictionaries, and they all say it is so. Columbia Encyclopedia for example says, “Some of the world’s most ancient settlements have been excavated in the Caspian region and on the Iranian plateau; village life began there c.4000 B.C. The Aryans came about 2000 B.C. and split into two main groups, the Medes and the Persians. The Persian Empire founded (c.550 B.C.) by Cyrus the Great was succeeded, after a period of Greek and Parthian rule, by the Sassanid in the early 3d cent. A.D”. If they say it, that is good enough for me. This dispute is over as far as I can tell, unless you have more info.Zmmz 03:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Which article are you referring to? Aucaman 04:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Aucaman if you mean which source, it is the Columbia Encyclopedia. I searched under Iran.Zmmz 04:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Aucaman , so everyone here is wrong and you're right? everyone here seems to agree with the contents and wording EXEPT you and a couple of others who seem to have a political agenda and are trying to creat a dispute where there is none. all the major encyclopedias dealing with iranian issues such as britinca and iranica confirm that iranian peoples (persians in this case) are from Indo-European or Aryan lineage. so it's you who needs to provide first-hand source that says anything like modern persians are not aryan or a mix. why are you trying so hard to deny another people' heritage anyways? --221.156.248.124 04:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Aucaman,

I am sorry but can you please remind me what your objection to the word Aryan was? It has been discussed for so long that I can hardly understand what was the original problem. Can you refresh my memory? The ancient Iranians were Aryan but you don’t think the modern ones are because...? You think they have not stayed pure enough to be considered the descendants of their ancestors?

Or is it because you think the word Aryan is no loner in use? (I remember someone saying something about this issue) Again can you please refresh my memory?

thank you

Gol 04:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Aucaman please take the banner off. And stop violating the 3rr. I think now the dispute is resolved, do you agree? If you do not agree bring a preeminent source, otherwise, the dispute is no longer valid. Zmmz 04:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Gol, no, no--nono, no. Don` t encourage him. It is now 50 against 1, i.e., consensus. The discussion is over. The word Aryan is used by virtually all of the encyclopedias and dictionaries; I spent hours looking at the major encyclopedias. It is used to describe the ancestorial lineage of Persians, and we are doing the same thing here. Let him (Aucaman) bring authoritative sources, soon, or the discussion is once and for all---over.Zmmz 04:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


I totally agree that the word Aryan should be used. I just wanted to know what his excuse is.

Gol 05:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

can one of the registered users please report this user Aucaman to the moderators, he's clearly intent on pushing his views down everyone's throat and he won't give up. i have never , in my life, seen scuh level of ignorant persistence..........--221.156.248.124 05:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Farsi

I dont think there is any reason for having the word Farsi in the article especially in the beginning. The academic and standard name for the language in English is Persian and even if Farsi is to be mentioned it should be as an alternative, in parentheses perhaps, for Persian and not before the correct name. I have not removed it but I strongly suggest we do.

Gol 04:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is disputed

Every edit I've made has been either reverted or removed. Even the one where I added Persian Jews to the see also. . This page needs to be protected with a "totallydisputed" tag on top of it (until the disputes are resolved). Persian Jews are as Persian as any other Persian group. Aucaman 05:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Aucaman it would be a good idea to make a new section for minority Persians like the Jews, Christians, Baha`is etc. These groups afterall are some the oldest inhabitants of Iran. That sounds good. But, it seems to be a pattern with you, we provide you with references, you then have no counter arguments, and drop the discussion. Then you start on another topic, proposing unmerited claims, then immediately start waving your hands and putting banners on this article. What happened to the Aryan controversy? Any references yet? I feel you are bordering vandalism. But, I still I feel bad, I don’t want to report you, but at this point, clearly you are the sole person causing disruptions on daily basis. What do you suggest we should do? I am almost out of options. Zmmz 05:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Aucaman, your personal ambition to push your POV does not qualify as a dispute, there is a majority consensus in place here and everyone here have tried to reason with you but you just keep saying the same thing over and over with no first-hand source to support any of it, yet you refuse to accept the majority's consensus. you are clearly in violation of several wikipedia rules including 3rr and vandalism! --221.156.248.124 05:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course, there's no time for discussion because people keep removing my tags out. This page is going to be protected soon, and then we can discuss everything. Stop the vandalism and we talk about this. Aucaman 05:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Aucaman no, no, no--those are your claims. Everyone else who wrote this article agrees.Zmmz 05:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't know what you're talking about. We haven't had any discussions here. All I see is bunch of personal attacks and propaganda. This is what Misplaced Pages has to say about this:
"Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not concerning advocacy and propaganda."
And stop bold-facing my name when addressing me. That's just rude. If you want to resolve the dispute I suggest you start addressing some of the issues I've raised. Ignoring them in the name of "consensus" is not going to help you. Aucaman 06:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Aucaman you present no discussions, rather shoot first ask later. Everybody else agrees, except you. There is no one here that agrees with your claims. I am trying to work with you, but you are the one who breaks the 3rr on daily basis. The proof is in the article`s history section.Zmmz 06:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


I agree with Zmmz. Aucaman is pushing his views on people, I strongly believe that something should be done to stop this. --220.92.206.12 06:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
And what are my views? You don't even listen. Aucaman 06:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree with Aucaman that absolutely refusing to discuss intermarriage and genetic admixture is POV. There is every reason to believe that there was some mixture between Arabs and Persians. We just don't know how much. That's the domain of physical anthropology, it should be discussed scientifically, using both blood type and DNA studies, and also with reference to historical sources. The best thing would be say that there was probably some admixture, but there isn't enough data to quantify it. I'm looking for sources. Zora 06:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not even my concern. People here don't even have the basic definitions right. They think Indo-European is a race or ethnic group. They think "Iranian" is a culture. They throw around the word "Aryan" without defining it or knowing what it means and how it should be used. Any edit I make, even grammar or spelling, gets reverted or removed just because people don't like me. Aucaman 07:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Zora where are your refrences? This article is about Persians not Arabs. But, if you say there is mixture, it may be refered to in a sub-section. But, you need proof first.Zmmz 07:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the proof. Durinng Ummayad period, large numbers of Arab soldiers acquired lands in villages throughout Khorasan, married local women or brought their families from Iraq, and settled permanently in the province. This implies that the Arab population in Khorasan must have been huge in comparison to that in western Iran. Even if the primary component of the Arab colony in Khorasan was limited to just the 50,000 families settled there by Rabi bin Ziad, the total Arab population would have to be estimated at close to a quarter of a million people in 8th century CE. The special circumstances in Khorasan, which integrated Arabs and Iranians into a common social fabric, facilitated the assimilation of Iranian culture by the Arabs and the gradual acceptance of much of Arab culture(above all the religion), by their Iranian subjects and peers.(Encyclopaedia Iranica, under Arab settlements in Iran,pp.213-214). The towns of Hamadan, Qazvin, Qom were predominantly Arab by the 9th century CE.(Encyclopaedia Iranica, under Arab tribes of Iran, p.215). Heja Helweda 23:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Aucaman cite one sentence in the article that is inaccurate or confusing? The Columbia and Britannica Encyclopedias were not good enough?Zmmz 07:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


