Talk:Iran/Archive 10 - Misplaced Pages

< Talk:Iran

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aucaman (talk | contribs) at 15:20, 16 March 2006 (→Naming Issue: spelling). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:20, 16 March 2006 by Aucaman (talk | contribs) (→Naming Issue: spelling)(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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Template:Todo priority

Iran NA‑class

	Iran portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
NA	This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Countries NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry

This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy.
Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region.
Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

Template:AIDnom

Iran/Archive 10 has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

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.

An event in this article is a April 1 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment).

/Archive1: March 2003 – July 2005
/Archive2: February 2005 – November 2005
/Archive3: November 2005 – January 2006

Scouting in Iran

Didn't know where Scouting in Iran belonged in that box, just that it is an applicable topic. Please put it in the categorization you think it belongs in Chris 00:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Important message for all Iranian editors

کاربران محترم,

چندیست که برخی افراد شوم- نیت, اقدام به نوشتن برخی مطالب مشکوک و ضد ایرانی در صفحات زیر نموده اند. هدف شوم آنان توسعه فکر استقلال طلبی اعراب در خوزستان میباشد.

بخصوص کاربران باسامی "زورا" و "اهواز" در این امر دست به فعالیتهای وسیعی زده اند.

خواهشمند است در دفاع از تمامیت ارضی-تاریخی ایران زمین ما را یاری فرمایید.

خیر ببینید!

also:

Iranian languages which is constantly attacked by Turkish editors.

and related pages.--Zereshk 06:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

may i remind you that this is an english language site? Pure inuyasha 00:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course you may. Sorry about that.--Zereshk 01:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we have a translation then. Thanks -- Jeff3000 01:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Im basically asking all Iranian editors to keep an eye on these pages (listed). That's all.--Zereshk 04:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Translation of the Comments

Hi, here is the translation:

"Dear Users, It's been a while that some people with bad intentions, have been writing suspicious and anti-iranian stuff in the following pages. Their evil goal is to promote the idea of independence of Arabs in Khuzestan. Specially users with the names "Zora" and "Ahwaz" have been very active in this regard. Please kindly help us to safeguard the historical territorial integrity of the land of Iran.

God Bless You."

Heja Helweda 05:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the confirmation.--Zereshk 05:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation Heja Helweda. -- Jeff3000 13:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That translation is wrong and it says seperation among manny things. The Arabs of Iran are very proud Iranians and fought in the highest numbers with Saddam and Iraq even with Saddam's Pan-Arab propaganda.

The independence of Khuzestan Arabs is an "evil idea"? Hmmm... --Khoikhoi 05:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. It is a breach in the internal affairs of a sovereign UN member state, which is illegal. We're not here on WP to promote certain groups to secede or to fight, or to do whatever our agenda dictates. Further translation: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A POLITICAL PLATFORM.--Zereshk 05:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I never said anything about promoting it, but outside of Misplaced Pages, why is it evil? A breach in the internal affairs of a sovereign UN member state? So I suppose all active autonomist and secessionist movements, such as the Basques, Tibetans, Chechens, Kurds – are "evil"? --Khoikhoi 07:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the translation was clear enough: Promoting secessionism on WP is evil. It's not your or my business to promote secessionism here on WP. Let the world turn as it wants to. That's my point.--Zereshk 07:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, on Misplaced Pages. I see. --Khoikhoi 08:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Iranian names are OK

I dont agree with GMotamedi. I think it is appropriate to use both English/Persian names such as "Iranian Parliament" and "Majles". Or "Supreme Leader" and "Rahbar". Obviously words like Die Fuhrer, Bundestag, Duma of Russia, Diet of Japan, etc..., are part of the English vocabulary. The "Majlis" of Iran isnt any different. It is a unique assembly of power in the world.--Zereshk 02:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The point is that we don't have to force the ethnic words into the English literature; the examples like the Russian "Duma" have entered the literature a long time ago and through a natural course i.e., frequent communication between people and different media (one example in our recent history is the term "Shah" that spontaneously entered the English media and literature during the process of 1978-9 revolution). What I find odd is that some Iranians have this tendency to bring original words like "Farsi", "Majlis" (or now even "Rahbar"!) into the English literature. Misplaced Pages will last long our generation, so the future generations may and will do further adjustments as needed, but I don't see the need to rush to to this artificially. Gmotamedi 21:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with calling it the Majles. It also doesn't have anything to do with history. The Iranian Majles is definitely older than the Israeli Knesset, but I've never heard anyone try to avoid using the term "Knesset" just because it's not English. But whether or not you call it the Majles depends on the context. "Rahbar" is totally different. I think its use should be limited. Aucaman 16:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

One other thing, interestingly, there are 22 Arab States most of them with parliaments which they call "Majlis" but they use the term "parliamnet" in English texts. BTW, the way the term is pronounced in Iran it should be spelled "Majles". Gmotamedi 04:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

- You are right. "Majles" is correct.--Zereshk 06:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup required

