This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.109.92.109 (talk) at 08:05, 23 October 2006 (Errors and Omissions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:05, 23 October 2006 by 68.109.92.109 (talk) (Errors and Omissions)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iran/Archive 10 page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Iran NA‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Countries NA‑class | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Template:Past AID Template:GA-countries
 | Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead. |
 | This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations. |
 | Software: Computing NA‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives |
|---|
Human rights section
I think citation would be useful for the facts stated in Human rights section. Can anyone add?
Citation for Iran abstain of using chemical weapons
I think there is no need of citation for proving Iran didn't use chemical weapons. Citation would be needed if they have used C. Weapons not if they haven't. Please confirm and I'll go ahead removing it. Also, I checked the the section of Iran-Iraq war. I don't think it's biased (though unnecessarily long!). Should we remove the "neutrality check request"?
Twice removal of Farsi in parenthesis as official language
] has twice removed (Farsi) after the word Persian from the official language box. See history. Also see "Tightening of the Culture section" above. What is appropriate at this point? Bejnar 14:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- In my opinion it is a very good idea to remove the word Farsi from the official language box. The language's name in English is Persian, not Farsi. The latter is the local name of the language, but a quick look at other country-related articles (Germany,Netherlands, and Finland) reveals that the local name is not mentioned on their pages. This is reasonable because this is the English Misplaced Pages, not the Persian one.Shervink 14:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)shervink
- I am not talking about substituting Farsi for Persian. I am talking about the entry as: official_languages = Persian (فارسی (transliteration: Fārsi)) Also see India and Republic of Ireland for counter-examples. Read the section "Tightening of the Culture section" above for why it is valuable. Bejnar 16:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- The usage of the word has been repeatedly banned and condemmed by academic circles. Please visit this page as an example. Besides please read "Iranian Goverment Constitution, English Text": link. --Sina Kardar21:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am not talking about substituting Farsi for Persian. I am talking about the entry as: official_languages = Persian (فارسی (transliteration: Fārsi)) Also see India and Republic of Ireland for counter-examples. Read the section "Tightening of the Culture section" above for why it is valuable. Bejnar 16:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
A stupid argument. As anyone who speaks the language knows, it is actually called Farsi. If you're going to insist on using the antiquated and rarely-used word "Persian", then it's only logical that the modern name, Farsi, is used AS WELL. Deleting it is at the very least, extremely mis-leading. Tashtastic 12:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
YEP! its "farsi". "persian" is like saying the language of china is "chinese" instead of "mandarin" and "cantanese". 58.106.19.3 05:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
THE LANGUAGE IS CALLED PERSIAN NOT FARSI. --SkyEarth 23:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- "SkyEarth" obviously not a speaker of it. For those of use who do speak it, it is called Farsi. Go learn about it first, before showing yourself up further. The previous post about "Chinese" proves the point perfectly. Tashtastic 11:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Correct! Oxford dictionary also states: "Farsi - the modern form of the Persian language, spoken in Iran". Furthermore, ask an Iranian "What language do you speak?" and he will say "Farsi" not "Parsi", "Parsiayee" or "Persian". The country is also no longer called Persia. It is called Iran.
-- Only Iranians ignorant of their past with no study and no clue about their culture and language use "farsi" while talking in English. I have to admit that unfortunately these kind of people are huge in number.
---
I'm adding Farsi back in parentheses. Please allow correct contents to co-exist and do not engage in editing campaign over small matters like this. Fleet Command 16:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC) ] has removed (Farsi) after the word Persian from the official language box, at least four times. Bejnar 19:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. There is no need to add local forms of a name, transliterations in local alphabet and other explanatory stuff in a infobox. It is all explained in the text. For most of other countries this has not been done. Why should we repeat the explanatory stuff in the box just for Iran? There is just one official name for the Persian language in English and that's Persian.
Providing the information about the name 'Farsi' is not redundant it is informative. I knew about a language called Farsi long before I knew about a language called Persian. The name Farsi is used by academics, other than those in literature. This is useful information, and it can co-exist with the name Persian. Bejnar 02:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
--Mani1 00:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Category deleted
- I deleted the category:theocracy as there was already a category called category:contemorary theocracies. --Mitso Bel22:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- The category contemorary theocracies is under discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion. It may be the one to disappear. Bejnar 22:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information --Mitso Bel10:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
khomeini's picture
I think picture of khomeini should be removed from the page for the following reasons: 1. He caused the death of tens of thousands of Iranians. 2. He is dead. 3. He is not popular among iranians.
I think we should use the picture of an Iranian national hero instead of murderer. Dr. Mossadeq could be a good choice. (64.231.245.248 23:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC))
- looks like a good suggestion. --Mitso Bel10:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- No. It definately is a very bad suggestion. Here is Misplaced Pages, an encylopedia. We write and display facts. Keep your propeganda and political campaigns off this website. 85.185.128.18
- That's Right! Since Mr. Khomeini was an important man in Iran, we need a picture of him. Please do not engage in political activities and/or vandalism in this website. I'm re-insterting a picture of him. Fleet Command 06:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- No. It definately is a very bad suggestion. Here is Misplaced Pages, an encylopedia. We write and display facts. Keep your propeganda and political campaigns off this website. 85.185.128.18
- looks like a good suggestion. --Mitso Bel10:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you guys see a picture of Hitler on the page about Germany?
- What type of arguement is this. Afterall, Khomeini is a major political figure in Islamic world. Many would be interested to see his picture, whether they like or dislike him.
Who ever thinks that Imam Khomeini was a murderer is mad. He freed us from those american B******* and after that he saved us from Saddam;and what were the Americans doing? They were selling weapon to them while saddam was murdering thousands of Iranian and Iraqi civilians with his chemical weapons.And now people are learning how corrupt the american government is.And I am very angry that the western government has portraid Iran and Imam Khomeini In a way you compare Iran to the Nazis and Imam Khomeini to Hitler.I know that the majority of Iranians support the Iranian government.Thats why Ahmajinejad was voted as president.Imam Khomeini was a great leader and nothing less.
