Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:56, 19 January 2006

Persian Women

I think the description of Persian women in the "Persian Women" section is a little inappropriate. Are you trying to sell something here? Perhaps some word other than "Oriental" can be used to describe them.

Also, I don't think the word "garden" is of Persian origins. Perhaps you're refering to the word "paradise"?

I agree with the first user. This an encyclopedia, not an infomercial. I will edit it. --SeanMcG 21:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"Tajiks of Tajikistan are by no means Persians. They do not stem from the ancient Persian tribes who settles in South Western Iran. They are however Iranians. They are descendants of the ancient Iranian tribe of Soghdians. Tajiks and Persians are NOT synonymous.The inconsistency in the article should be rectified, I keep trying to do so, but others keep deleting it and putting it to its former(incorrect) state.

"A number of other ethnic groups are represented in Iran, including the non-Persian Aryan group, the Gilaki; the Turkish-descended Azerbaijanis Turkmens and Kurds; and a few Arabs and other minorities."

I don't think the Kurds are Turkish-descended.

Persia's King Cyrus made a prclamation,saying "May Allah be with those of Israel."and; "Let them go to Jerusalem,they who are willing and let them build a house for their lord."

OK, I'm not going to revert this yet again, but shouldn't it really redirect to Persian, and THAT article have this information in it? -- Zoe

I re-created this article so it's about the Persians as an ethnicity. I think there are precidents for the title (See Germans, for example). I don't know anything about Persian ethnic culture or anything like that. I just thought it should be created. Other ethnic groups get articles. But people are going to have to do a lot of expanding on this one. Fishal 21:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Tajiks" (a name that may have originated from the Chinese word "Ta-Hia", meaning "Bactrian") are ethnic Iranians of Central-Asia. They are not only descendants of local East-Iranian peoples (Sogdians, Bactrians, etc), but also of West-Iranian Persians. Many Persians settled in Central-Asia, especially after the Arabic conquest (many others fled to China or India - modern Parsis). That's why Tajiks today speak Persian, and not Bactrian or Sogdian (where else other Iranian peoples, such as Pashtuns or Kurds, kept their original languages). The modern Persian language originated in Central-Asia and conquered West-Iran much later. Its vocabulary is to a great extend East-Iranian, while the grammar is still West-Iranian. Until the Turkic and Russian conquests of Central-Asia, the term "Tajik" was unknown to the people. Most of the Tajik schollars and personalities of the past (Ferdousi, Khayyam, Avicenna, Attar, Rumi, and so on) called themselvs "Persian" and are still known as Persians. Besides that, the Tajiks themselvs trace their roots back to the Persian Samanid empire. The Samanids were ethnic Persians from Central-Asia. -213.39.184.174 17:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The Persian-Tajik divide