The article is too long. I propose cutting down the Politics and the Economy section and moving useful information to the corresponding articles. Aucaman 17:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the "Persia/Iran" naming convention paragraph should be trimmed or removed altogether. It is absolutely pointless - this is an article about Iran. If a few Iranian scholars and academics in the United States believe that a "controversy" exists about the name of the country, that does not make it true, considering that this a total non-issue in Iran today. The section should be removed and the link to the naming dispute article moved to the links section where it belongs. Just a suggestion. SouthernComfort 03:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As well, we should keep in mind that the monarchy was abolished many years ago and any rulings made by the last Shah were made obsolete after he fled (or rather abandoned) the country, and most especially with the establishment of the Islamic Republic. Why it is necessary to state that the Shah proclaimed that both "Iran" and "Persia" are appropriate is beyond me - it is an extremely moot point, and probably a POV one at that. SouthernComfort 03:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. We can remove the comment about the Shah. But I think a lot of readers confuse Iran with Persia and an explanation is necessary (preferably in the beginning of the article). You can edit the article the way you want and then we can discuss your changes. I like the introductory paragraphs the way they are now. But be bold. Aucaman 06:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, this page needs no clean up and second of all MR.AUCAMAN, you and some others just came and deleted many section people worked hard on. You know that people put time on thier edits.What happened to the climate section? Who do you think you are? People WORK HARD!!!!! Wikiwo123 06:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I consider this a personal attack. A very premature one. If there was a climate section and it's now missing, I've had nothing to do with it. I've made only two edits to this article. In the first one, here, I just removed some irrelevant information from the first few paragraphs. In the second one, here, I just added a cleanup tag. Now please PROVIDE EVIDENCE for saying I have "deleted many section people worked hard on".

Also, if you try to edit the article, you'd see this comment on top of the page: "This page is 43 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." Do you what this means? It means the article requires Cleanup. That's all I was pointing out.

Now go and read the folowing articles and get back to me with a response (I expect an apology): article size, Misplaced Pages:Cleanup, Civility, Misplaced Pages:No_personal_attacks. If you want to help in the cleanup process, also read Misplaced Pages:How_to_break_up_a_page. Sincerely, Aucaman 06:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I did some reseach (what you should have done if you were really that concerned) and it looks like the Climate section was taken out by this edit. I left a note on his page (again, what you should have done if you were that concerned). Aucaman 07:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the article is a bit short. Compare to United States of America. The article should be as comprehensive as can be.--Zereshk 06:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent good point actually. Unless other country articles should be trimmed as well (since they all have numerous main articles linked to the primary country profile), this one should be continued to expand, though I would rather see less focus on the history since there are so many history articles, and we need to encourage editors to add more and more detailed information to those individual articles. There is not enough focus on modern Iran and the technological and economical developments and so forth, and there is so much more to add in that respect. SouthernComfort 06:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read what I said above. The article is 43KB. Short is under 20KB. Read Article size for the guidelines. Some browsers cannot load the page the way it currently is. I'm not saying we should get rid of anything. Some stuff have to moved to other articles. Again, read what I've said above. These sort of stuff should not require an explanation. It's Misplaced Pages common sense. Aucaman 06:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Is the cleanup tag actually necessary? The article isn't messy. SouthernComfort 06:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't complain if you took it out, but the article does have to be reduced in size. Aucaman 06:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The United States article is around 72KB, Israel is 41KB, Russia is 47KB. A large article size does not seem unusual. SouthernComfort 06:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. So we shouldn't implement Misplaced Pages's guidlines regarding style because they're not implemented in the US page?

No, what I'm saying is that why pick on Iran instead of the US, Israel, Russia, or any other large country article (i.e. most of them). I can guarantee you that those articles will probably stay at the same size they are currently at or even expand further due to the fact that country articles are complex and unique in regards to other articles. SouthernComfort 07:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I would have proposed the same changes for other articles if I had the time. Let's see if can finish this one now. These kind of stuff aren't really worth talking about. I'm just trying to make the article look nice and readable. Shouldn't require justification. Aucaman 07:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Just look at the Economy section. It's 9 paragraphs long. The Economy of Iran ARTICLE is not even this long. I've never seen anything like this. All I'm saying is that some the information in the economy section of the Iran article should be moved to the Economy of Iran article. This is a no brainer. Normally I would take the initiative myself (I just did this for the Ahmadinejad article and there were no complains - perhaps because I was dealing with an admin and not inexperienced users), but I'm short on time, so I thought it would be better to ask for help. Never mind! Aucaman 07:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, Zereshk and myself are very experienced editors here, and we've been around longer than you it seems. Thanks. SouthernComfort 07:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman, 37k is not really that large. I think youre being a bit picky. But guidelines "are not policies" either. There is no mandate to implement them. Especially when there is a case. And the case of Iran's page is a special one indeed. Not just the United States, but almost every US state page is above the 20k mark. And here we are trying to present a country with a 7000 year history that is on the brink of conflict with the international community. Surely there is much more to say in this article than the 64k long article of New Jersey, a state 1/72 the size of Iran and only 300 years old? It's taken us a year, me and a group of around 10-15 editors, to get the article to where it is now. A lot of hard work, a lot of debate, a lot of research. The article is already critically short as it is. Any shorter, it will not reflect the true image of Iran, even in a summary. The Economy section, I did not work on. But pretty much all other sections must not be reduced, if not expanded. It simply wont do justice to a topic like Iran.--Zereshk 09:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not mean to make a big deal out of this. It was just something to think about. I personally don't like reading long articles, but I did not suggest getting rid of important information (or any information). You also have to note that because of its rich history and complex nature, all the information about Iran cannot be stored in just one article, but has to be expanded through several articles. A person looking for specific information about Iran's economy shouldn't have to read 9 unorganized paragraphs (in terms of headings and readability) just to figure out that the information he/she needs is in the Economy of Iran article and not the main Iran article. Think about that. Aucaman 16:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree the article is a bit too long. Most of that is in the Politics and Economy sections (which could undoubtedly be trimmed to a limited extent without harming the content), but the length of the lead is fine. Also note WP:WPC guidelines, which call for brief summaries. (Although they are only guidelines, if this article is to become featured, which it has the potential to be, WikiProject guidelines must be followed.) --Wikiacc 20:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand why the Politics section might have to be long (Iran has a complex political system), but I don't know about the Economy section. For one thing, based on Misplaced Pages:How to break up a page, each section is supposed to have a summary of the main article, but the Economy section of the article seems as long as the Economy of Iran article. How can the summary of an article be as long as the article itself? (They both seem around 9 paragraphs.)Aucaman 21:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you guys are right. The Economy section could use some trimming.--Zereshk 00:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I just trimmed down the history section as far as possible. This is as short as it can get without substantial loss of information.--Zereshk 07:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Middle East