Oil exports
According to a number of other sites, Iran exports 2.6 million barrels a day in a 2003 estimate. Here is a site where it is stated. Persian Gulf Fact Sheet. I made the needed changes in the article. It now says Iran exports 2.6 million, not between 4 and 5.
Mt. Damavand picture.
Please guys, do something about this pictures copyright problem. I'm sure we don't want it to be deleted. The picture can be found in the Geography section of this article. Thank you Arad 18:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The same Israelis who have been attacking Misplaced Pages & is now being documented are attacking all Iranian articles
Israeli supporters and Israel are pushing to control all form of media and produce a smoking gun about Iran as a reason for future conflict. Its called manufacturing consent by misleading public opinion. It is now out and in the open; it is also being documented that much of the trolls or deviants on the net are part of a wider orgnaized movement to mislead the public. All the ocntriversy on Iranian ethnic groups and so on have been deliberate attempts to create animosity amongst Iranians. Now they are desperate to tie an Iranian hand to the acts in Lebanon, in fact they want to say it was Iran that initiated this conflict so as that Israel can start more conflict in the Middle East. They are desperatly trying to re-write many articles on wikipedia and say that Iranian troops are now involved in Lebanon. So look at the Israeli-Lebanon conflict, all these sites are now being vandalized, by the same sources trying to cover the truth through all media sources. The internet has become a great challenge for them.
- This is true. The Israeli government admits to now employing more than 400,000 internet disrupters, mostly teenagers and college-aged students, who are paid to go on the Net and post pro-Israeli information on forums, etc. I'm sure that they are actively trying to screw with Misplaced Pages. The USA government has been doing similar things for more than 2 years, as well. Dick Cheney has already expressed his desire to invade Iran by late October. He is already preparing the invasion force. I would be very worried if I lived in Iran. The USA and Israel as they currently stand are the most insane and dangerous governments of the past 50 years. Now they use their pathetic Net-stooges to promote their agendas. It is really sad that the people in control of all of this are only a handful of nutters in both the USA and in Israel, as well as in their supporter-nations. I'm from a Jewish background myself, and I am appalled with Israel. The proof has now come out that the Mossad, in cooperation with the CIA, were the ones who carried out the 9/11 WTC and Pentagon attacks, just to get the USA military involved in the Middle-East. Now they threaten to start World War Three. To any Israeli or American agitator being paid petty wages to lie in defence of these evil schemes: Shame on you! Even anyone who mentally supports this madness is commiting a crime against all of humanity on Earth--a crime that shall only be punished, perhaps, by their guilt once this really gets out of control. Matthew A.J.י.B. 05:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- "The Israeli government admits to now employing more than 400,000 internet disrupters, mostly teenagers and college-aged students, who are paid to go on the Net and post pro-Israeli information on forums, etc." Where's your source?! ThePartyVan 01:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- This is true. The Israeli government admits to now employing more than 400,000 internet disrupters, mostly teenagers and college-aged students, who are paid to go on the Net and post pro-Israeli information on forums, etc. I'm sure that they are actively trying to screw with Misplaced Pages. The USA government has been doing similar things for more than 2 years, as well. Dick Cheney has already expressed his desire to invade Iran by late October. He is already preparing the invasion force. I would be very worried if I lived in Iran. The USA and Israel as they currently stand are the most insane and dangerous governments of the past 50 years. Now they use their pathetic Net-stooges to promote their agendas. It is really sad that the people in control of all of this are only a handful of nutters in both the USA and in Israel, as well as in their supporter-nations. I'm from a Jewish background myself, and I am appalled with Israel. The proof has now come out that the Mossad, in cooperation with the CIA, were the ones who carried out the 9/11 WTC and Pentagon attacks, just to get the USA military involved in the Middle-East. Now they threaten to start World War Three. To any Israeli or American agitator being paid petty wages to lie in defence of these evil schemes: Shame on you! Even anyone who mentally supports this madness is commiting a crime against all of humanity on Earth--a crime that shall only be punished, perhaps, by their guilt once this really gets out of control. Matthew A.J.י.B. 05:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Calm down... not everything anyone says against the iranian regime is from israelis... I'm iranian and i can tell you most of the jewish wikipedians i've met have very balanced views on these issues. Lets be fair, there is alot of diversity in iran's ethnic makeup and there is always bound to be some tension, i mean we've all told our share of turk, lor, abadani, rashti, esfooni... jokes! its a fact that there is some hurt feeling in the 1.kurd and 2.azari communities i know this from anecdotal evidence, i'm sure if you did a survey there would be some legitimate issues, those and probably other communities have with the central government, its no huge problem. if everyone aires their grievances and they are acknowledged we can have greater harmony. about the current conflict... hezbollah is as much a puppet of iran as israel is a puppet of u.s. which is not much, they are allies with one being under the protection of and aided by the other... this a is fight between four jerks and their pals: bush, khamenei, Olmert and Nasrallah. and they are all able to get away with commiting crimes because the people, their nations, are self-rightous, religous, and most important of all, are not as outraged at the death of people on the other side.
- What are you saying? Please stay in one track! First, we speak about Israelis and Zionists not Jews. There is a difference. Second, we are speaking about Vandalism attempts. Your quotes regarding iranian making jokes about, then comparing Mr. Khamenei and Mr. Bush seems as strange as being off-topic. What is your point? Fleet Command 07:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
My friend there is a man, whose life-story you (and everyone who is outraged at their nation being insulted) should memorize off by heart and think about whenever they are about to get angry, He is a man whose oppressors took away his family, killed his son, imprisoned him for most his life, but eventually one day he had the power to bring all those oppressors to justice but in doing so would have caused even more hurt and more pain.
He is the bravest and greatest man in history, not because he destroyed his oppressors but because he forgave them... he accepted their apologies for the years of turture, on himself and his people... and through his example his people also learnt to forgive and together created the greatest miracle of humanity there has ever been.
That man was Nelson Mandella. learn about his life, about out how his strength of charactor turned the most evil, racist, prison guards, into human beings, If even a tenth of the population of the world, truely knew his life-story, and learnt how to silence the evil inside themselves we would forever have peace.
please please please read his story.
We heard no appology from the US!
thank you for your time.