You see all the issues have already been discussed extensively here, by "addressing some of the issues" Aucaman means that we all have to agree with his POV and accept his gospel as fact. To say that Persians are "genetically mixed", Aucaman should have a definite source that can be referred to. But until then, all authoritative sources such Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Iranica and Columbia Encyclopedia refer to Persians as a people of Indo-European or Aryan lineage. Those are the facts that are agreed on by all the scholarly sources. --ManiF 07:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


I don't see a need for a sub-section on Persians about the trivial fact that a few hundred or thousand Arabs had intermarriages with Persians 10 centuries ago or 15 centuries ago, unless we are going to add a similar sub-section to Arabs. And while we are at it why not add a similar sub-section to Jews, Turks and Russians --ManiF 07:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


No, I meant a sub-section that would include all these other races in it under one sub-section that would simply give some numerical information about the country.Zmmz 07:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


I think I have found the source of the problem. This was just posted by Aucaman on another discussion page:


What are you guys even talking about? Instead of discussing obvious stuff why don't come down to the Persian people article where a lot of users are trying to add racist, sometimes anti-Semitic propaganda into the article. Aucaman 07:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


That's further proof that Aucaman's "objection" is racially and politically motivated. He thinks that the majority of users here who do't agree with his POV, are a bunch of anti-Semites. It’s very, very difficult to address his issues, as we have already done over and over, when this "discussion" is foregone conclusion for him. It’s either his way or no way. No matter how many Encyclopedias and other scholarly sources we present, he will never be convinced and will keep bullying his POV. --ManiF 07:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I don't like racist, inaccurate POV. Is there anything wrong with that? Aucaman 09:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing racist or inaccurate about the fact that Persians a people of Indo-European or Aryan lineage. All authoritative sources such Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Iranica and Columbia Encyclopedia refer to Persians as a people of Indo-European or Aryan lineage. You are just pushing your POV and your objection is racially and politically motivated. --ManiF 09:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I've already discussed my problems with the article. You're just saying the same thing over and over again, engaging in character attacks, and following me wherever I go (even other users' talk pages where I'm asking for advice on this issue). The article is being vandalized by anon users and you're not addressing any of my concerns. The dispute tag will remain until you learn how to engage people and respond to them in a dispute. "The majority is against you" and character attacks won't do. Aucaman 10:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Zora actually I agree with ManiF, the statistical ratios info are covered under the Iran section that says about 3 percent are assimilated Arabs. No, actually, there is no need for that, this article is about Persian genealogy and its roots. Zmmz 07:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking about 3% Arabs in Khuzestan. The evidence points to extensive mix between Arabs and Persians in Khorasan, Qom and Qazvin. Those Arabs were eventually assimilated in the host population, and at the same time affected the Persians people as well.Heja Helweda 23:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Ah...I see. It is all clear now. So, he has a problem with the word Aryan. Well, that is offensive that people assume, or suggest this country` s ancestors were related to the anti-semetic European movement of Germany. Zmmz 08:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Aucaman, stop vandalising this page. It's against the rules to add a dispute tag to push your point of view. There is nothing racist or anti-Semitic on this article, that’s just your persecution complex. Persians having Aryan roots, is a fact supported by all the respected sources out there. Persians have used the term Aryan to describe their roots since 2500 years ago and this is totally unrelated to the Nazi-invented definition of the term popularized in the last century. --220.92.206.12 08:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


In conclusion, there is no way of convincing Aucaman of anything. Many users here have presented countless authoritative sources, but Aucaman has already made up his mind. He's just abusing the dispute function to get his way, defying the majority of users' consensus to keep the current version. --220.92.206.12 08:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I've protected this article. Please note that I do not endorse any version, but the constant reverts must stop. I do not wish to see anyone blocked for 3RR, so please discuss the issues here with wikiquette, while the issues, seem to have a consensus to have the dispute tag removed; I suggest that it be discussed more. If a agreement can not be reached, I also suggest that a WP:RfC be filed to get more feedback on the article and it's dispute. If an agreement can be reached please contact me or an other admin so the article can be unprotected. KnowledgeOfSelf 11:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman, you still haven’t told me why you refuse to accept the word Aryan? Can you pleas refresh my memory? I Asked you previously( see my post above) as well but I got no answer.

Gol 12:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the word Aryan is, as I've said before, that it refers to outdated and unscientific 18th and 19th century notions of race. Jayjg 18:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


The term is CERTAINLY NOT outdated and unscientific, otherwise it would not be used in the same context (in relation to Persians' background) by all authoritative sources such Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Iranica and Columbia Encyclopedia --ManiF 19:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the term is outdated. For example, the Columbia Encyclopedia (to which you constantly refer) describes Aryan as a "term formerly used to designate the Indo-European race or language family or its Indo-Iranian subgroup". The American Heritage Dictionary, in its first definition of Aryan, says " 1. Indo-Iranian. No longer in technical use." Jayjg 23:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


You know that print encyclopedias are dreadfully behind the times :) The term of art these days, from the quick reading I've done in Central Asian population genetics, is Kurgan culture. Before the desertification of Central Asia, it is said to have been an extremely hospitable territory, and one of the first places that Homo sapiens established itself outside Africa. Increasing desertification pushed people from the Kurgan culture in several directions, towards Europe and northern India. Aryan is not used by careful scientists. Zora 19:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Nope, further quick reading, I'm confusing two waves of migration here, one very early, one later. Early one is "cavemen"; later one is Kurgan peoples with domesticated animals, carts, knowledge of agriculture. Zora 20:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


First of all, we did write Indo-European instead of Ayan. Second of all, if Columbia Encyclopedia and encyclopedia uses it, then we should be able to do so as well, perhaps adding a footnote that term is less often used. Third of all, the people and culture themselves still refer to it as Arya, so who is anybody else to tell what Persians should call themselves? Zmmz 23:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out above the Columbia Encyclopedia (to which you refer) describes Aryan as a "term formerly used to designate the Indo-European race or language family or its Indo-Iranian subgroup". The American Heritage Dictionary, in its first definition of Aryan, says " 1. Indo-Iranian. No longer in technical use." Jayjg 23:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