Part of Iran is in the Middle East, but the other half is in Central Asia. Shouldn't we describe it as both a Middle Eastern and Central Asian state? SouthernComfort 06:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Iran is usually included in Southwest Asia, not Central Asia. Having it be both in Southwest Asia and Central Asia would be confusing to the reader. Aucaman 07:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Mossadegh

The section on Mossadegh appears somewhat inaccurate. From what I understand he did not abolish the monarchy, which prior to the coup was severely limited in scope due to it being a constitutional monarchy. After the coup the Shah simply assumed authoritarian powers that he did not have before the coup. SouthernComfort 06:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I didnt see that part.--Zereshk 09:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Iran is a hybrid that is part of the claimed places. Politically it is in Asia which Southwest Asia is a divison of. Geographically it is in Eurasia. It is part of Caucasia as the southern most state. The Caucasian Mountains start in Northern Iran. Iran is also regionally part of the Central Asia and the Middle East. Within the Middle East there are sub-regions like the Levant. Iran is part of the Persian Gulf region too. Iran is also next to the Indian sub-continent which starts with Pakistan and in very close proximity to Europe which is just north of Iran.

Food

Can anyone help me gather all the information on some of the important foods of Iran ;) , I will start gathering information... But is it okay with other users? Oh and what are the rules? --Sassan 10:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You may want to check out Cuisine of Iran and Persian cuisine. In fact we need to add a great deal more information on all the various regional cuisines to Cuisine of Iran, which i still lacking in that area. SouthernComfort 07:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Culture section

Being a poetry crazed people, the page seriously needed a verse or two to reflect on that character of Iran.

As some of you can tell, I translated the verses in the culture section myself. If you think you can do a better job of translating them WITH RHYMES, go for it.--Zereshk 23:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Updates to Iranian pages

This user is a graduate / staff / faculty / student of the University of Tehran.

Template:User doogh

Ive finished filling in all article gaps for Pahlavi era section of List of Prime Ministers of Iran (except for Morteza Gholi Bayat). Please feel free to edit my hasty edits in those articles.

I have made a template for UT people. Please use.

And also, I made the badly needed doogh template. (How can yall live without it for crying out loud??)--Zereshk 09:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Further trimming

I just finished trimming the Political section, as much as it could take. I will leave the trimming of the economy section perhaps to one of our erudite editors, so that we can go ahead and submit our request for Iran being a featured article?--Zereshk 23:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Before we submit this article on WP:FAC, the following should probably happen first:

Its status on WP:AID is resolved: either Iran becomes a weekly article improvement drive and gets extra sets of eyeballs and further improvement, or it is removed for not meeting the 3-vote-per-week requirement to stay as a candidate.
Put on peer review to find out (and fix) objections in advance (before they appear on FAC). If we get WP:AID, this step will probably be optional (but still useful).
Send it to WP:FAC; it should be nominated by someone with enough time and willingness to address the objections as they come. Usually the way featured article candidates pass is if most of the Object votes have been addressed and those voters change their votes to Support. This time there will probably be at least some initial Support votes, as the article in its current form has reached Good Article status (whereas the article when submitted last time would not have).

--Wikiacc (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Im fine with waiting longer and weeding out more imperfections.--Zereshk 05:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Finished art pages

Ive finished working on the Iranian art pages. Please feel free to add.--Zereshk 05:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Iran

In the future I'd love to see a map showing Azerbaijan as an entity unto itself...this region is clearly not Persian, and the only thing that makes it Iranian is the border on Araz Chayi (Aras River). Perhaps Christian Armenia would like to join "Islamic" Iran in a federal union of sorts, given the fact that the Tehran regime is Armenia's number one trading partner, supplier of oil and natural gas, protector, and ally.