Esmehwk 06:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Are you saying Iranian's must forgive USA after they destroy it? You have a point. Fleet Command 07:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This is all so amusing. Firstly, most of the new/anonymous users editing articles related to Israel are pro-Arab, not pro-Israel. Secondly, this "they're being documented" sounds like some kind of childish threat. Thirdly, the number claimed here "400,000" has no basis in reality, and is purely the imagination of the claimer. The most anyone could truthfully claim is that Israel's diplomatic trainees (several dozen, maybe a hundred people) are trying to express the Israeli POV. Of course Israeli citizens and supporters try to support Israel, just like Arab citizens try to support the Arab states, but there is no governmental effort here. Someone here claimed that Israel and the US are "insane countries", however, as far as I can see, the only one calling for the destruction of another country is the Iranian president. The 9/11 claim is very old, never had, and still has no factual basis. It's nice to see how Israel's opponents gingerly ignore the fact that Hizbollah started the current conflict, after Israel completely withdrew from Lebanon years ago, as approved be the UN. Finally, there is really no need to attack any of the Iranian articles. They already show, in great detail, what sort of country it is. okedem 06:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
We called for the destruction of the regime you idiot!
- You're the typical 'academic' idiot--full of arrogance but lacking any real intelligence. You don't even bother to research whether or not my claim has credence. You just assume that it is incorrect and call it 'amusing'. You're just like a complete Fachsidiot mathematician I talked to a few months ago, who claimed that I am 'like the people who wrote the Protocols of Zion' because I acknowledge the fact that the 'wall' is in the end useless because of Israel's incendiary militarism. You're obviously a deluded pro-Israel idiot, but since you'll be a cloud of purified energy by 2010 by many miltary predictions, I suppose that is not of much consequence to me. You use typical arrogant moron terminology (do you folks have a dictionary of non-sense words to use in scenarios like this?) like 'amusing' and 'childish', when you are almost certainly a 3-year-old in a semi-adult body, like all of these other cloistered idiots. I like to call you couch-potato warriors. You sit around on your arses watching CNN and pretend that you have some kind of insight. Pathetic. The 9.11 claim is a proven fact, and your ignorance with this regard is what is 'amusing'. See . What's your source on this? Popular Mechanics? Seriously, don't make me laugh. The Mossad have been caught red-handed in cooperation with the CIA, here. I'm not an opponent of Israel or a supporter of Hizbollah. I'm a sane individual (unlike you) who is very against a Third World War erupting because of deluded quasi-Jewish morons like yourself. Lebanon as a government has not provoked any of Israel's criminal activity, and in any event Israel is acting criminally in their disregard for civilian casualties. I bet you're one of those fools who thinks that torture is good and derives good information, as well. Iran may be a primitive/religiously-oriented country with regard to its government-type, but Israel and the USA are mega-criminal cryptocracies run by extremely evil and corrupt intelligence agencies. Furthermore, Iran is not a serious threat to international peace, while the USA and Israel are more demonstrably dangerous than any other nations on Earth. With regard to the Israeli internet-agents: . This article mentions 5,000 Israelis used to manipulate public opinion via the Internet. That already being a large number, the 400,000 I speak of are also based in the United States, Canada, and Great Britain. It is a joint effort between the governments of those respective nations. And, with regard to you: if you continue your support of Israel's war-crimes, shame on you--you are an enemy of the humanity of Earth, and a proponent of Terrorism and Destruction. Even Newt Gingrich, a pro-Israel dupe, says that this is the beginning of World War III. I'm tired of lazy Jewish academics arrogantly spreading their non-sense views as though they are 'fact' just because they have the waxen seal of thier over-inflated egos. Similarly, I am extremely disgusted with their newest allies, the stupidest group of inhuman people on the planet--Fundamentalist Christian Zionists. I need not say anymore. Matthew A.J.י.B. 08:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- As a note, it would appear that you are an arrogant, lazy semi-Academic, and not a full academic. Either way, it wouldn't increase my opinion of you. I very personally know some of the 'greatest' mathematicians in the world. Some of them are very brilliant men, but others are just like you: they are only good at what they study, and otherwise they're complete morons. These are not a minority, but the majority--everywhere in Academia, really. It's pathetic to see these abysmally stupid individuals flaunting their egos around as though they know anything, when they have hardly a single logical thought in their heads. Matthew A.J.י.B. 08:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Here we go. And if you're really remotely knowledgeable about Chemistry, I would love to see your response and analysis of ] Dr. Steve E. Jones' paper on the matter of September 11. And don't just give me a curt sentence of dis-logic or dismissal without evidence. That would be a disregard for the scientific method. It would, in fact, be exactly like some of the Cowards over at BYU have done in response to this paper. Matthew A.J.י.B. 08:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Read Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, and act accordingly.