I made some edits to clean-up the confusing beginning of this article before signing in. AT any rate, interesting debate, but the main point here is that the Tajiks and Persians have differences including geography, religion, and dialect differences not unlike that of Austrian German and the German spoken in northern Germany. So while it is important to note their common origins (as Iranian people), language alone does not define people. The Hazara are a Turkic-Mongol people who adopted the Persian language (their dialect being Hazaragi and even in Iran, the language spread over time as a result of empire and not simply because everyone came from the province of Fars which is not the case. The Tajiks are definitely part Persian from Iran, but not entirely AND their differences and similarities can all be noted. This can become quite confusing since Afghanistan and portions of Central Asia have been under the rule of Persian based empires that it has become difficult to ascertain who is and isn't "Persian." The Persians of Iran have lived a different existence to some degree, while the Tajiks have interacted with other groups around them such as the Uzbeks and Pashtuns. Of course, of all the groups east of Iran, the Tajiks are obviously the closest cousins, with the exception of the Farsiwan. Tajik is a category of itself and is explained in numerous articles. Surely it's not a problem if the Persians of Iran get an article of their own? Tombseye 02:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree. It is important to mention that Tajiks and Persians are one people. The word Tajik itself is old-Turkish and means Persian, similar to the Arabic word Ajam. There is no difference between Tajiks and Persians. The only difference is their confession and their dialect - but neither religion nor a specific dialect define a people. The difference between Hamburg-German and Cologne-German is much much bigger then between Dushanbe-Persian and Tehran-Persian, yet, noone differenciates between Hamburg-Germans and Cologne-Germans. Besides that, the written language of Iran, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan is 100% identical. The Persians/Tajiks share a common history, culture, language, and even heritage. Non eof the peoples in Central-Asia and Middle East is "pure". They all have mixed with different peoples and tribes. You also make a mistake by allging that Farsiwan (which simply means Persian-speaking) and Tajiks are different. Pashtuns call all Persian-speaking peoples in Afghanistan Farsiwan - including Hazaras and others. On the other hand, there are many Tajiks in Balkh and Kabul who call themselvs farsi or Farsiwan. I will change the article and correct the mistakes in it. -80.171.61.53 17:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• • What makes them "one people" anyway? Are the Austrians and Germans one people even though even they themselves distinguish between themselves? It doesn't matter what the terms mean and I already know what they mean. The point is that the Persians as we know them today are a distinct group and share certain characteristics and geography. Hell why even have the term Tajik then? Get rid of that article then and then change the censuses of Afghanistan and Tajikistan too. Here's the thing, bottom-line, the Persians of Iran differentiate themselves from the Tajiks of the east and sometimes religion is the main reason. At this rate we might as well say that the Kurds are Persians because they are Iranian peoples. Alphabets don't mean anything here. They share a closely linked history and often it is the same and other times it is not. Hell even the Iranians of Iran don't always share a common history. The Farsiwan are Shia and the Tajiks are not. I have made no mistake. You're injecting your point of view rather than looking at the differences that make people different. We could even call the Tajiks the Persians of the east and that would make some sense at the very least. The Pashtuns get a lot of things wrong, including thinking that they might be descended from Hebrews while DNA testing and history contradict that belief. And why not include the Hazaras? Based upon looks? There are Persians with some Turkic-Mongol ancestry too, so why not all of them together at this point? I'm going to check the changes and revert it if it goes into POV. Tombseye 23:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • None of your points makes ANY sense. You confuse political borders with heritage, language with dialects, and so on. To start with: Germans and Austrians are ONE people. "Austria" is just the English name for the correct German word "Österreich" which simply means "Eastern Empire". Until the late 40's, Austria was officially called "Deutsch-Österreich" ("German Eastern Empire"). And until today, Turks call Austria "Nimsâ" (Arabic for Germany) while they call Germany "Almânija" (taken from French). For more information, see the German Misplaced Pages: Deutsche (Volk). In fact, Germans and Austrians are one people devided by political borders. As you may know, even Adolf Hitler was Austrian. The same goes to Mozart. Now back to Persians and Tajiks. "Tajik" is a Turkish word which was more or less unknown to the people in Central-Asia until the Russian conquest. After conquering Central-Asia, the Russians initially created certain different groups ... it was part of their "devide and conquer" strategy. In Afghanistan, the word was introduced by the king ind the easrly 20th century. Noone in Afghanistan actually calls himself "Tajik" ... usually, everyone who speaks Persian and does not look like a Hazara is considered a "Tajik". The word was introduced by the king to allienate the Persians of Afghanistan from those in Iran; Pan-Iranism and Persian nationalism is still a big threat for Afghanistan where ethnic conflics are a plague for the nation since its foundation. There is absolutely no difference between "Tajiks" and "Persians": same language, same history, same heritage, same national heroes, same national epic, same national poets, etc etc etc. Just like the Asutrians and Germans, they are ONE PEOPLE devided by different political borders that were created by the British and by the Russians during the era of European colonialism. The only thing that is different is their Islamic confession: Iranian Persians are mostly Shia Muslims with some Sunni, Bahai and Zoroastrian minorities. Tajiks are mostly Hanafi Sunnis with significant Imam and Ismaili communities in Badakhshan, Samarqand, and Herat. But religion does not define a people. Neither does the dialect. For a German from Hamburg or Berlin, it is much easier to understand an Asutrian from Vienna than to understand a German from Koblenz or from Stuttgart. Although Stuttrat is in Germany, it is almost impossible to understand a native speaker ... the people of Stuttgard have even their own Misplaced Pages: Alemannisch. Yet, you would NEVER say that "Mercedes-Benz ist not German but Alemannish" ... Your "Kurd example" does not make sense, since Kurds speak a totally different language. The difference between Kurdish and Persian is like the difference between Dutch and English. The difference between "Tajiki" and "Parsi" is like the difference between "British English" and "American English". I am not saying that the article "Tajiks" should be removed ... but one should mention that "Tajiks" and "Persians" are actually one people. Tajiks have direct Persian ancestors (that's why the language of the Tajiks is Persian and not Bactrian or Sogdian, which used to be the dominant languages of the region until the Arabic conquest). When the Arabs invaded Persia, many Persians left their homes and fled to India and Central-Asia. There is still a Persian community in India: Parsis. The vast majority of the Persians who fled to the east settled in Central-Asia and became mixed with the original eastern Iranian populations of the region. Persian became the dominant language of the region - and a few decades later, they were defeated by the Arabs and converted to Islam. Persia's national epic, the Shahnameh, is actually a collection of Eastern Iranian legends written in the Persian languages. That proves clearly that after the Arabic invasion, Eastern Iran and Western Iran melted together ... and the product are today's Persians (Tajiks). The greatest Persian schollars and thinkers were from Central-Asia and they are as much part of the Tajik culture as they are part of the Persian culture in Iran. We can't change the fact that there is a nation called Tajikistan and that there are millions of people who are called Tajiks. But it is important to mention that those Tajiks are no different deom the Persians in Iran, and that Tajik is actually nothing else but a synonym for Persians in the east. I am going to rewvert the text once more. -80.171.61.53 13:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • • You want a clearer analogy of the same type, then what about the Swiss Germans and Germans of the Anschluss? Both "German" but different enough to acknowledge a separate identity as Swiss and German respectively. Russians and Ukrainians exist as two nationalities, while many Russians will argue they are one people and they can understand each other when speaking in their respective languages, while the Ukrainians do not. Variations exist and the Tajiks as we know them today are only part Persian and adopted the Persian language due to conquest as well as absorbing some of the invaders as the Persians in Iran did. The distinctions include religion and dialect differences and geography as well. "One" people would require something more than SOME common history. Ferdowsi was born in Khorasan, but not in what in the portion that is today part of Afghanistan. The Tajiks retained their language, but clearly have absorbed Turkic-Mongol ancestry especially in Tajikistan AND they have culturally mingled with other peoples such as Pashtuns and Hazaras and Uzbeks. That's just the way it is. While the Persians in Iran have had a different course interacting with Azeris, Kurds, and Iraqis etc. In addition, the Parsis of India have changed as well and most don't even speak Persian anymore even if they have tried to maintain their identity and thus they are called Parsis and not simply Persians of the further east. The distinction at some point becomes enough to denote the fact that there are common origins to SOME extent, but that there have also been changes and that there are variations. In addition, in what article do the Persians of Iran get discussion as a group? The Tajiks have a section already so why not the Persians of Iran. If you want, we can say the Persians of Iran then at the very least and explain the rest. I think this would be the best way to go about it since the Tajiks have an article as "eastern Persians." In academia, most academics look at the groups with some distinct traits and yet maintain their commonalities as well. I think this is a fair compromise as this article can simply be about the Persians of Iran, while acknowledging that there are Persians outside of Iran. Fair enough? Tombseye 15:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