This is not a political forum of false Pan-Turkish ideals. But I do agree with you on one point I would like to see the Azerbaijani Republic as an whole within the boundaries of Iran. Azeris are ethnic Iranians and proud.

Indeed Iran was forced under threat of Russian military invasion to sign the Turkmanchai treaty and Gulistan Treaty, which separated the Republic of Azerbaijan from Iran.--Zereshk 16:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Milad Tower image

I dont think we really need the milad tower image on the front page. (especially that it still isnt finished.) It already appears on the Tehran page.

Anyone?--Zereshk 21:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's not a particularly good picture as it's hazy. Maybe a picture of agriculture or oil instead? -- Jeff3000 21:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Etymology of "Iran"

I am surprised to see that there is no mention of meaning or root word description for the term "Iran". Somebody could contribute. 67.81.174.200 02:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The etymology may be found in history of Iran. It could be mentioned here as well. —Charles P._(Mirv) 03:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Check it out people!

This user thinks Iranian rock is cool!

Now we're talkin. :)

Please feel free to add info to the new accompanying Iranian rock page I just made.

mer30!--Zereshk 00:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

wow! Baba eivallah!--Nightryder84 01:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

We Can See how the Middle East is being Balkanized

Iran, Iraq, Caucasia, and the Middle East are being balkanized were everyone fights each other like in Yugoslavia. And who wins with fabricated ethnic disputes? Guess who!

This statment says it all about that region and goes beyond its statement about Iran.

Israeli and U.S. intelligence are concentrating hard on Iranian minorities, because they have no military solution for this problem. They want to disintegrate Iran into a few countries like the Soviet Union and that is not going to happen.

politics

hello everyone, just have some questions- since the article mentions religion and political systems, is there no need or requirement to flesh out that issues such as women's rights (I'm not a woman ), political freedom, repression, hostagetaking, support for terrorism, and other elements which give crucial perspective to the existing decription of the counrty? Should there be an analysis area, or some contextual couching of the existing narrative?

another Iranian template

Template:User Free Iran

Ba sepaas, --Kash 12:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont know how long that box will last though, since it seems, unfortunately, that User:Jimbo Wales (WP founder) has decided that political boxes be removed from WP.--Zereshk 04:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont see anywhere that he has 'decided' to do so? those are all 'proposed' ideas, correct me if I am wrong.

I believe User:wikiacc is a better authority than me on this.--Zereshk 00:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Vote on picture

Greetings,

I'd like to propose that we vote on this issue (otherwise, the picture will keep changing as different users have different tastes):

Which of the following pics do you deem most befitting for the Template:History of Iran Template, which is used everywhere on Iranian history pages?

Image 1 to make it look like this
Image 2 to make it look as it is.

If I am correct (by WP guidelines), this vote ballot will endure for one week. Thanx.--Zereshk 00:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Image 1

--Zereshk 00:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Shervink 12:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Image 2

Vote is now over. Thank You all for voting.

I think both are excellent. The first, however, has a more specific symbolic meaning, and can be dated back to older times than the second. I would also prefer that one. Just a suggestion: Isn't it possible to put a picture of the Cyrus cylinder instead? Shervink 12:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

I think the second one (probably from "Persepolis"(Takht-e Jamshid)) is better since it refers to some historical event, which has taken place, while the first one is a religious figure (an angle) which can not be considered a historical one and it does not refer to any historical event. It is more appropriate for pages about the ancient Iranian religions (Zoroasterianism). Cyrus Cylinder is also a very good choice. Heja Helweda 04:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The first one is not really clear - it's too dark. Aucaman 11:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, First one can hardly be seen..--Kash 22:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanx for the vote y'all. We'll keep it as it is then.--Zereshk 09:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

"Miscellaneous topics" deleted

Someone had vandalized the article by placing a pornographic picture in a section labeled "miscellaneous topics." I deleted it, but I'm not a proper member of Misplaced Pages so I thought I'd better drop a note here to let you know. (69.81.51.96 01:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

looks like the image was on Template:Portal. It's been fixed. —Charles P._(Mirv) 02:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Persia, Parthia, or Iran?