- Due to your attacks, I will not continue this discussion. okedem 09:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Then I have the last word. Too bad you aren't even going to bother citing any sources for your beliefs or even attempting to debate my information. Matthew A.J.י.B. 09:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
WHY ARE PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT THE THE ISRAELI ARAB CONFLICT ON THE IRAN PAGE!?? GUYS, IRANIANS AREN'T ARABS OR JEWS; SO PLEASE TAKE THE CONVERSATION TO AN ISRAELI OR ARAB FORUM BECAUSE I AM SICK OF HEARING ABOUT IT --SkyEarth 00:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey everyone calm down. We don't need to say that people are making childish threats, nor do we need to be insulting people with words like moron or lazy. Winning an online word battle proves nothing. I personally would not be surprised if there was some plot to vandalize wikipedia to influence a political or military side, but thats beside the point. I do not mean any offense, i know no more (perhaps less) about the facts than everyone else here. I just want everybody to chill out. Everyone has a valid point and opinion here. 65.43.227.19 00:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, no one said anything remotely like "torture is good because it gets information." And stuff like "I'm sane (unlike you) are uncalled for.65.43.227.19 00:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- These are typical beliefs among Blair/Bush/Israel-supporters like he. It was their major argument during the heigh of the Iraq Invasion, actually. Around 2004/2005, do you not recall the whole 'torture is good' argument? The connection, from my perspective, between Iran and the current events in Lebanon are Israel and the USA's claims that Hezbollah is funded by Iran, and their long-cooked-up plans to invade Iran, which they want to execute by the end of this year. Everyone besides the Bush-supporters knows that Persians are not a Semitic people, but race and ethnicity has nothing to do with it. This is about the current political situation. There are literally some arrogant idiots on here calling for the invasion of Iran, with virtually no understanding about the real situation, but what they have heard passingly on television. Matthew A.J.י.B. 03:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Unless there is some discussion on the improving the Iran article on Misplaced Pages, these discussions should be taken somewhere else; Note the Misplaced Pages policy Misplaced Pages is not a forum. -- Jeff3000 04:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- The discussion here is over, anyway. Alhough I'm sure that Misplaced Pages has enough memory for ten thousand archives of these talk pages per article. Matthew A.J.י.B. 05:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I know wikipedia discussion is supposed to aim at improving the article in question, but I would just like to state how offended I am at the utter lack of intelligence and logic that some users have. First, claiming 9/11 to be a conspiracy between the Mossad and the CIA is baseless. You told someone to site their sources that 9/11 wasn't carried out by the two agencies, but I would like to see other sources besides your crazy conspiracy theory website that it was indeed the Mossad and the CIA who destroyed the towers and attacked the pentagon. I can just as easily create a website that states that 9/11 was a conspiracy conceived and carried out by Klingons and the Mole People. I can make it look completely true too. Just as I'm sure there are some people who "disrupt the internet" by fabricating some sort of truths that are pro-Israel and pro-American, it is just as blatantly obvious that there are people doing the same thing who were anti-Israel and anti-American. In fact the link you provided is evidence. If there was really was a conspiracy between the Mossad and the CIA, do you not think they could easily shut down the website? I suggest you read http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons. As far as Dick Cheney preparing an invasion force to go to Iran by October, where do you get this information? He is not the commander in chief, and still this would have to be stated months if not years in advance in order to get approval from Congress. Iraq was invaded several years after Bush expressed an interest to attack the country, not two months. Also your comments about 400,000 agents being derived from the fact that 5,000 Israelis are doing it, doesn't real stack up. You could say that since there is an estimated 27.4 million people in Sub-saharan Africa with AIDS, there must be 2.192 billion people in the world with it! But there isn't. And I hate to do this but I'm going to insert my own POV in here. You threaten someone above, insinuating that Israel will be nuked by 2010. As Israel supposedly has nuclear weapons already, I would assume that there response to a first strike would be much more devestating, so unless you're insinuating that the whole Middle-east will be radioactive vapor I don't believe what these so called "military tactitions" have to say. I would furthermore like to state that the U.S. and Israel are not the most insane nations on the Earth. The U.S. has not advocated wiping a race or nation off the face of the planet unlike Iran's current president. The U.S. and Israel are democracies run by the people, not "evil, corrupt intelligence agencies." Is it universally accepted that the CIA and Mossad are evil and corrupt? Do they hire people based on their tendency to eat babies and club baby seals? Or do they hire them on their ability to accomplish tasks that are deemed necessary for their nations? I think the latter is true. I still don't see how you say Iran is not a threat to international peace with its current administration. It's like saying that someone who wants to use a gun to kill somebody is less dangerous than the people who have guns but aren't willing to use them unjustly. It just doesn't make sense. I'd rather have "fundamentilist christian zionists" as an ally than I would irrational, perturbed, and downright ignorant people. Youknowthatoneguy 01:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh and sorry if I violated any policies, I'm a passionate guy. I usually don't go off like this. Youknowthatoneguy 01:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Quality reduced
A new paragraph has been recently added to the article that reduces its quality:
""During the war Saddam was supported by the United States all the way against Iran providing weapons and intelligence to Iraq. To stop Iranian volunteer human waves on battlefield, Iraq used biological and chemical weapons provided by West, extensively. As local dissent in Iraq against Saddam and his secular war against Iran grew, his rule became more and more dictatorial and later used chemical weapons on his own people as well, killing tens of thousands of protesting Kurds at Halabja. Despite all these atrocities special Reagan envoy Donald Rumsfeld visited Saddam twice in Baghadad delivering him weapons to be used against Iranians and assurances of continued US cooperation with Iraq. This relationship was later augmented as US Navy joined forces with Saddam in the war against Iran, sinking more than half of Iranian Navy and downing several Iranian Airforce Planes. Towards the end of the war US Navy shot down an Iranian Civilian Airliner Iran Air Flight 655 killing 290 passengers and crew including 38 non-Iranians and 66 children. The war continued for eight years until when in 1988, Khomeini, in his words, "drank the cup of poison" and accepted a truce mediated by the United Nations, under US pressure, (just when another successful Iranian assault was penetrating Iraq) without any reparations for Iran and punishment for Saddam. The total Iranian casualties of the war were estimated to be anywhere between 500,000 to 1,000,000. With the fall of Saddam's regime in Iraq in April 2003 and his capture in December, Iran announced it had sent its own indictment against Saddam to Iraq's government, with the list of complaints including the use of chemical weapons. The United Nation finally and officially accepted Iraq as the aggressor party in the war in 1997, nine years after the war ended.""
Most of this paragraph belongs to Iran-Iraq war not here. I think one or two lines suffice about the role of US in the war. I suggest reverting this part back to an earlier version and adding one line about the role of united states and the west:
""Saddam's surprise attack made several early advances, the people of Iran began rallying around Khomeini as he urged all Iranians to defend their country and religion against Saddam's secular Ba'athist regime. By 1982, Iranian forces managed to push the Iraqi army back into Iraq. Khomeini refused a cease-fire from Saddam demanding huge reparation payments and an end to his rule and that he be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He also sought to export his Islamic revolution westward into Iraq, especially on the majority Shi'a Arabs living in the country. The war then continued for six more years until when in 1988, Khomeini, in his words, "drank the cup of poison" and accepted a truce mediated by the United Nations. The total Iranian casualties of the war were estimated to be anywhere between 500,000 to 1,000,000. With the fall of Saddam's regime in Iraq in April 2003 and his capture in December, Iran announced it had sent its own indictment against Saddam to Iraq's government, with the list of complaints including the use of chemical weapons.""
line to be added could be: Saddam was supported by the United States against Iran, providing weapons and intelligence to Iraq. US Navy shot down an Iranian Civilian Airliner Iran Air Flight 655 killing 290 passengers and crew.