I guess when Columbia Encyclopedia says, “Some of the world’s most ancient settlements have been excavated in the Caspian region and on the Iranian plateau; village life began there c.4000 B.C. The Aryans came about 2000 B.C. and split into two main groups, the Medes and the Persians. The Persian Empire founded (c.550 B.C.) by Cyrus the Great was succeeded, after a period of Greek and Parthian rule, by the Sassanid in the early 3d cent. A.D”, it means nothing. That`s funny, they never mention the term is outdated here, not even a footnote. But, OK let`s write Indo-European, and in a parenthesis next to it write the term is technically not used anymore. But, know your limits, and to come up with new names telling a race what to call itself.Zmmz 23:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The Columbia Encyclopedia (to which you often refer) describes Aryan as a "term formerly used to designate the Indo-European race or language family or its Indo-Iranian subgroup". and The American Heritage Dictionary says its No longer in technical use." , that's pretty clear. As for the rest, it's pretty confusing; what does "know your limits, and to come up with new names telling a race what to call itself" mean? Do you think Iranians are a "race"? Jayjg 23:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries say, “1 : INDO-EUROPEAN a : of or relating to a hypothetical ethnic type illustrated by or descended from early speakers of Indo-European languages

of or relating to Indo-Iranian or its speakers”. That`s funny, just like Columbia Encyclopedia they never mention the term is outdated here, not even a footnote.Zmmz 23:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, except that the Columbia Encyclopedia actually does say that it's a "formerly used" term, we've already been through that. Not getting the "funny" part yet. Jayjg 23:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Well, I searched under Iran in the Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries, Columbia Encyclopedia, and Encyclopedia Britannica, they all said the same thing; they never mention the term is outdated here, not even a footnote. And, it is funny because you are zelously trying to tell an ancient race what to call itself. By the way Iran means `Land of Aryans`. Should they change that too, because you are sensitive to the word Aryan? Zmmz 23:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're repeating this stuff when it's already been disproven. The Columbia Encyclopedia says it is a term that is no longer used. Britannica says the same thing. So does the American Heritage Dictionary. And are you promoting the notion that Iranians are a "race"? Also, please stick to discussing the issue at hand, not suppositions about other editors "sensitivities". Jayjg 00:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


You do realize that it's a contradictory statement to say that the term "Aryan is no longer in technical use" when all authoritative sources such Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Iranica and Columbia Encyclopedia still use it in relation to articles regarding Iran and Persians. Well all authoritative sources still use the term then wikipedia should be no exception --ManiF 02:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Remove the Dispute Tag

Please remove the dispute tag, it goes against the consensus. Users Zora and Aucaman, with all due respect the word Aryan decribes the lineage of Iranians and it should not be offensive to anyone. It is used in every major dictionary and encyclopedia to describe the history of Persia. Zmmz 21:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be removed, it should be presented as a POV. Guys, step back, include several versions, don't insist on having YOUR version as the only one. Zora 22:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Zora. If Aryan is mentioned then the history of mixing of Persians with Arabs should be discussed as well.Heja Helweda 23:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No we all agree except two people, you included. And your reasons are a bit off-the-wall with all due respect. I am contacting an administrator, this article is beginning to be hijacked by to most likely politically motivated users.Zmmz 22:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Please see this post the dispute tag will not be removed until the dispute is solved. I do not wish to sound harsh and if I do I fully apologize, but instead of requesting that the dispute tag be removed, try and resolve this dispute instead. I will repeat this as well, I nor any other admin will take sides, the page was protected as it was, because of constant reverts. The only edits that should be made to an article that is protected, are edits that remove vandalism. A dispute tag is not vandalism. Protecting a page is not "endorsing" the protected version it is protected to stop constant reverts and to allow a cool down period. KnowledgeOfSelf 22:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


User Zora, your reason is you say at the time of Arab invasion there was a huge number of mixing with Arabs, while you do not have one legitimate source to prove that. Furthermore, Persia at one time was invaded by Greeks, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, Russians and others. What happens to them? What does that prove? It already is being mentioned that invasions occured under the Persian Empire article. Furthermore, Arabs were ruled by Persians for over 1200 years, are you going to put a section in the Arab article about mixing with Persians? The truth is any mixing that took place under either invasions is very insignificant, and it was mentioned under other articles already. We all agree except two people, you included. And your reasons are a bit off-the-wall with all due respect. I am contacting an administrator, this article is beginning to be hijacked.Zmmz 22:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You're insisting that the mixing was insignificant -- how do you KNOW this? I'm still trawling for research (population genetics wasn't my academic specialty) but I found this cite which says, "This finding is of interest, because, based on population genetic studies, Iran has one of the most heterogeneous populations in the world ." I wish I could get the original articles, but the dang subscription model shuts off access for those who can't consult a well-endowed university library.
That seems reasonable to me -- invasions from the east and west, conquests to the east and west, naturally there would be population mixing. You seem to be arguing from political presuppositions, not from scientific grounds. Zora 23:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


I wonder if you are speaking to me? I am an administrator, I am 100% neutral with regards to this article, and I have neither special knowledge nor interest in the article. It's very simple, I was asked to intercede, and I did, multiple users violated 3RR, protecting the article was a necessity. If the article had been protected without the dispute tag, it would stay protected without the dispute tag. It goes the same way the article was protected with the dispute tag so the article will stay protected with the dispute tag until this is resolved. Period. Thanks KnowledgeOfSelf 22:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

And, the other user Aucuaman does not like the word Aryan; that is his problem, and we cannot rewrite an article about the history of Persians because some people are unjustly offended, and equate this country`s ancestors with the Nazi regime. Now that is offensive.Zmmz 22:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll repeat it yet again; the issue is not Aucaman preferences, but English usage. The Columbia Encyclopedia (to which you often refer) describes Aryan as a "term formerly used to designate the Indo-European race or language family or its Indo-Iranian subgroup". The American Heritage Dictionary, in its first definition of Aryan, says " 1. Indo-Iranian. No longer in technical use." Jayjg 23:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


By the way, the Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries say, “1 : INDO-EUROPEAN a : of or relating to a hypothetical ethnic type illustrated by or descended from early speakers of Indo-European languages

of or relating to Indo-Iranian or its speakers”. That`s funny, just like Columbia Encyclopedia they never mention the term is outdated here, not even a footnote.Zmmz 23:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're repeating this stuff when it's already been disproven. The Columbia Encyclopedia says it is a term that is no longer used. Britannica says the same thing. So does the American Heritage Dictionary. See below for more detail. Jayjg 00:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


I provided direct quotes and link from them, so how was it disproven?Zmmz 00:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

Let me recapture some the points I've already made. This is only part of it. More to come.

Part I

The inappropriate use of the word "Aryan" needs to stop.

  1. The American Heritage Dictionary clearly and unequivocally states that the word is "No longer in technical use" except for the racist interpretation.
  2. The Columbia Encyclopedia says it's a "term formerly used to designate the Indo-European race or language family or its Indo-Iranian subgroup," again implying that the term is no longer used.
  3. The Britannica Encyclopedia says: "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 Indo-Aryan languages (q.v.)." Note that even if we take this later definition, Indo-Aryans have nothing to do with Iran, the Persian people, or their language, so the way the word is used in this article is still inappropriate.