Misrepresenting one of the most glorious and influential times in Iranian history, and for that matter world history, the dynasty of Achaemenids, Ashkanian, and Sassanids in all called the Persian Empire--the first global empire; the largest the world had seen yet--the empire that gave humanity for the first time the ideas of monotheism, the "Wise Men from the East" in the Bible, which in English, the term may refer to a shaman, sorcerer, or wizard; it is the origin of the English words magic and magician, angelology, demonology , eschatological teachings, apocalyptical notions , that would later be transferred to their newly freed Jewish subjects that in return would adapt these ideas, that would in turn enormously influence Judaism and later Christianity should not be encouraged. Misrepresenting the second Iranian dynasty, the Ashkanian, or Parthian Empire who reunited Iran and made it into a global power again, and who have had tremendous impact on the Iranian culture, should not be an aim of yours, just because it is simply more ``convenient`` for Western literature to do so. From its birth, Iran was called Iran (land of Aryans) by Cyrus the Great, not Persia, which is simply a province in Iran, yet so much inaccuracies have risen that the West thinks Persia is extinct, and the modern nation of Iran is different, which is false, in fact--from 525 BC up to 1979 AD, the country was called `Kingdom of Iran`; there is archeological proof of that. After the 1979 revolution, the country is now called `The Islamic Republic of Iran`. There are numerous articles and books that state Parthia was a country in Asia, or that the second Persian, i.e., Iranian dynasty was the Sassanid, or even more erroneously, and shockingly, that Parthian were foreign rulers of Persia. That is absurd; it is very much like saying Yankees in Boston in the north rose to power and formed Bostonia, later native Texans took back their land, and were the second American dynasty. Ashkanian, who came from the north of Iran and were from the ancient Iranian tribe of Ashkuzi (Scythians), reunited Iran, and revitalized Persian customs. Macedonia that was not even part of Greece, is under Ancient Greece, yet, people seem to have separated Persia, Parthia, and Iran. As such, because Wikepedia gives people a chance to make wrongs right, it is essential that right in the beginning of the sentence, the empire’s real name be embedded in there, so when a reader studies it for the first time, he or she would know the origin of the empire. Calling that era of Iran, Persia and Parthia is absolutely confusing, and above all false. The correct name for the country was, and is simply, Iran.Zmmz 22:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That's what we are working on here: trying to accurately represent Iran. You can help us out by contributing! Thanx!--Zereshk 08:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Video clip

All,

I asked for help regarding uploading an excellent 25 Meg video clip of Tehran University. I got no answer so far from any of the admins I consulted.

So I uploaded the video clip file to my own website, and provided links instead. You can see the clip by going to here.

But the bandwidth on my website is limited. IOW, this is a temporary fix.

Does anybody know how to upload a clip to WP? I reckon it must be thru Wikicommons. But Im not sure about the logistical details.--Zereshk 20:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

you can upload video files to Commons if they're A: properly-licensed B: in the right format (see Misplaced Pages:Media#Video) and C: under 20 megabytes in size. the interface is substantially identical to the upload interface here. —Charles P._(Mirv) 21:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The history section for the Iran page is incomplete and lacks specific information. The page says that written history in Iran began around 3000BC but when you follow the link provided that page gives the date 3200 BC. The history of Iran has been proven by archeologists and scholars to be much more ancient than what is claimed on Misplaced Pages. Certain settlements and villages that have been excavated prove that civilizations and permanent settlements have existed in Iran for at least 7000 years. The date on the history page should be corrected to say at least 5000BCE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dariush4444 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 23 February 2006.

It says "Written history" dates back 3000BC. There's a difference. Excavations do not necessarily imply written history. Besides, the article History of Iran verifies what youre saying anyway (about much older excavations existing). As far as I know, we have settlements dating back to pre-historic times there.--Zereshk 21:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The article says that written history starts around 3000BC When in fact the Elamite tablets that have been found date back to much before 3200BC. Also, why does wikipedia start with "written" history in regards to Iran. For other countrys they start right from the date that the earliest settlements have been found.

Another attack on Iranian pages

Some editors are in the process of erasing the page Iranian peoples, claiming "such a term does not exist". (!)

Im sick and tired of fighting these Iranophobes. WP has turned into a magnet for such twisted agendas of separatists.

The fighting is also going in:

And if you thought it was just some hostile so called anti-Iranian editors trying to erase the memory of Iran, think again.

They are doing the work of western intelligence agencies that specifically intend to bring "violent fragmentation" to Iran.--Zereshk 21:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

First your wording is very aggresive and provokes anti-pathy I do not believe it is encouraged in wikipedia. Attack or dispute? fighting or discussion?

Second what you mean by linking to an article about western intelligence agencies

and accuse some wikipedians to be supported by them?

Third and as a result if you have not enough source for an article it is not a good reason to become angry and provoke other newcomers against some users.

Please act civil. and do not turn discussions to a personal, racial, national, religious, cultural, local, international, political or historical or even family war!

Diyako Talk + 22:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Diyako, calm down. Read my comment above more carefully. Do you see me even using the word "support" above? But I did say that you are doing their work. And that is a plain fact. That's why I provided the link. Also, youre the one who is angry and determined to censor Iranian pages. Not me.--Zereshk 22:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm against censorship. against oroginal research. against accusation. I'm not angry this is you who are angry because could not provide any sources for the article. I'm just suggesting to you calm down. Before you wrote this accusations I had left that page but if you still think that dispute be continued then no problem I'll nominate that page for deletion.Diyako Talk + 23:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately thats not your call.--Zereshk 23:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No one can ever ruin Iran. Iran has been around for at least 7000 years. We have fought the Romans, Greeks, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, etc....We are still here and our culture and heritage is as strong as ever. One day soon when we get rid of the stupid mullahs in Tehran then Iran will become a strong, powerful, and respected PERSIAN country again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariush4444 (talk • contribs)

Heja Helweda, Diyako, Aucaman

These three users are on some sort of anti-Iranian crusade vandalizing all the Iranian and Persian related articles. We need to keep an eye on their " edit activities" as their intentions is not sincere but merely for the purpose of propagating false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManiF (talk • contribs)

The anti-Iranian edits of these users has led several editors to report the 3 editors above to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please voice your opinions.--Zereshk 21:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

They fabricate and manipulate information and I for one 100% agree that these individuals must be complained on. 69.196.139.250 05:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