-I dont know about the Tajiks being completely separate from the Persians but, as I'm a Parsi, I do agree with you on the above. Parsis are Indians of ancient Sassanid Persian ancestry. We have not spoken Persianfor the past 1000+ years. We are not just like other Indians either, but what Indians arent. Indian ethnic groups are different from each other in remarkable ways, sharing sometimes different histories all together. And that is what we Paris are, an Indian Zoroastrian people whose ancestors were Persians who fled Iran to escape Muslim persecution. We speak Gujarati, not Persian. We follow a separate set of customs and ideas as a distinct Indian group that are different from modern Persians. We are proud of our Ancient Persian heritage, but we know that we still an Indian people who have a strong history and roots in India as well. So dont call us Persians. Some people have made that mistake with Freddie Mercury too. -Hormusji.

Idon´t know wy a person of persian and europena descend is not called euroasian. Im of persian and portuguise descend and i think that i should be called a eroasian, becouse persians are not europeans they are an Asian people.

I've reconsidered the Persian-Tajik divide and believe that they are very similar. It is mainly religion and geography that separates the groups and they are in fact very much like Swiss Germans and the Germans of Germany in terms of their relationship with each other. Still though I think it's okay to have a page for both as they have diverged historically in various ways as well. It seems as if the Persians of Iran also claim historical figures from Central Asia as their own, while distancing the modern Tajiks are illegitimate Persians which makes no sense at all. The criteria might as well be geographic if the two are to be considered somewhat distinct rather than ethnic. As for the Parsis, it's a tough call. They are ethnically Persian still and yet culturally Indian. It's like asking whether or not the Amish are American or German-Dutch. Thus, someone like Freddie Mercury, who identified himself as an ethnic Persian, can be considered both without too much trouble I'd say. Tombseye 21:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Better Pictures

can somebody please delete the picture of khomeini. put someone like mossadegh or hafez or ibn sina.