- Your are right and please feel free to do so. most of history of Iran is concerned about Iran - Iraq war now. This was was only 8 years, compared to 7500 years of known history of the land of Iran. Remember one of the rules in wikipedia is to BE BOLD. so Be bold and do what you think is best. Arad 04:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Images with copyright problems
Guys, I'm tired of these images with copyright problems. If they are copyrighted and not allowed to be used in this page, then remove them so we can replace them or if they have no problem, then please remove the annoying text under each images which reduces the quality of the article. Thank you Arad 04:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Iran should also be added to these categories
I see that Iran is listed as
- D8
- Persian Speaking
- Middle Easter
- Asian
- Persian Gulf
- Islamic Republic
Could someone please add;
- International ties of Iran
- Countries in Central Asia
- Countries in West Asia
As for counties in Central Asia; Iran needs to be added to that group too
Women's Rights
In the Human Rights section of the Iran article, there is mention that Islam in the country drives discrimination against women and unequal treatment of them.
This is inaccurate, it mischaracterizes that the religion of Islam itself is the cause of this while it should be mentioned that it is people's choices that are really behind such treatment and unequal treatment of women is unislamic.
- you wrote: "unequal treatment of women is unislamic.", this is untrue, According to Quran:
- And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree of advantage over them(Quran 2:223)
- Your women are a tilt for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilt as ye will, and send (good deeds) before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will (one day) meet Him. Give glad tidings to believers, (O Muhammad)(Quran 2:223)
- And get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her.(Quran 2:282)
- Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.(Quran 4:3)
- Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females(Quran 4:11-12)
- Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great(Quran 4:34)
this is just quran, There is much more in hadith and Sunnah (Marmoulak 22:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
I think everyone knows that Islam sees women as inferior to men. No point arguing this.
Iranian Calendar not mentioned in the article body
Nobody have mentioned in the article that Iran is using a rather unique and presice Calendar system called Jallali calendar. See Iranian Calendar for more details.
A new Section
I think a new section should be added about a big percentage of people who are not happy with the current government. Or maybe a new article. What do you guys think? Arad 01:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Great idea, since it would represent current situation in Iran. It should a separate section in the existing article.
Iran Military
Does anyone think there should be a section on Iranian military? Why or why not?
- well, there are already articles dedicated to the iranian military.Khosrow II 20:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
News about Iran
British troops are mobilizing on the Iranian border http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060830&articleId=3097
Iran's Population Dispute
This source Iran's population is >70 million: http://www.irantour.org/Iran/population.html
CIA claims Iran's population is 68 milliion.
And this source claims Iran's population is 75 million: http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/Asia/iranc.htm
You arrogant bastards think you can count the population of Iran to the last single person. I have several conflicting sources which state the population is above 70 million as of 2003. Title: Culture Shock, A Guide to Customs and Etiquette Author: Maria O'Shea ISBN: 1-55868-764-5 Page: 48
As of October 2004, population estimate for Iran was 70 million Title: Iran, Page 24, ISBN: 1-74059-425-8
There will be a concencious at the end of the iranian year 1385
Motto
Is anyone able to provide a reference for the motto? From I've found after googling it, it was used by Khomeini and during the Islamic revoution, but I didn't find anything showing that it has any sort of official status. Article 18 of the constitution states that "The Official Flag of Iran is composed of green, white, and red colors, with the special emblem of the Islamic Republic, together with the State Motto." This leads me to think that the actual motto might be Allahu Akbar. Does someone know more about this? Pruneau 18:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- It shows up on Iran press sites, but I will keep digging.Mowens35 18:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Based on the flag and its script, I'd go along with you re "Allaho Akbar" (this is the spelling given by the website of the Pakistani embassy in Washington, which represents Iran in the US at http://www.daftar.org/Eng/aboutiran_eng.asp?lang=eng#Flag.Mowens35 19:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I think with living in Iran for 15 years and saying the Iranian Motto every morning (ask any Iranian and they will agree) that Iran motto is Independence Freedom Islamic Republic. Arad 12:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Also the website your citing for Cambodia and Iran is not the official website of that country, and I don't find it reliable neither, as you don't find FIFA reliable. Arad 12:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- (This is the continuation of a discussion started at User talk:Pruneau#Please stop.) The constitution certainly is reliable, so the motto definitely is on the flag. Could you explain why you believe that the website for the Pakistan embassy in the US is not reliable? I explained why the FIFA webiste is unreliable: it lists information which is provably false. Even if you don't accept the Pakistani embassy website as a reliable source, we only have to look at the flag to know the motto. I am not denying that Independence, Freedom, Islamic Republic is an important motto for the Iranian people; I am only saying that so far, I have not seen anything to convince me that it is the official motto. In the US, many pupils say One Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all every morning, but that doesn't make it the official motto; the official motto of the US is In God We Trust. All I want is to get verifiable facts listed. If you are able to provide a reliable reference for Independence, Freedom, Islamic Republic, I will be quite happy to accept it; unfortunately, you haven't provided any concrete evidence so far. Pruneau 14:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't prove anything while I don't have any prove, so do as you wish. But I remember that they told us at school that Independence Freedom, Islamic Republic is the motto. Maybe I'm wrong but I asked few Iranians and they said that Independence Freedom Islamic Republic is the motto. I try to investigate more. I don't like anything that the Islamic Republic made official even the flag of Iran after the revolution. Why do we have to have Arabic words on our national flag? Anyway, this has nothing to do with our discussion. --66.36.134.107 21:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I live in Iran and I know for sure that the main motto is Independance,Freedom,Islamic republic. Other mottos include Allaho akbar(Khomeini rahbar) and noteast (reffering to the USSR)nor west.
- Should we maybe list Independance, Freedom, Islamic republic as de facto motto, and Allahu Akbar as the de jure motto? Pruneau 12:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Turko-Iranian
I want to know your opinion about this article. It seems to be supported by separatism and Pan-Turkism ideologists! It may be against Misplaced Pages:No original research! It is not NPOV. What do you think?
zandweb 07:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC) _ ZANDWEBT
something I noticed
- Under the sub-heading 'major cities', the population of Tehran in the paragrapg does not match the population of Tehran under the photograph; if someone could please fix that. I believe i would also be helpful if we gave a little information about each of the main cities such as how the sub heading 'Government and Politics' is branched out.
- Also in the sub-heading 'Administrative divisions', i think it will be a good idea to note the recent changes in provincial boundries such as those of Mazandaran, Yazd and Khorasan provinces.
- Also under the sub-heading 'Government and Politics' it would look more profetional if the branched out headings would be placed on the imidiate upper right hand of its paragragh; this requires the repositioning of the pictures in this section. In the same section some of the branches have a paragragh of one or two sentences such as that of the 'Expediency Council', maybe adding more information to that would be wise.
- Also under 'Government and Politics' each branch has its own main article and most of them are quite short. It would be a lot of work but it would be good if we would join all of does into on article. this could then be the main article for 'Government and Politics'. This would illiminate all the excess links.
- The sub-heading 'economy' could also use mager editing, since it concists of many short and long paragraghs making it look awkword.
any thoughts? Pedram-e 06:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Pictures
I was thinking of moving the picture of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh to were his name is mentioned in the sub-heading 'History of Iran'; any thoughts? Also if anyone has a good and appropriate picture of the Iran Iraq war, please add it next to that section of the sub-heading 'History of Iran'; thanx alot.
Another thing i noticed is that most of the early pictures are very pail, dead and colourless un-like the last few pictures. If anyone has more livly pictures specially for the Government and Politics section please replace these ones or just add them. If you do so, keep in mind copy right issues. Pedram-e 20:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Topics Related to Iran
I have just fixed the 'topics related to Iran' section at the bottom of the article. The lists are now in alphabetical order, properly rearanged and all word start with a capital letter.
Please, if you are to change this list follow what I have done; it took me a very long time. Thanx alot. Pedram-e 23:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Im confused. What are you talking about? Also, I think you need to be posting this stuff here: . Khosrow II 23:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- You know the box at the bottom of the Iran page titled "Topics related to Iran"? And you know how there are topics in the section such as History, Economy and etc? Well i just put the lists under each topic in alphabetical order and i fixed some grammer problems related to the lists. That's basically it. Pedram-e 00:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have also created a new template design for "Topics related to Iran". Please look at it and see if I should replace the one on the page with this one. Here it is!! Pedram-e 03:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
More information needed
- Under the sub-heading 'Economy' there is a picture of the persian Rial but there is no information about it in the sectio. If someone has can please add some information on it and the persian currency. The example below is from the CIA website, but something similar would do.
ex. rials per US dollar - 8,964 (2005), 8,614 (2004), 8,193.9 (2003), 6,907 (2002), 1,753.6 (2001) note: Iran has been using a managed floating exchange rate regime since unifying multiple exchange rates in March 2002
- Also under 'Demographics', I think there should be a more detailed section talking about the refugees in Iran such as their numbers and the reason why they have become refugees. ex. due to the taliban rule
- Also under 'geography and Climate' there should be an explanation about Irans geographical disputes, such as the example below from the CIA website but more detailed.
ex. Iran protests Afghanistan's limiting flow of dammed tributaries to the Helmand River in periods of drought; Iraq's lack of a maritime boundary with Iran prompts jurisdiction disputes beyond the mouth of the Shatt al Arab in the Persian Gulf; Iran and UAE dispute Tunb Islands and Abu Musa Island, which are occupied by Iran; Iran stands alone among littoral states in insisting upon a division of the Caspian Sea into five equal sectors
- Also this page would be better if it had a section for Communication and Transportation in Iran; including cellphone use, Tv, Roads, Airports, Radios, Internet and etc. It would also be good if we have a section for military on this page, since this all is directly related to the country of Iran.
- Also under 'Economy' the should be some talk about Iran's gas exports including the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline and etc. and some part about Irans main industries, agriculture and industrial products, and even production of elecrticity
thanx alot Pedram-e 00:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Mosssadegh ws not the first Prime Minister of the Majlis. It was General Haj-Ali Razmara according to your article on Massadegh.
Too long
This article is 64kb at present and we can shorten it. Do we need too many details for example about battles in the main article.--Sa.vakilian 04:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Clean up for history section
Do you guys like the clean up i did at the history section? Arad 21:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting fed up
This is really annoying to see this article getting vandalized and then, even worst, the admin revert the vandals by erasing half of the page. And the public health section is ridiculous too. some of it are facts but you can't just talk about HIV and hepatitis C and malnutrition. A health section must be a large informative section talking about what are the bad points, good points what is being done and what is already done. Arad 00:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- This is much better now, thank you.--Arad 03:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
un-existing links
There are some linked words in this article that dont have a article attached to them. If we want this article to hopefully become featured, these "red" links should get an article or we should just remove them. Pedram-e 23:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Your right. I'm pretty sure that private trading does have an article (maybe capitalism?), its just not linked correctly. That only leaves two red links, once we figure private trading out.Khosrow II 23:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- There is actually more; there is one under Public Health, one under Economy, two under Culture and two under Further reading. And while you are looking through the article, should that template be there in the middle of the government and politics section; because one it looks weird and two the template contains the same links that we already have under this section? Pedram-e 00:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, maybe it should go in the bottom?Khosrow II 00:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I am very worried about war
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/batgru-69-med07.htm
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061009/lindorff
JVPike 04:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Look at these; they are well documented. This is the place to keep your eye on...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=newsHighlights&newsId=18
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=N20060921&articleId=3299
69.196.164.190
Is Buddy Jesus the actual Iranian emblem?
- Firstly, no Buddy Jesus is not the emblem. Also there is no chance of a war! Everyone is going nuts over a few American moves around Iran. Those are just to scare people. There are no chance of the US attacking Iran. First of all, the global community will not allow it. The US has no real hard proof Iran is making an atomic bomb. Also the American people will not want another war. Also This war will have a worst result than the Vietnam War. Iran is currently the major power in the Middle East and has a huge military build up, with great new technologies with missiles with a reange of all US Bases in Europe and Asia and a new fighter jet similar to the F18 and a very powerfull navy. And oh yeah, more than half a million soldiers. With recent military trainings, Iran has achieved a great knowledge of the ways the Americans might want to attack and have secured them. Also, the US has no idea of the Arial Defence Grid of Iran since Iran has never allowed it to be completely on, only turning on necessary parts when needed. This is just Iran. Now Russia and China will never allow such thing to happen. Also the Hezbollah and other terrorist orginisations will attack the US like never before. And my final point, OIL! If Iran is attacked, Chavez has promised to cut off the US's oil supply and Iran will do the same, making the price of oil reach about $200 a barrel. Then the world's economy is crippled! Have i proven my point or shall i go on? --(Aytakin) | Talk 00:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Major signs of war
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061001&articleId=3361
Photographs link
I tried to add a link 'Photographs of Iran' (http://www.worldisround.com/browse/NorthAfricaMiddleEast/Iran/) but it was dropped.
I'm a newbie at Misplaced Pages contributions but it appears I'm not allowed to add this link because I run Worldisround. We host other peoples' travel photos for other people to browse so this and similar links seems like a very valuable addition to Misplaced Pages. (Several people have independently added links from Misplaced Pages to Worldisround places and articles.) It certainly isn't a commercial link; we'd be lucky to make $1 from the advertising. Kelek1 18:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Featured Article
I have a question; Is it possible to have an article on the a country on FP status? because if it is, then all other countries would probably want to become FP too and it'll be a chaos. Personally I've never seen a FP article on the country. --Arad 03:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- I just saw that India is featured, then Iran can be too. Arad 03:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- There are many countries that are featured articles, including Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bhutan, Cambodia, Canada, Hong Kong, India, Libya, Pakistan, People's Republic of China and South Africa. Unfortunately this article has a long way to go to reach featured article status, which is mostly about using summary style correctly, and not insisting that everything about Iran should be in this article. For example, the history and government sections have to be shortened extensively. Other things that need to be improved are that many many images need to be removed, and only the ones that are free or have a real fair use rationale included. Plus the page has to be much better referenced. This work was started by User:Green Giant a while back, but a lot of editors did not like it because content was being removed and placed in the daughter articles (according to summary style). Regards, -- Jeff3000 03:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- BTW, the Geography, Economics and Demographics are pretty good sections. About the right length, and detail. The images need to be checked for fair use rationale, and too many images is not a good thing either. Notice for example, the Canada article has only 13 images, and this article has 44 images. -- Jeff3000 03:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think Iran#History it too long and includes too many details. Also this article need separate part about religion because it's very important in understanding Iranian life during its history and today.--Sa.vakilian 05:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- BTW, the Geography, Economics and Demographics are pretty good sections. About the right length, and detail. The images need to be checked for fair use rationale, and too many images is not a good thing either. Notice for example, the Canada article has only 13 images, and this article has 44 images. -- Jeff3000 03:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- There are many countries that are featured articles, including Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bhutan, Cambodia, Canada, Hong Kong, India, Libya, Pakistan, People's Republic of China and South Africa. Unfortunately this article has a long way to go to reach featured article status, which is mostly about using summary style correctly, and not insisting that everything about Iran should be in this article. For example, the history and government sections have to be shortened extensively. Other things that need to be improved are that many many images need to be removed, and only the ones that are free or have a real fair use rationale included. Plus the page has to be much better referenced. This work was started by User:Green Giant a while back, but a lot of editors did not like it because content was being removed and placed in the daughter articles (according to summary style). Regards, -- Jeff3000 03:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Rogue state, Axis of Evil.
I recently added information regarding Iran's status as a rogue state and also mentioned that it was part of the Axis of evil. Someone removed that change. Could you please explain why you did so, and why I was wrong in categorising Iran as a rogue state? Thanks. Cerebral Warrior 10:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- This is a neutral encyclopedia, not a political website. Labeling a country "Rogue state, Axis of Evil" etc is against WP:NPOV. --Mardavich 11:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's not a "label" it's a fact. Please understand that Iran has been officially declared an Axis of evil state by the U.S and other countries. Cerebral Warrior 12:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Only the US has declared Iran an Axis of Evil (and should I really say George Bush). Definitely partisan-American-POV. -- Jeff3000 12:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's not a "label" it's a fact. Please understand that Iran has been officially declared an Axis of evil state by the U.S and other countries. Cerebral Warrior 12:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Although the current Iranian government is no less than the devil itself, this wikipedia as mentioned by user:Mardavich, has a neutrality of point of view and I agree with User:Jeff3000 that it's only George Bush (I have no problem with George bush like many other people have) who calls Iran a rogue state. 66.36.158.150 01:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It is american government that is the true devil.
- a just-for-fun response: if we are going to write things in wikipedia according to what bush says, the whole encyclopedia would be 1 page or at most 1 and a half. if we are going to write according to the americans the whole things would be 10 pages or atmost 13. thanks god we are taking serious stuff into account. kalash23oct2006
Universitydegree among Iranians
According to the Swedish goverment 50% of Swedish people must have at least a bachelordegree to be competitive towards other countries. Would anyone tell how many percent of Iranians must have a good and highly competitve universitydegree?!
Placing "Persia" after "Iran" in the title of the article
Regarding the first words of the article (i. e. the title) it is really remarkable that the synonymous use of "Persia" by the West and of "Iran" by the Persians has been extinguished here whereas we are living in a world where we still call a European country "Germany" which the so-called "Germans" themselves call "Deutschland". In France the same country is called "Allemagne" and not "Deutschland". And there are other countries of this kind. In any scientific or lexical work one would read the foreign term as well as the native name of the country which in the case of Iran happens to be the term used as part of the official name for the political entity of the "Islamic Republic of Iran". However, to proceed exactly, those who support the absence of the term "Persia" after "Iran" in the title of the article should use the official name "Islamic Republic of Iran" as a consequence of their argumentation. This idea however would not be lexical but plainly political. It is of considerable importance to show the correspondence between the two terms "Iran" and "Persia" already in the title of the article in order to unmistakably make clear which nation is being treated here. The absence of the word "Persia" after "Iran" in the title has a political aspect which should be avoided in an encyclopedia with determination. --Anoushirvan 19:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- With respect, I didn't understand a word you said. Arad 23:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- I understood and I disagree becuase foreign countries no longer refer to Iran as Persia.