T'aarof

An article on t'aarof appeared on the front page yesterday. Unfortunately, the article contains very little information on t'aarof, but is rather a Marxist criticism of it. If any of the knowledgable editors here would like to go over and add some information on what t'aarof involves , that would be great. Ashmoo 23:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

New addition to Iranian articles

All,

I just finished constructing the following article from scratch. Please feel free to edit, if you see errors:

Iran-Britain relations

Thank you.--Zereshk 11:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Diyako's latest attack on Iranian articles

All,

Diyako is trying to delete yet another Iranian related article: See here. Thanks. --Zereshk 00:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandal attacks over at Khomeini

Ruhollah Khomeini is once again being attacked by extreme anti-Khomeinist vandals. SouthernComfort 13:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The naming of Iran

I included a quote from a well-respected Iranologist, Ehsan Yarshater: "The suggestion for the change is said to have come from the Iranian ambassador to Germany, who came under the influence of the Nazis." It's from his well-published paper here. Read the second paragraph. Why is this being removed? Aucaman 05:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Because it is just a theory. The name of Iran has been Iran for the last few hundred years, by putting that it came under influence of Nazsi's like how you have put it, makes it sound like it was a new name. --Kash 10:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well you're being extremely vague. Here's the statement: "The suggestion for the change is said to have come from the Iranian ambassador to Germany, who came under the influence of the Nazis." Do you believe the statement is true? You don't think it's relevant to this section? You might want to explain. Aucaman 13:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to jump in here and say something. I have done much research into the topic and know much regarding the Naiming of Iran. You are both correct about this. Iranians have been calling their home land Iran for hundreds of years and to be more exact since the time of the Safavids. But foreign countries have referred to Iran as Persia since the time of Achamenids. In 1935, as hitler was gaining power, the Iranian ambassador fell under the influence of the Nazi and asked Reza Shah to asked all countries to call Persia as to Iran, which means the Land of the Aryans, and since Hitler was working on the speculation that he was from real Aryan race, this change would put Iran in good grounds with him. And so on March 21 1935 Reza Shah sent a message to all Iranian delegates around the world to ask the country they were in to refer to Persia as Iran. So in fact both of your reasons are right. Later in 1959, some scholars such as Ehsan Yarshater started rasing questions as to why Iran is not called Persia because of its great history, and you should note that it was during this time Ehsan Yarshater made that comment provided by Aucaman. And so in 1959, Mohammad Reza Shah, who was very much in favor of returning Iran to its powerfull heritage, told other countries that both names can be used in calling Iran/Persia. This is a fact, many Iranian scholars including Ehsan Yarshater whom I have talked to agree with me on this. --(Aytakin) | Talk 23:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I never said Iranians haven't been calling their country Iran. (The article says the name "Iran" goes back to Sassanians, but I think it even goes back more.) But the decision to change the countrty's name was proposed by Germans, and I wanted this included in the section. It's been reverted without any explanation. Why? Aucaman 23:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

As much as I don't particulary understand why Aucaman wants that info in the main article, other people's edits to quickly remove it without discussion here on the talk page about why it shouldn't be in the article is also definitely not correct. Aucuman has shown he wants to discuss it's inclusion, and has waited for responses, and others are not willing to discuss, but just remove the disputed statement. I'm not for or against it's inclusion, but Aucaman has a source, and it should be discussed rather than just merely removed. -- Jeff3000 03:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The information is selective and based on some author's POV/speculation without any documents and certainly doesn't belong in the article. --ManiF 03:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What you mean without any documents? You don't think Ehsan Yarshater's article is a good enough source? Do you have any reason to believe this is not true? And no, the section is not neutral as it stands right now because it is ignoring the real reasons and causes behind the change in name. Aucaman 03:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not one of the reverters, but am just adding my opinion for perspective. While the info may well be true, I don't see it as terribly notable. This is an article about Iran in general and this little factoid, while interesting, seems too be a bit of a tangent, unless it is explained how the relationship with the Germans is significant to Iran. It seems like it would be better placed in a seperate article detailing the history of the name of Iran, or Nazi Germany's odd relationship with the idea of Aryans/Iranians etc. Ashmoo 03:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality problems