I've pointed these out before. In return I've gotten only personal attacks and arguments such as this: "I remember the first day of our history lessons. First page started something like this: '..The aryans migrated to..'. Now I remember this perfectly well, from when I was 8." Please see WP:NOR. This by itself is enough to justify the existence of the dispute tag, but I have more stuff to come. Aucaman 23:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If there was such an ethnicity (Aryan), the Greek historians like Xenophon should have mentioned it, but all they talk about is Persian not Aryan. The term isnot historically accurate. Heja Helweda 23:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Even More anti-Iranian actions

Why didn't you quote the whole thing? It was to show that these ideas are not 'nationalist', these ideas are taught everyday and it is part of history, agreed by all academics, taught in all schools in Iran and everywhere else who study the history of Iran.

However - you simply have problem with this, because you are a Iranian-hater who uses Misplaced Pages to promote propoganda and waste people's time. Read the arguments below, and do not waste anymore time, as I posted on your talk page, you have been reported to administrators for vandalism and attacks on countless Iranian articles.


This will be the end of this, no more attacks on Iranian articles. --Kash 00:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This user has very Anti-Iranian Bios and has been reported, please see below for details --Kash 00:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)



Aucaman, here are the reasons they should be used,


1. Columbia Encyclopedia says, “Some of the world’s most ancient settlements have been excavated in the Caspian region and on the Iranian plateau; village life began there c.4000 B.C. The Aryans came about 2000 B.C. and split into two main groups, the Medes and the Persians. The Persian Empire founded (c.550 B.C.) by Cyrus the Great was succeeded, after a period of Greek and Parthian rule, by the Sassanid in the early 3d cent. A.D”, it means nothing. That`s funny, they never mention the term is outdated here, not even a footnote.


2. The Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries say, “1 : INDO-EUROPEAN a : of or relating to a hypothetical ethnic type illustrated by or descended from early speakers of Indo-European languages

of or relating to Indo-Iranian or its speakers”. That`s funny, just like Columbia Encyclopedia they never mention the term is outdated here, not even a footnote.Zmmz 23:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


3. I searched under Iran in the Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries, Columbia Encyclopedia, and Encyclopedia Britannica, they all said the same thing; they never mention the term is outdated here, not even a footnote. And, it is funny because you are zelously trying to tell an ancient race what to call itself. By the way Iran means `Land of Aryans`. Should they change that too, because you are sensitive to the word Aryan? I guess when Encyclopedia Britannica says, “(from Sanskrit arya, “noble”), a people who, in prehistoric times, settled in Iran and northern India. From their language, also called Aryan, the Indo-European languages of South Asia are descended. 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…...”, it means nothing. That`s funny, they never mention the term is outdated here, not even a footnote. But, OK let`s write Indo-European, and in a parenthesis next to it write the term is technically not used anymore. So, OK let`s write Indo-European, and in a parenthesis next to it write the term is technically not used anymore.But, know your limits, and to come up with new names telling a race what to call itself. Zmmz 00:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


4. Encyclopedia Britannica says, “Prehistoric people who settled in Iran and northern India. From their language, also called Aryan, the Indo-European languages of South Asia are descended”?query=aryan&ct=.Zmmz 00:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


5. MSN Encarta says, “Indo-Iranian Languages, group of related languages spoken by more than 450 million people in a region extending from eastern Iran, to Turkey to Bangladesh and.... ”. Zmmz 00:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)



You must have repeated this 6 times already on this page; why don't you just let Aucaman develop his case, rather than continually reposting the same material? Jayjg 00:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


I have every right to present a counter argument.Zmmz 00:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The same counter-argument 6 times? Also, no-one has "rights" on Misplaced Pages. Anyway, why don't you present your counter-argument in your own section? Aucaman was clear that he was developing his argument here. Jayjg 00:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


One person cannot monopolize this article, there has to be two sides to everything, or in this case it is 10 against 3.Zmmz 00:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


1. American Heritage is a fairly reliable source. Why do you think they say the term is no loger in use? Aucaman 00:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
2. If want to quote Columbia, look at their Aryan article. It clearly says the word has been "formerly" used....
3. Britannica takes the time to explain that the term was restrictively used to mean Indo-Iranian in the 19th century and that it is only used today to refer to Indo-Aryans.
Aucaman 00:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Aucaman but you only posted part of the Britannica article, so I had to post the first part written about Iran. Even so, they NEVER mention the term is ``outdated``. The link is there for everyone to see. Zmmz 00:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Aucaman in the refrences I provided not ONE of them say it is no longer in use, not even a footnote. People can check for themselves. You cannot pick and choose your words. Maybe under Nazi Aryans they say it, but not under Iran. Zmmz 00:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman we even said, OK let`s write Indo-European, and in a parenthesis next to it write the term is technically not used anymore. But, know your limits, and to come up with new names telling a race what to call itself.Zmmz 00:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

END

These should have answered this illogic man called Aucaman, so hopefully even if he is not blocked and banned for his attacks, these arguments will not rise again. --Kash 00:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Article on ethnic variety

Interesting map, based on genetic analysis: . Article is interesting too, if hard reading. Confirms findings of genetic mixing in Central Asia. Zora 00:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, even more interesting. Says that M-17 gene associated with Kurgan culture, spread of Indo-European languages, Iranians in the west of Iran are closer to Middle Eastern norm, low frequency of M-17 gene. Thus adopting language without as much intermarriage as one would expect -- or later admixture? Population profile for eastern Iran very different, suggests that central desert was a barrier to population exchange. Good idea to read Cavalli-Sforza book, if I can get hold of it ... Zora 00:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that Western Iranian peoples generally tend to be distinct from Eastern Iranians. Some people here, however, are trying to introduce this word "Aryan" as a synonym for an "Iranian race" stretching from Tajikistan (see the Tajik people article) all the way to Turkey (see Kurdish people). This is totally wrong as the term Iranian peoples (whose contents are also highly disputable) is simply a linguistic categorization, not a racial one. Aucaman 00:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Please keep your original research out of wikipedia, it does not belong here. Keep your propoganda out. --Kash 00:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You are drowning this talk page with numerous repeatitive allegations, without providing valid sources, like any of the major encyclopedias or dictionaries.Zmmz 00:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

An article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States is hardly an invalid source. Nor original research. Preferring a dictionary to an article on population genetics is bizarre reasoning, to say the least. Zora 01:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Estimation of mixed populations

As I pointed out before, in 8th century there were 250,000 Arabs living only in Khorasan region. Quarter of a million may seem like a small number nowadays, but in that period when the whole population of Iran was just a few million, it was a huge influx of people. Population of the world in 700 A.D. was just around 270 million (see the chart). The percentage of Persian population of Iran(almost 34.68 million ) to the world's population now (6.446 billion) is 34.68/6446= 0.00538008. So around 700 A.D., the Persian population of Middle East should have been around 0.00538008*270=1.453 million. So while there were 1.45 million people living in all of Persia, there were 250,000 Arabs' living only in Khorasan. That's a big chunk of the population. and this is without counting other Arabs living in other regions of Iran, like Qom, Qazvin, Hamadan. So the percentage of Arabs in that period would have been much higher than 250,000. This is something close to 15%-20% of the population of Persians. Heja Helweda 00:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

While in general I would agree that was much intermarriage with Arabs, I must point out that any population estimates taken from old chronicles are suspect. Wild guesses in big round numbers that mean "many many". Zora 00:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
These are original research and do not belong to Misplaced Pages --Kash 00:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Your callous disregard for valid refrence offering and biased allegations have turned this discussion page into a mess. Because of your irresponsible actions you are turning away any legitimate editor that has something productive to offer. You do so without providing valid sources, like any of the major encyclopedias or dictionaries.Zmmz 00:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman and his Anti-Iranian actions

This user has been reported to administrators, do not follow his propoganda and attacks on Iranian articles until it is checked. He removes vandalism reports on his talk page because he is scared that administrators are going to find out about his countless attacks and vandalisms. --Kash 00:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Compromise?

I think that instead of getting mad at Aucaman and calling him "anti-Iranian", despite what you all feel, that we move on towards a compromise between the two parties. We've already acknowledged what the disputes are, right?

Aucaman feels:

  • That the article should broaden the definition of Persians to include Persians outside of Iran.
  • And that the use of the word Aryan is inappropriate and should cease.

The Iranian editors feel:

  • That Aucaman is simply pushing his POV and going against consensus.
  • The term Aryan is fine here.

Did I leave anything out? Am I correct here? Let's see how we can resolve this:

First off, can't we just say something like the "Indo-Iranians (also refered to as Aryans)" so all editors are are happy? The term Aryan, as the article says, has many meanings. This has nothing to do with the Nazi "master race". It's a term that I'm guessing is used more by Middle Eastern scholars than Western scholars, right? Am I wrong?

Also, I recall seeing a picture of some man celebrating Norouz, and the caption said, "Persian man in Afghanistan". Don't Tajiks often see themselves to Persians in the same way that Swiss Germans see themselves to the Germans of Germany? I think that this definition should not be simply confined to Persians living in Iran.

Comments? --Khoikhoi 01:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention. Aucaman has many issues with everything Iranian, but yes lets focus on these points..
Iranians use the term Aryan, as you pointed out not for racism, but it has been used by Iranians throughout history from the first Iranian prophet, Zoroaster est. 7000-500BC, he claimed of aryan heritage, and living in Aryan varja (Land of Aryans), to the last Iranian king who called himself Aryamehr Mohammad Reza Shah died 1980. There is no reason why we should remove this from the article, just because some fascist leader has used it for his own propoganda. I am sure all Iranians will be happy with your suggestion on the matter.
About the second point also, yes Iranian people share culture (traditions, dresses, food, music, celebrations, etc etc) as well as language. Aucaman seems to have a problem with this also! --Kash 01:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so you agree with my suggestions? I don't think the word Aryan should be entirely removed as it is an Iranian term, but I do think that it should be in parentheses while the main word should be Indo-Iranian. Another example of something similarly controversial is the swastika. Although it has been made a taboo to write it in the West because of its Nazi connotations, it is a sacred symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. It has a very different meaning in the East.
Also, should we try to broaden the definition of Persians as Aucaman suggested? I have no problem with this. --Khoikhoi 01:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The article as it is now mentions every single Iranian ethnic group and it has already been broadened. In regards to the word Aryan, I am copying and pasting the compromise that has been suggested by many to Aucaman many times. It says, OK let`s write Indo-European, and in a parenthesis next to it write the term is technically not used anymore. But, know your limits, and to come up with new names telling a race what to call itself.Zmmz 01:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This article obviously doesn't broaden the definition because it starts out by saing, "The Persians of Iran", not the "The Persians the Middle East" or something like that. I didn't say Indo-European, I said "Indo-Iranian". So you say that Aryan is technically not used anymore? Other people on this talk page disagree. What new names did I try to come up with? --Khoikhoi 01:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I personally agree with your first suggestion, for the second suggestion I think Aucaman is playing with the words, I personally do not like the current definition:
"The Persians of Iran are an ethnic group identified by a sense of sharing a common Iranian (Persian culture), which is of Indo-European lineage and having a Persian (a branch of Indo-European languages)."
I hope other definitions will be proposed, I do agree that the definition should be broad, but I am not sure Persians outside Iran are necessarily identified by their culture? --Kash 01:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the other user, the suggestion was, “Zora, your reason is you say at the time of Arab invasion there was a huge number of mixing with Arabs, while you do not have one legitimate source to prove that. Furthermore, Persia at one time was invaded by Greeks, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, Russians and others. What happens to them? What does that prove? It already is being mentioned that invasions occured under the Persian Empire article. Furthermore, Arabs were ruled by Persians for over 1200 years, are you going to put a section in the Arab article about mixing with Persians? The truth is any mixing that took place under either invasions is very insignificant, and it was mentioned under other articles already”.

Does anyone agree on this?Zmmz 01:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out actually, these other problems seem to be about:
1- We should use Aryan (Indo-European)
2- No mention of these arab-mixings which the 'anti-iranian' wikipedians are suggesting. There has been a little mixing ofcourse, but this has not been significant, and will not be useful to be included in the article. In the other articles there is enough information about ethnics of Iran, e.g. Iranian people and Ethnic minorities of Iran --Kash 01:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The second one I believe is what User:Heja helweda has been adding. I wasn't aware that this was part of the main dispute. Is it? I thought the whole thing was the Iranian editors and Aucaman. --Khoikhoi 02:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I think there should be a few lines showing the mixing of Persian people with other groups. No ethnic group in the world is racially pure. However extensive emphasis on the word Aryan in the article gives the wrong impression that Persians have remained untouched and pure during the last 3000 years.Heja Helweda 02:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
As I said before, it's unrelated to the Nazi word. --Khoikhoi 02:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Aryan from Encyclopaedia Britannica -----> It is now used in linguistics only in the sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages (q.v.) .Heja Helweda 04:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No Khoikhoi that was a quote from before directed towards Aucuaman. All the dictionaries and encyclopedias mention the word Aryan. We should use it, and in parenthesis use Indo-Iranian, or from a Indo-European lineage. The language is a branch of Indo-European languages. As far as broadning goes, we did mention that Persians are in Central Asia, and the Middle-East.Zmmz 01:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this. Let's see what Aucuaman thinks. --Khoikhoi 02:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

We have already been through this with Aucuaman, but boy I`m sure glad we have an admint here now, so thanks.Zmmz 02:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I hope that he agrees with the compromise. Thanks, but I'm not an admin. ;) --Khoikhoi 02:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Update

So far the discussions have not been helpful. Part of the reason the term "Aryan" is no longer used in academic writings is that it is highly ambiguous and can be misinterpreted (exactly what the users here are doing). The other reason is that, almost always, a substitute term can be found that better replaces the word "Aryan". In this context, the word "Iranian" is a much more suitable term (for these people were just Iranians, not any other Indo-Iranian group). Why use the word Aryan? Aucaman 02:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but although it is no longer used in academic writings, it is still used by Iranians themselves. I think that this should be mentioned. How are people going to mix it up with the Nazi word if we have something like "Iranians (also refered to as Aryans, which is unrelated to the Nazi term)". Why use the word Aryan? Because it's still a widely-used term by Iranians, and there's no use censoring out words still in use. Did you see my example with the swastika? --Khoikhoi 02:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but in Persian the term is only used as a race (Persian: "nejad-e ariayee" meaning the "Aryan race"), not to refer to the Indo-Iranian linguisitc group. The ancient Persians had no conception of an Indo-Iranian linguistic group and only used Aryan to refer to their race. This is exactly my point - that the term has a lot of meanings and is highly ambiguous. You expect the reader to know all this? Again, why not just use "Iranian"? Go in there and read the paragraph using the word "Iranian" instead of "Aryan". It is not ambiguous and it is more accurate. Aucaman 03:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
This definitely contradicts the Britannica and Misplaced Pages articles on Aryan, in which it refers to an ancient culture, which is not the same as a race. Iranians like to use the term I guess because it is an ancient term from their own language. --Khoikhoi 03:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what is contradicting what? I'm saying the way the word is used in Persian has nothing to do with Persians. The Aryan article is talking about Proto-Indo-Iranians. They are not the same as Persians. Aucaman 03:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Ooops, I see you're talking about in the Persian language. But the thing is, both of the times in this article it is refering to the Indo-Iranians. The first mention "land of Aryans" is, because it's talking about ancient times, which is when the word Iran emerged. The second mention obviously is because it says it clearly. Do you support the idea that we have Aryan in parentheses but say something in those parentheses that it can also refer to a race? --Khoikhoi 03:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
You want to say that Aryan can refer to race???? This is exactly the Nazi definition!!! That the word refers to a race and since it's been used since ancient times then all Indo-Europeans are of the same race. I'm telling you, any mention of the this word is going to be confusing. I've give you 20 different reasons why the usage of the word is confusing/inappropriate, but I still haven't heard one single reason why the word Iranian cannot be substituted. Saying the word Aryan is in Persian doesn't cut it because it's is used in the different context and has a diff meaning. This is the last thing I'm going to say before I'm heard and my concerns are addressed. Everyone here needs to read the stuff I've been saying so far. Aucaman 03:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, please look-up Aryan in dictionaries and encyclopedias, or follow the above links. Voice your opinion as a moderator and let`s end this.Zmmz 02:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Britannica says:
Aryan (from Sanskrit arya, “noble”), a people who, in prehistoric times, settled in Iran and northern India. From their language, also called Aryan, the Indo-European languages of South Asia are descended. 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…
The term is used twice in this (Misplaced Pages) article. I agree with the validity of the second mention that says "Aryan (Indo-Iranian) tribes", but not the first mention, which says, "Iran (Persian: land of the Aryans)", which is not necessary. There's already an etymology section in the Iran article. How about we zap the first mention and change the second? --Khoikhoi 03:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean zap the first, which one?Zmmz 03:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the part where is says, "Land of the Aryans". Most articles are just going to say, "Iran". --Khoikhoi 03:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but, it is necessary to mention the meaning of Iran since it ties together all the mentions about Aryans. Many readers do not bother to look under etymology. At any rate, at least we agree on most things but the other user does not. Can we get an admin involved through you Khoikhoi, since coming from you it may be more credible?Zmmz 03:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I was thinking of this: (Lit: Land of the Aryans ). What do you think? I don't need to be rude, but what do you need an admin for? --Khoikhoi 03:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Let me say this again, it's a contradictory statement to say that the term "Aryan is no longer in technical use" when all authoritative sources such Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Iranica and Columbia Encyclopedia still use it in relation to articles regarding Iran and Persians. When all authoritative sources still use the term then wikipedia should be no exception -- --ManiF 03:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, (Lit: Land of the Aryans ) would not work, but (Lit: Land of the Aryans) would. We also have to keep Aryan as lineage and in parenthesis write . I cannot believe we are negotiating about a country`s heritage. Zmmz 03:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe it either, but we gotta come up with some sort of compromise. ;) Now Aucaman, you don't want the term to be used at all in this article. Iranian editors, you want it to be used. How is having Aryan in parenthesis not a compromise? The term Aryan is definitely used in Misplaced Pages in this context. There's even an Indo-Aryans artice. --Khoikhoi 03:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but the Indo-Aryans have nothing to do with Iranians. They're a whole different group. You're just lining up the different reasons why the word "Aryan" can be confusing. That's exactly why it's usage has been dropped!!! See the section on Indo-Aryan peoples for who the Indo-Aryans are/were. Aucaman 03:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
But the Indo-Iranians article says:
The term Indo-Iranian includes all speakers of the Indo-Iranian languages, i.e., Indo-Aryans, Iranians and the speakers of the Nuristani languages. The historic term for these cultures is Aryan.
How do the Indo-Aryans and Iranian have nothing to do with each other if the first article of this paragraph clearly says that they are both speakers of the Indo-Iranian languages and are both descendents of the Indo-Iranians?
Besides all this, the Iranian editors want to use the term Aryan in the article. You don't. How do you expect we're to come to a compromise if you're being so inflexable about this? How do you suggest we resolve the situation? I don't mean to be rude to you, but it's just frustrating that you're not willing to work things out. --Khoikhoi 03:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi we must use Aryan and in parenthesis Indo-Aryans or Indo-Iranian, otherwise, we are insulting all Persians, trust me. Please explain all of this to an admin, this is going on for too long.Zmmz 03:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand this. That's why I'm trying to explain it to Aucaman. Actually, I think we're on the verge of coming to a conclusion. --Khoikhoi 03:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
How about we just don't use Aryan? That way we're not insulting anyone. Aucaman 03:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, this obviously isn't going to happen because the Iranian editors use the term. Is there anything else that you suggest? --Khoikhoi 03:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you involve an admin? Your word is more credible Khoikhoi.Zmmz 03:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you need an admin for? --Khoikhoi 03:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Because user Aucaman does not compromise, and if he does, history shows he will go back to sneaky vandalism.Zmmz 03:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll notify an admin if he does this, but let's see if he came come up with any suggestions for compromise first. --Khoikhoi 03:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
My concerns are not being addressed. Every other comment you type is a personal attack. Aucaman 03:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you please repeat your concerns? Thanks. --Khoikhoi 04:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
No, instead of addressing my concerns people have been copy-pasting old articles and creating new section to cover them up. Aucaman 04:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Fine, forget the archiving then. What are your concerns? --04:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zmmz. The term Aryan must be used in the article. I also like to point out that I find it very ironic that Aucaman was just lecturing me about how I should assume good faith on Wiki, yet he himself assumes that we are all racists and anti-Semites just because we want to use the term "Aryan" in this article:


"Instead of discussing obvious stuff why don't come down to the Persian people article where a lot of users are trying to add racist, sometimes anti-Semitic propaganda into the article. Aucaman 07:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)"


If this is not hypocrisy then what is ? --ManiF 03:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't mock Aucaman's signature guys. --Khoikhoi 04:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Wow, I cannot believe Aucaman actually said these. We have got to take care of this Khoikhoi, it`ll never stop otherwise.Zmmz 04:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


I see! so this is his problem with the word Aryan. It is because it sounds racist to him. this comment by Aucaman was very very wrong I cant believe he actually said that. we are racist? only becasue we want to mention the term that was used by our ancestors and is still very much used in our country? a term that was thought to us by our parents? a term that gave birth to the very name of our country? my god!

Gol 04:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Administrator

I've taken a look at Jayjg's contributions, and from what I've seen, he shares the same political, religious and ethnic interests, and quite possibly the same background, as Aucaman. I welcome Jayjg's opinions and contributions to this discussion as a user, but I think it would be better if the resolution of this conflict was left to other neutral administrations, who are neither sympathetic, nor empathetic to any of the parties involved in the matter. There's a basic conflict of interests here. --ManiF 02:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I second that.Zmmz 02:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but I'm trying my best to help resolve this conflict (see the section above). You don't really need to be an admin to do that. The only difference between normal users and admins is that they have special privileges like the ability to block other users and protect pages. --Khoikhoi 02:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, clearly Jayjg is acting in the capacity of a moderator with the power to direct debate, grant the right to speak. And I don't think that's appropriate, given my explanation above. --ManiF 02:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

As you can see the other side constantly tries to divert attention from the important issues by engaging in personal attacks, creating new sections with irrelevant arguments, and copy-pasting the same arguments over and over. Also note that it is a Misplaced Pages guideline to assume good faith. Aucaman 02:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


No, ManiF is right, neutrality is of paramount importance. At least we have Khoikhoi here, so that`s a good thing. Get to the point Aucaman please, you are pointing fingers too.Zmmz 02:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


This is not a personal attack at all. It's just an observation that Jayjg and Aucaman obviously share a commonalty of interests and views. A mediator should be impartial toward all parties. --ManiF 03:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

the term Aryan

Aside from all the sources that were mentioned here by both groups, I just wanted to mention that the idea that the word “Aryan” is not in use anymore is not true. It is very much in use in Iran even in post revolutionary Iran. Iranians being of Aryan origin is thought in school to all the kids which is why it is hard for any of us to accept that this term is out of use since we have been using it all our lives. It was just last week that Iranian newspaper referred to Iranian soccer players as “the Aryan boys”

As the result I completely disagree with removing the word Aryan. It can be mentioned in parentheses that what we mean is Indo Iranian or Indo European, which ever is more acceptable, and also a link to the page named “Aryan” so that the reader would know what is the real definition of Aryan but to remove it means removing the name that Iranian people very strongly identify with and consider it to be their race.

some people are afraid that it might sound racist. This is a childish complain. People are here to learn. The real meaning of the word Aryan was never meant to be racist and it has nothing to do with Hitler; readers should learn that. Instead of removing the term lets teach them that its real meaning was not at all about racism.

Gol 04:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of stuff taught in the books in Iran that are not true. (They say that Iran is a true democracy and that United States is a dictatorship ran by Zionists.... You wanna go ahead and add these information into the respective articles?). A lot of stuff were written during the Pahlavi regime to create a sense of nationalism to counterbalance the Mullah's religious beliefs. Some of them still remain today. It doesn't mean they're true. There are also a lot of Iranians (such as myself) who don't blindly follow nationalistic race origin theories. I've been accused of being "anti-Iranian" here, but I think those self-appointed representatives of Iranians are as anti-Iranian as one can be. Bad news for the real anti-Iranians: most Iranians today don't subscribe to racist theories imposed on them by outsiders. (Most of these theories about the origins the origins of Iranians were brought to Iran by Iranian scholars studying in Germany or German scholars visiting Iran.)Aucaman 04:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Don’t change the subject please. You know what I meant. No just because something is thought in school it does not mean it is right but I was not talking about that. The comment was meant to stress that the word Aryan is sitll used in Iran and it is not out of date at least not in Iran.

Second: there is nothing racist about the word Aryan at least not when it is used by Iranians, to them it has nothing to do with Hitler and please bring a legitimate proof before accusing our historians of being influenced by Germans.

Third: the world Aryan was used by ancient kings of Iran, you think they were influenced by Hitler?

And just for your information I went to school in post revolutionary Iran when Persian identity was suppressed and Islamic identity was glorified but sill the term Aryan was thought in schools. I strongly believe that if it was just an invention of Pahlavi government without any historical background then the mullahs would remove it.

Gol 05:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

OK let's forget about the school thing. You brought it up. The new regime has kept the word in the texts because it supports its anti-Israeli agenda. Why do you think Hitler liked the term? And how do you know that the word was used by the ancient kings of Iran? Where do you think that information is coming from? Germans were in charge of the archeological sites of Iran. People didn't know about the term until 19th century the earliest. Before that there were no systematic study of the ancient texts. These texts were then studied by Iranian scholars in the West and glorified as part of a nationalist campaign. As challenge, show me any example of the term being used by Iranians between the 10th century and 19th century. If the use is "widespread" among Persians you should be able to find something, no? The term stopped being used by Iranians after Islam and was re-introduced into the language in a racist-nationist manner. Doesn't belong to Misplaced Pages. Aucaman 05:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Germans were not the only people studying ancient Iran. In fact it was started by the British and most of those ancient writings were translated by the British scholars not Germans. Are you honestly arguing that the scholars LIED about the context of the ancient text? Many many scholars of different background and nationality have studies those texts. never heard anyone express any doubt about the legitimacy.

You have no proof that anti Israel agenda was the reason that this term was kept in schools. This is the first time I am hearing this. Aryan is not used as a racist term in Iran or an anti Semitic one. Have you ever heard Khomeini or Ahmadinejad or anybody else use that term in order to justify the animosity toward Israel? Islam is the reason behind Iran's anger toward israel not Aryan identity. Arabs are also of Semite origin and post revolutionary Iran constantly glorifies many Arab figures such as Hussein, Ali, and Muhammad etc…

It is only your assumption.


Gol 05:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Aryan in Encyclopaedia Britannica

(from Sanskrit arya, noble), a people who, in prehistoric times, settled in Iran and northern India. From their language, also called Aryan, the Indo-European languages of South Asia are descended. 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 Indo-Aryan languages (q.v.) . Heja Helweda 04:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Indo-European is not an ethnicity. This term and Indo-Aryan should be used only for the language classification.Heja Helweda 04:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


I searched under , and invite everyone to check out the links. The results are; in the Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries, Columbia Encyclopedia, and Encyclopedia Britannica, they all said the same thing; they never mention the term is outdated here, not even a footnote. By the way Iran means `Land of Aryans`. Should they change that too, because you are sensitive to the word Aryan? Under Aryan, Encyclopedia Britannica says, “(from Sanskrit arya, “noble”), a people who, in prehistoric times, settled in Iran and northern India. From their language, also called Aryan, the Indo-European languages of South Asia are descended. 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…...”. But, know your limits, and to come up with new names telling a race what to call itself.Zmmz 04:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No, Iran means "land of Aryans" but the word Aryan here means "noble people". It has nothing to do with your interpretation of Aryan meaning Indo-Iranian. Two different things. I have no problem keeping the former one. Aucaman 04:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
You're trying to point to valid interpretations of the word "Aryan" to somehow justify its racist interpretation. Not going to work. Aucaman 04:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


The original word Aryan is from Iran, and it still represents those people. Later the Aryan invasion theory was adapted by the Nazis. This is the first time that I have heard from you yourself that states that this article is ``racist``. First of all that is an insult to an entire race and country to equate them to Nazi, Germany. Second of all it shows how biased your complaints are. So much for assuming good faith. Others tried to warned me, but I said I feel bad, let`s hear his voice as well. At this point, you honestly have no buisiness being here. Zmmz 05:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

A Mistake

in the second paragrah it says Iran (Persian: land of Aryans).

This is wrong since Persia does not mean land of Aryans . Iran does. please remove that.

thank you

Gol 05:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It's saying that "Iran" in the Persian language means "land of Aryans". --Khoikhoi 05:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Yeah I wrote the entire intro Gol. It means in Persian, the language. Also, we should thank Khoikhoi for all of his hard work. An admin is now getting involved.Zmmz 05:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Oh I see

sorry it was my mistake. thank you for clarifying it. Zmmz and Khoikhoi

Gol 05:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The Intro

Once you agree with removing the second instance of the word "Aryan" we can go ahead and talk about the intro and other stuff. I still have to explain why the introductory paragraphs are not factually accurate. But one thing at a time. Since you guys are so "pro-Iranian" I don't see why you're opposing substituting the word "Iranian" for "Aryan". Aucaman 05:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Your disgusting and malicious comments relating Iranians to Nazi Germany is no longer valid, nor welcomed here. Now that it is clear what your problem is, there will be zero compromise with you. Hopefully, soon, an admin will get involved, and you will be banned from reverting this article for good.Zmmz 05:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)



Just read his answer to my comment above. He questions the legitimacy of the ancient Iranian text by saying that they were studied by German scholars!! While in fact they were Initially studied by British scholars and since that time those sites were studies by countless number of scholars from all over the world.

He thinks the word Aryan is used in Iran today because of government animosity toward Israel!!!

at first although I disagreed with him, I consider him logical and his argument was such as well. Not any more.

Just read his comments.

Gol 06:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


The British Museum has archeological evidence in the form of Cuneiform tablets dating back to 2500 years ago that says, “I am Darius, the Aryan King of the Iran”. Please do not reply to any comments made by Aucaman from now on. He and his friend are flooding this page with rhetoric. This matter has to be solved by an admin from now on. Zmmz 06:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point!!!

You have repeatedly and intentionally ignore all the points I'm making. He said “I am Darius, the Aryan King of the Iran”, but "Aryan" meant "noble" - not Indo-Iranian. You're trying to argue that Aryan means Indo-Iranian! The word Aryan that he used had a totally different meaning. They way you're using it (meaning Indo-Iranian or Indo-European) is no longer acceptable. I've no problem if you say Iran means land of Aryans, where Aryan means "noble people". You're trying to argue that Aryan means Indo-Iranian, but the word "Indo-Iranian" doesn't even exist in the Persian language. Aucaman 14:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

In all these books :
  • The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 1 pp.738
  • The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 2 pp.3,45,46,47,48,53,55,56,127,.......
  • The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 3 pp. 747,825,866,.....
  • The Seven Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World: The Seventh Monarchy: History of the :Sassanian or New Persian Empire pp. 11,12
  • Ruzgaran : tarikh-i Iran az aghz ta saqut saltnat Pahlvi pp. 37,38,39
Aryan comes with Indo-Iranian and means the same. Answer me now whats your problem ? -- ::Amir85 14:23, Thursday 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the use of the word meaning "Indo-Iranian" is no longer in technical use and I've given enough evidence to support this. Your sources are outdated and not significant. You're just wasting my time. Aucaman 14:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Finish this nonsense

First of all, Aucaman do not attacck personally and label people as your actions may perceived by some as pro-turkish, pro-Kurdish or anti-Iranian and obviously you don't have many books about Iranian history like your opposing editors, and to Iranian editors, if you want to prove or back your words bring some credible source with precise footnotes, As for the word "Aryan" in the following books that I've reading so far it has been clearly declared that Persians are descendants of Aryan tribes and speak an Aryan language :

  • The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 1 pp.738
  • The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 2 pp.3,45,46,47,48,53,55,56,127,.......
  • The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 3 pp. 747,825,866,.....
  • The Seven Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World: The Seventh Monarchy: History of the Sassanian or New Persian Empire pp. 11,12
  • Ruzgaran : tarikh-i Iran az aghz ta saqut saltnat Pahlvi pp. 37,38,39

You want more books ? -- Amir85 6:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me add one..

"The primitive Aryan family at some very remote period became divided into two branches, and radiated from their Central Asian home in two directions. The hindo branch migrated to the south in to the Punjab and Hindustan; The Iranian westwards, in to Bactria and Persia; while other successive waves of Aryan migration in prehistoric times rolled still further westwards over Europe, obliterating all but a few traces of aboriginal population."

This is under Aryan-Race division, in the book 'A modern Zoroastrian', published in London, by Cambridge professor S. Laing. (Western academic!)

That's more than 100 years old! It was published in 1890! Academics don't talk like that any longer. They talk about glottochronology and mitochondrial DNA. Zora 11:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The book I mentioned was to show that this research was highly academic before the Nazi germany, by non-german and non-Iranian scholars. For today's studies, check the books mentioned above. --Kash 12:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Infact, let me add that academics do still talk about it like that, it is in the current National Curriculum of Iran, as it has always been, and it is described in exactly the same way. This is also the case with everywhere in the world where the origins of Iranian people have been studied. Some scientists have recently carried out genetic studies, and they have found various links between different 'central asian' people, as you mentioned it, but there is no clear evidence against this theory and scholars all around the world accept that the origins of Iran were these so called 'Aryan' and Indo-european people. The only dispute on this page seems to be that calling the indo-europeans Aryan, which we have clearly provided sources for. The only evidence against using this term is that apparently one or two dictionaries say it is not in use anymore. These should not stop this article from describing the generally accepted theory all around the world, and usage of the term Aryan, as Iranians themselves use this term to describe their origins. --Kash 13:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to clarify that this is not only one or two dictionaries which argue against the term Aryan. The Aryan theory has already been old and disputed and faces hard criticisms. .
Diyako Talk + 13:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


I dont get whats going on right now ? -- Amir85 12:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)