Hiter's on the Germans page... --Khoikhoi 08:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed Khoikhoi's correct and it was my suggestion to include Khomeini as the peoples pages should reflect well known representatives, controversial and infamous as well as 'positive' contributers. The image has a good range of the best known Persians and Khomeini is one of them. Misplaced Pages should not be a nationalistic feel good encyclopedia to depict only people everyone likes or would like to represent them. If there were to be an Iraqis page (or an Iraqi Arabs page), Saddam would have to be there. Genghis Khan has to be on the Mongols page and Hitler is on the Germans page. Many Hungarians would argue for the inclusion of Attila and on the Romanians page we have Vlad the Impaler (although he could probably go both Hungarian or Romanian). Avicenna, though an ethnic "Persian", was born and lived in Central Asia and qualifies as a Tajik. Few people have heard of Hafez and Mossadeq although both are important Persian figures, but it's doubtful that they've had has much of an impact upon Persians today as Khomeini. Cyrus represents the ancient past, Khayyam the scientific and artistic contributions, Shohreh represents the changing modern Persians, and Khomeini is a pivotal person who has re-shaped Iran entirely. I'd say these four figures are very indicative of Persians frankly. Tombseye 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hiter's picture is no longer on Germans page neither should Khomeini's picture be on Persians page not simply because he is controversial and infamous but also because there are strong doubts regarding whether or not Kheomini has any Persian background. I'd like to see a reliable source regarding this. ManiF

Not sure how you define reliable, but here are two:

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/moin-khomeini.html

http://www.asiasource.org/society/khomeini.cfm

What strong doubts are you talking about? Please don't tell me this is another purity test to discredit Khomeini's mostly Persian background. Since so many people keep saying he's not Persian, I'd like some reliable evidence supporting that he's not Persian as well. Tombseye 06:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh and curious omission of countries with Persian populations on your part. The US entry didn't have a citation, but you kept that one and got rid of the rest. Now why is that? Kind of selective don't you think? Numerous sources in print relate the presence of Persians in the Arabian peninsula and surrounding countries, especially after the Islamic Revolution, while the official censuses in Canada, Australia, and the US seem to show lower Iranian populations and the problem there is we don't know what percentage of people are Persian and which aren't. Tombseye 06:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Iranian origin does not mean Persian. Khomeini's mother is Indian and his black turban indicates that he's descendant from Arabs from father's side, so at best he's 1/4th Persian. ManiF

Correction, one of his parents is HALF Indian, making Khomeini 1/4 Indian and the Arab descent thing has to be distant, if its true at all as lots of people claim Arab ancestry from Nigeria to Indonesia, that doesn't mean they are of Arab descent or that it's very much. He's basically 3/4 Persian. Didn't your read the sources and the book review from the New York Times?

Here's an excerpt from the article that is a book review of Khomeini: Life of the Ayatollah By BAQER MOIN, St. Martin's Press:

Khomeini's family are Musavi seyyeds; that is they claim descent from the Prophet through his daughter's line and the line of the seventh Imam of the Shi`a, Musa al-Kazem. They are believed to have come originally from Neishabur, a town near to Mashhad in north-eastern Iran. In the early eighteenth century the family migrated to India where they settled in the small town of Kintur near Lucknow in the Kingdom of Oudh whose rulers were Twelver Shi`a — the branch of Islam which became the official state religion in Iran under the Safavids and to which the majority of Iranians adhere today. Ruhollah's grandfather, Seyyed Ahmad Musavi Hindi, was born in Kintur and was a contemporary and relative of the famous scholar Mir Hamed Hossein Hindi Neishaburi whose voluminous history of the religion, the Abaqat al-Anwar, is sometimes described as the pride of Indian Shi`ism.

Seyyed Ahmad left India in about 1830 to make a pilgrimage to the shrine city of Najaf in present-day Iraq, and possibly to study at one of its famous seminaries. He never returned. In Najaf he struck up a friendship with Yusef Khan Kamareh'i, a landowner who lived in the village of Farahan not far from Khomein who persuaded Ahmad to return to Iran with him. It is thought that the two men made the journey around 1834. Five years or so later, in 1839, Ahmad purchased the large house and garden in Khomein which was to remain in his family for well over a century and a half. Whether he had brought money with him from India or made it in Iran, he was clearly at this time a man of substance as the 4,000-square-metre property cost him the very large sum of 100 tomans. He had already married two wives from the district, Shirin Khanum and Bibi Khanum, and in 1841 he took a third, his friend Yusef Khans sister Sakineh. Ahmad had only one child from his first two marriages, but Sakineh gave him three daughters and a son Mostafa, who was born in 1856. The family continued to prosper as, over the next decade, Ahmad bought land in the small villages of the region, and in Khomein itself an orchard and a caravanserai. He died in 1869 and, as he had instructed in his will, the family took his body by mule to the holy city of Karbala for burial.

Note that they CLAIM descent from some ancient Arab ancestry. Do you realize that even if its true, how far back that is? If he's part Arab he's like 1/128 or something. How does that make him 1/4 Persian? I'm not against taking his picture down if its bothering people because he's a divisive figure, but please don't tell me he's not an ethnic Persian simply because you don't like the guy. If you have evidence that he's not Persian, then let's see it. Tombseye 08:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Very good idea. Khomeini is not even Persian! He is a Seyyed, meaning descendant of the Arabic, prophet Mohammed. The Shah or Mossadegh would be a better choice.

Avicenna is a Persian whose parents migrated to the Tajik province of Persia. That was Persian territory. Avicenna is not Tajik.

Actually, Khomeini was 3/4 ethnic Persian, which is pretty much Persian. If you start sifting through many Persians' ancestry you'll find lots of foreign origins so that's not a problem. As for Avicenna being 'Tajik' or not, you do realize that it's a fluid term right? It just means Central Asian Persian. There might be some variations, but the reality is that Persians moved around quite a bit. At this rate we might as well merge Tajik with the Persians article if we can't even apply the geographic aspect. This smacks of some sort of absurd purity test as to who is and is not a 'real' Persian. I think Khomeini helps balance out the many facets of who the Persians are. There are a lot of Persians who think like Khomeini did and revere him AND he's a popular face of Iran all over the world. Tombseye 03:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Correction: There are not "a lot" of Persians who thnk like Khomeini. It's called propaganda, which seems is effective in shaping the opinions of people such as yourself.

Hey use your sign-in name if you're going throw around accusations. I never said I liked the guy or his views, but you must be really clueless if you think Khomeini got into power and reshaped the nation without a lot of support. Sounds like you just believe what you want to believe to me. Tombseye 06:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

hitler

atleast hitler did something for the german people. he united them and turned germany into a powerful country. what did khomeini do? he brought his people scorn and difficulties. it is because of this that arabs call the Persian Gulf arabian gulf, during the shah's reign no arab dared to say anything regarding iran. But i don't see hitler as a hero nor do i love the shah, i'm just giving my opinion.

It seems like his revolution was pretty popular... I mean, he completely changed the face of modern Iran by defying the west and starting a new government. See this link for more details. I'm sure that people that live in Iran think differently about this than you do. --Khoikhoi 01:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have 3 friends who were in Iran recently (as in they came back in August 2005) and one of them is Persian, the others Canadian and British. While over their doing some academic field work (well two of them anyway), what they encountered was indeed a lot of reverence for Khomeini from many Iranians as well some desire for change from his original vision for Iran. The reality is that Persians in the west and those in Iran don't always agree on many things, while it is also undeniable that most Persians probably aren't big on the Iranian revolution's effects today in sum. It's a dicey issue. Tombseye 07:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Why picture of Chomeini?

Why picture of Chomeini?

He was a non-Persian, a citizen of Iran, but at least not an ethnical Persian. Why is his picture then there?

--ShapurAriani 20:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

See above. --Khoikhoi 21:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

At least we agree, that he was 1/4 Indian, partly Arabic, and partly Persian. I hardly believe such a melting pot of ethnicities should be the proverbial 'poster boy' for Persians.

There are probably a lot of Persians just like him and the divine Arab ancestry is claimed by a lot of people. The Persians aren't a pure anything anyway and he's still 3/4 Persian. I'm not going to press for his picture being included in the article, BUT please don't sit there and play the Persian purity game because it's a really pointless one given the various origins of the Persians. Tombseye 06:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Image

Greg, it seems you're just ignoring what I've written elsewhere. It is an example of Persian art and released by the Iranian Cultural Heritage Museum for promotional purposes. Why would it not be appropriate in this article, Persian art, and Iranian culture? SlimVirgin 07:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Because it is copyrighted! There are countless public domain images which would serve the purpose of this article equally well (and indeed some on the very articles we are editing). Again, there is nothing specific about this particular image that makes it more useful for our educational aims than the countless other images we could use. ... Nothing except that you are also using this on your user page and need an excuse to keep it on Misplaced Pages. :( This use would make a fine counterexample for the WP:FU of the same kind as " An image of a rose, cropped from an image of a record album jacket, used to illustrate an article on roses." now makes. If you'd like an example of a place where the image would be acceptable, you could write an article about the artist and discuss that painting. That still will not excuse its use here or on your user page, but it would allow us to keep it. I hope this makes things more clear for you.--Gmaxwell 07:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

But why wouldn't it be appropriate in Persian art or Iranian culture. It is an example of Iranian culture. But you have removed it from there too. SlimVirgin 08:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Because there is no discussion about the work there (and hardly any discussion at all, the page is one step ahead of a simple list). Look at the rose example from WP:FU that I quoted. Just because it's persian art doesn't automatically mean that it's fair use on an article about persian art. --Gmaxwell 08:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You're talking nonsense. The museum released it for promotional purposes so far as we know, and what else would they be promoting if not Iranian art and culture? You seem to be making this up as you go along. Please show me some case law from now on. You can't expect people to rely on your original research. SlimVirgin 09:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that it's okay because it's with permission? Okay. Except thats not allowed either. Please don't take this personally, you are the zillionth and first user whos had to remove a favorite fair use image... and the billionth and first whos been told that an image wasn't fair use in a particular article. This isn't anything against you... our standards on this matter must be enforced consistently. Again, I welcome a freely licensed copy of this image, and I hope you are able to obtain the license you seek. --Gmaxwell 10:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

An additional clarification: the muesum is probably not the copyright holder (as you'd mentioned before when talking about getting a good license for it) so they can't make the sort of grant we need. Even if they were, their use for promotion doesn't automatically translate into a right for use to continue redistributing it. What do you think they'd say if we used the image on a page talking about the bad points of the museum? --Gmaxwell 10:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

They'd say it was an inappropriate use because we wouldn't be promoting them, their country's culture, or the artist. But given that we don't criticize anything related to them, it is being appropriately used. I didn't say anything about permission, so stop trying to shift the goalposts. SlimVirgin 10:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That was the point of my comment... To use the image we have to give them control over our content. Thats unacceptable. This is why we can only accept images which soundly qualify as fair use or are under a free license, in either case they can't force us to remove it if they don't like what we say. I'm not trying to shift the goalpost: I'm trying to help you understand years of discussion, thought, and policy in a very small space. --Gmaxwell 10:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course we don't. You really are making this up as you go along, Greg. I'd be happy to have this explained to me by someone in the profession, but you're not. That is the problem. SlimVirgin 10:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, how do you know it is copyrighted? At the moment, all we know is that someone released it for promotional purposes. I'm currently trying to find out whether it's copyrighted and if so who holds it, and who exactly released it, so unless you're psychic and have anticipated the responses, you have no idea of its status. SlimVirgin 08:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Absurd comments about Khomeini

I find these comments about the man, no matter what you or I or anyone thinks of him, to be incredibly offensive. Comparing him to Hitler (!), claiming that he was of "mixed blood" and continually insulting him will not accomplish anything. This is crap, pure and simple. None of these claims about his ancestry can ultimately be proven and it is absurd. Whether you want to admit or not, he was very much Persian and you would be hard pressed to find anyone in Iran who would accept this nonsense that he was not Persian. That is purely an opinion and a pretty lame one at that.

Secondly, as I have had to illustrate time and time again to many people, Persians are not a single ethnic group, but many different peoples sharing a common line of origin and cultural and linguistic background. There are many different Persian ethnicities, both in Iran and in surrounding nations. We have Persians with many different skin tones ranging from the palest white to bronze to dark; eye and hair colors ranging from black to blue and black to blonde. People from different regions have different features, different dialects, different traditions, and on and on and on. Just because Khomeini doesn't fit your ideal of what constitutes a "Persian" does not make him "mixed" or whatever. If that were true then it would be true for everyone and Iran and Persian civilization and our many different peoples would have ceased to exist a long time ago and would have been absorbed into some other civilization and "race" and this whole conversation would be moot.

Point is that there is no single Persian "race" but many different peoples ultimately sharing a common cultural and linguistic background. Accept it and move on. SouthernComfort 08:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Why Khoemini?

Even if Khoemini was Persian, which he was not (just look at the color of his Turban), including his picture in such an article is simply a political act as many people here are opposed to it. Just as Hitler's picture was removed from Germans page, Khoemini's picture should be removed from Persians page as well.