If you read the section over again, it is written as if the decision to change the country's name was caused by a popular demand. It ignores the fact that the decision was highly influenced by outside forces and that it was opposed by a lot of scholars inside and outside the country (who rightly thought the renaming would distance Iran from its history). If everything is as black-and-white as some people here say, then why do you think there's a "naming controversy"? Aucaman 03:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I read the section again, and it didn't give me the impression that the name change was caused by popular demand. All it says is that it was prompted by Pehlavi. I don't know much about the subject, but the German thing doesn't seem to help much. The reader could easily assume that the population at large were 100% behind the Germans in the name change. Maybe you could a mention that there was internal opposition to the change, and very briefly describe the nature of the opposition? Ashmoo 04:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ashmoo here, the current section does not give the impression that the name change was caused by popular demand. -- Jeff3000 04:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It does not give such an impression and seems neutral to me. Zain 04:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I still don't know why my additions were removed without any reasons. It simply puts things in context. Aucaman 05:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should leave messages on the reverter's talk page? But I disagree that your additions 'put things in context'. There is no context in your edit, the sentence just mentions the Nazis with no explanation of why they would care about what the country calls itself. Ashmoo 05:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman, I've just finished reading the excerpt from Ehsan Yarshater that you linked. Frankly, it seems very vague 'it is said' is used twice, the ambassador is unnamed, as are his 'German friends'. Without having read the rest of the article, it seems like Yarshater is relating an unprovable aside, rather than trying to present a thesis. Unless you have I better cite than this, I don't think it meets WP:Verifiability. Regards, Ashmoo 06:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I already left a note on his page. Nothing yet. He has a history of reverting any edit I make without much explanation, so I'm not surprised. And the article does go into detail about how and why the name was changed, so if someone is interested they can just click on the article and read it. As for verifiability, Ehsan Yarshater is a well-known figure and his word should be trusted. I'm sure he wouldn't just publish these if he wasn't sure about the accuracy of the claims. The same article has been used by people to source various other claims (both on this page and others). And I don't know of any other articles contradicting what he's saying, so I have no reason to believe what he's saying is wrong. Any further research into the specifics of this would probably fall under WP:NOR. At some point you'd have to trust someone's interpretation of the evidence; I think Yarshater is a good candidate. Aucaman 06:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not doubting Yarshater credentials or status as a reliable historian. But the tone of the article you referenced is very hypothetical and vague. Many respected and influential scholars provide side commentary on topics that they don't expect to stand up to the same scrutiny as their major works. It sounds to me like this is the case for this comment of his.

WP also has a policy that the mainstream view of things takes centre stage and other views are noted as such. If there are other cites to support this view being very well accepted, then great. Otherwise it needs to be presented as 'Yarshater speculated that the German ambassador....' (if at all). Regards, Ashmoo 07:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman asked me to look at this article, and I'm sorry to disappoint him, but I don't think that there's much wrong with the naming section. The only thing that might be changed is the word "although", which suggests that non-Iranians were using the word Persia in defiance of Iranian wishes. IMHO, people just accept that other languages use different words (Nihon/Japan, Deutschland/Germany, etc.) A semicolon would do the job. Any allegations of Nazi influence should be discussed in the naming controversy article, not in the main Iran article. Too much detail and an article is unreadable. Zora 07:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Would this do for a name section?

Ever since the Sassanian period, Persian-speaking Iranians have referred to their country as Iran, which means Land of the Aryans. The Greeks called the country Persis; this passed into Latin as Persia, which has been the name most used in the West. .

On March 21 1935 Reza Shah Pahlavi issued a decree asking foreign delegates to use the Persian-language term Iran in formal correspondence. After Persian scholars protested, Mohammad Reza Shah in 1959 announced that both Persia and Iran could be used interchangeably.

The Iranian Revolution of 1979 ultimately led to the establishment of a theocratic Islamic Republic. The country's political title was changed to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Iranians still differ strongly as to whether, when speaking English, Iran or Persia should be the preferred term. See Iran naming dispute for further discussion.

I'm putting this up here for comment. I was just going to change the "although" to a semi-colon, but when I started work, I decided that looked abrupt. Perhaps this will do? Zora 09:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's great. Let's see what others think. Aucaman 09:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I want to add a point in regards to the German influence over the 1935 name change however. It is important to understand that it is usually the detracting opinions of anti-monarchial, and in particular anti-Pahlavi forces that resort to this fact whenever there is a chance to demonize Iran's final dynasty. Although it should be noted in more detailed accounts of the international name change, it should be buffered by the notion that it was also fomented by Reza Shah's administration under his nationalistic mandate. QajarCoffee

That's covered in the article on the naming dispute. We can't drag all the details from that article into the main Iran article. I've seen this happen over and over in the years I've spent on WP -- people seem to want everything in the main article, which grows until it is so long and so detailed that it is nigh unusable. Please, let's keep this short! Zora 18:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me as well. -- Jeff3000 14:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That looks pretty good to me too. That is assuming that there is actually debate in Iran over the name of the country. It would be good to get some actual evidence of the scope of the debate. Ashmoo 23:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Update

Someone took off the dispute tag, so I'm going to implement these changes for now. If someone has a problem they should use a dispute tag and then come here and discuss their problems. Aucaman 22:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine that you implemented the change, but why did you go further and add back the Nazi reference, which people agreed on non-including. You don't seem to be helping your own cause of trying to discuss before making changes. -- Jeff3000 00:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Why remove note saying to see naming dispute article?