- I think in the first paragraph, when it says "once known as persia to the western world", it should read "formerly known as..."
possession Chemical weapons
There is written "Although Iran itself also possessed chemical weapons, it never used them during the war" and refered to and .
- I don't think these sites support this sentence. There is written "In an interview with Cable News Network (CNN), the new U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen, responding to a question on his top concern with regard to chemical weapons, mentioned Iran among other countries allegedly possessing chemical weapons. " This is just a claim so we shouldn't write it as a fact. Also there is written :"The official English-language Tehran Times disputed Defense Secretary William Cohen's allegations that Iran possesses chemical weapons, offering as evidence that the use of chemical weapons is against the principles of Islam and that "almost all relevant international agencies have announced that Iran never used chemical weapons" even during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. U.S. officials were excoriated for indulging the "whims of the Zionist lobby.""--Sa.vakilian 13:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think we should write "Also U.S. accuses Iran to have chemical weopons since 1997, but Iran has denied it officially and The Islamic Republic of Iran is a signatory to the international conventions banning the use of chemical weapons. Moreover, Islam firmly opposes inflicting harm and injuries on the civilians. ."
- Instead of " Although Iran itself also possessed chemical weapons, it never used them during the war." --Sa.vakilian 05:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore that paragraph is so weak and there is put some different irrilated issues beside each other. We can omit some part. Move some others to other articles.:"Although Saddam Hussein's forces made several early advances, by 1982, Iranian forces managed to push the Iraqi army back into Iraq. Khomeini refused a cease-fire from Iraq which was demanding huge reparation payments and an end to his rule. Khomeini also sought to export his Islamic revolution westward into Iraq, especially on the majority Shi'a Arabs living in the country. The war then continued for six more years until 1988, when Khomeini, in his words, "drank the cup of poison" and accepted a truce mediated by the United Nations. With the fall of Saddam's regime in Iraq in April 2003 and his capture in December of that year, Iran announced it had sent its own indictment against Saddam to Iraq's government, with the list of complaints including the use of chemical weapons. The total Iranian casualties of the war were estimated to be anywhere between 500,000 to 1,000,000. Although Iran itself also possessed chemical weapons, it never used them during the war. "
- I don't know what you want to prove with this but Iran never used chemical weapons in War as they had signed a treaty to not use those weapons. The other paragraph is also full of facts. --66.36.134.107 22:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I mean we should write "U.S. accusses Iran to have chemichal weopons" instead of "also possessed chemical weapons"--Sa.vakilian 03:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- In addition this paragraph includes something about Iran-Iraq war, export Islamic revolution westward into Iraq, indictment against Saddam in 2003 and chemical weopons. How these issues are related to each other.--Sa.vakilian 03:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- OK I see what you mean, but I strongly oppose writing "Moreover, Islam firmly opposes inflicting harm and injuries on the civilians." as EVEN IF Islam opposes harming, Islamic republic and other Islamic governments execute people just because of being against the government or having sex with a someone who they are not married to (order of Islam) or punishing harshly someone who drank alcohol (order of Islam) or listened to "Western Music" So you don't expect them not to use chemical weapons. And also I think the second paragraph is a well documented, and well organized paragraph and "Iran-Iraq war, export Islamic revolution westward into Iraq, indictment against Saddam in 2003 and chemical weapons" also are related to each other (Iran-Iraq war). IMHO --Arad 11:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately you misunderstood. I insist on that is just the U.S. claim not a fact. U.S. accuses Iran for example because Iran make phosgene in petrochemichal industry to use in production of Polycarbonate. Also if this paragraph is about Iran-Iraq war, I propose to write it in different way. it is not coherent at all--Sa.vakilian 15:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- OK I see what you mean, but I strongly oppose writing "Moreover, Islam firmly opposes inflicting harm and injuries on the civilians." as EVEN IF Islam opposes harming, Islamic republic and other Islamic governments execute people just because of being against the government or having sex with a someone who they are not married to (order of Islam) or punishing harshly someone who drank alcohol (order of Islam) or listened to "Western Music" So you don't expect them not to use chemical weapons. And also I think the second paragraph is a well documented, and well organized paragraph and "Iran-Iraq war, export Islamic revolution westward into Iraq, indictment against Saddam in 2003 and chemical weapons" also are related to each other (Iran-Iraq war). IMHO --Arad 11:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion
I came across this really descriptive diagram of Iran's political system, from BBC. I think it's a good idea if those who have the editing right to include this somewhere in the document:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/default.stm
- Great link, but I don't know if we are allowed to use the texts or not. --Arad 16:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
History section
I don't know why this picture was in history section. It has nothing to do with History of Iran. Plus it has copyright issues which has to be fixed. And also in the history section, why do we have paragraphs at the end talking about recent events? They aren't historical yet, and I don't think they will be historical anyway. They only make the History section longer than it is now. --Arad 19:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at this article
Although it talks little about Iran it mentions some very important points relevant with Iran. There is also one interesting part about why and how tea was introduced to Iran/Persia
The War in Afghanistan: Drugs, Money Laundering and the Banking System http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061017&articleId=3516
Errors and Omissions
The phonetic spelling of Iran is incorrect; it implies a long 'i' and a long 'a'. The first pronunciation offered by the American Heritage Dictionary would have both vowels short. Among Iranians, the pronunciation the 'i' is closest to a short 'i', and the 'a' is a low front 'a'. This coincides with the American Heritage Dictionary's second pronunciation: ĭ-rän'. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Iran.68.109.92.109 08:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1997/970205-480132.htm
- http://www.fas.org/cw/intro.htm
- http://www.antiwar.com/glantz/?articleid=2804
- http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1997/970205-480132.htm
- NA-Class Iran pages
- NA-importance Iran pages
- WikiProject Iran articles
- NA-Class country pages
- WikiProject Countries articles
- Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)
- NA-Class software pages
- NA-importance software pages
- NA-Class Computing pages
- NA-importance Computing pages
- All Computing articles
- All Software articles