Zmmz, why remove the note? It's true that Iranians/Persians dispute the issue. Is it just because we made a change without your approval? Other people seemed to be fine with the change, which seemed to me to be primarily copyediting, not substance. The only problem some people had was the whole "Nazi name" thing, which we kept out of the main article. Zora 23:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I left him another note on his talk page. He did not respond and just removed the comment. He has a history of just removing my edits without much explanation. Aucaman 23:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Naming Issue

Broad statement based on speculations shouldn't be included in the article. There is no data of what Iranian think or believe. --ManiF 23:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh? If we have an article entitled Naming dispute, isn't that evidence of a dispute? Plus it seems kinda disingenuous to deny that there's a dispute when I've been berated for using Persia and berated for using Iran, right here on Misplaced Pages. There seems to be some disagreement! Zora 23:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zora. Surely 'disputes' on WP talk pages don't count as verifiable evidence. It would be good if these reverters did provide more commentary. But the article text states there is debate amongst Iranians themselves, and I think we do need evidence for this. Regards, Ashmoo 00:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No the controversy is pretty much over now. The country is now usually called Iran, although in historical contexts it is sometimes be called Persia. The point that I was trying to make is that the decision was controversial back then because most non-Iranians had never heard the term "Iran". This should be reflected in the article. Aucaman 00:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but do you have any evidence that the decision was controversial back then? Ashmoo 00:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well the article says that Persian scholars protested the name change. It also says that the decision was later reversed. You don't think the decision was controversial if it was later reversed? When was the last time you heard a monarch reverse his decree on something? Aucaman 00:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ashmoo, the evidence is in the WP article to which readers are referred. There are multiple statements there saying that Iranians/Persians didn't agree re the name change. The article links to this 2005 essay , which says,

"There are also many Persians and non-Persians in the West who prefer "Persia" and "Persian" as the English names for the country and nationality ..."

That's last year. The article was written by an Iranian and published in an Iranian newspaper. Now Aucaman may be right in saying that these are all geriatric scholars and everyone else has adjusted and let's all just move on, folks, there's nothing to see here -- that's the part that we can't decide without a poll -- but it's clear to me that dissent hasn't died completely. Zora 01:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Zora! Actual evidence! The linked article states that serious debates started in the 1980s, which seems to contradict the 'contraversial back then' claim. Also, the 'Bring Back Persia' linked article states: This strange act met no significant resistance at home, given the totalitarian nature of the regime, widespread illiteracy, and the intelligentsia's lack of insight. Am I understanding this correctly? Ashmoo 01:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the article says that Persian scholars protested the name change. It also says that the decision was later reversed. You don't think the decision was controversial if it was later reversed by the same person who advocated it? When was the last time you heard a monarch reverse his decree on something? The evidence is out there; it just requires a small inference. Aucaman 01:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I would guess that this debate matters primarily to people who speak languages other than Persian -- which would be academics specializing in Persia/Iran, Iranians in diaspora, and Iranian intellectuals. Yes, this discussion would hold no interest for some guy in a village in Fars who doesn't speak English. It's also clear from the WP article that the dispute started in 1935, with the decree, and has simmered along since then. However, it may have gotten more intense in the 1980s with the vast increase in the Iranian diaspora after the Revolution. Stuff that doesn't matter when you're living in Tehran may matter a lot more when you're living in L.A. Zora 01:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In any case what's wrong with calling the decision to change the name of the country "controversial"? The person reverting it is not also not participating in these talks. Aucaman 01:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can start an article on wiki, this so-called controversy is no controversy to Iranians and certainly not significant enough to be included in this article. Iran has always been named Iran by Iranians and Reza Shah decided that Westerners should use the native name Iran instead of Persia. That's all we know and that's all there is to it. The rest are speculations based on POV. They don't belong on this article, there should only be facts stated not speculations. --ManiF 06:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If everything is a clear-cut as you say, then could you tell me why the decision was reversed in 1959? Aucaman 22:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You keep bringing this up, but I think it is a red herring. As wikipedia editors we aren't allowed to speculate on why historical events happened. We must rely of 3rd party analyses of events and provide cites to them in our edits. Ashmoo 23:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Acuman all your questions and concerns have been addressed, but you insist on going in loops until you can edit the article the WAY YOU ALONE WANT. When facts were presented about Kurds being an ethnic Iranian people you suppressed them based on a so-called, unjust, and hollow consensus, but now when all editors are against your demands you try new tactics! This is obviously wrong. Do you not think your cyber-actions are Self-contradicting? If the discsuusion histories you are in are all read by users they will see you contradict yourself and not consistant in your rational and argument. DO not take this as a personal attack but as observation of the content you push. You are creating a negative atmosphere in the community. 69.196.139.250 01:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I have every right to question different aspects of articles, especially their POV issues. This is part of verifying the NPOV status of articles and is done only in good faith. The fact that I get shot down for even bringing up certain questions that have never been discussed before proves the high level of censorship on some these articles. Aucaman 05:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn`t censorship, it`s you refusing to accept refrences and going against consensus, yet again, while hidding under the protecting umbrella of being a neutral user.Zmmz 05:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

On WP, people can go against consensus, if there is reason to believe that they represent a notable point of view. If there's a dispute, we give all POVs. So instead of trying to stamp out any dissent, the question should be one of notability. There are numerous cites establishing notability, notably in the WP article devoted to the dispute. Zora 05:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a line beween having reasonable concerns, and being unreasonable in order to push a POV, that to you may seem a no brainer, yet to scholars it is either unacceptable, or at best ify. Simultanously disputing these articles, non-stop, and not accepting multiple universal refrences is a problem. This an encyclopedia afterall, and many of these allegations are suitable for newspaper articles, not here.Zmmz 06:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Iranian Jews

Sorry Iranian Jews are both an ethnic group and a religious group. In this regard they're similar to the Parsi ethnic group. See the article on Jews for more information. Aucaman 05:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Categories: