Talk:Iranian peoples - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Togrol (talk | contribs) at 09:50, 30 April 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:50, 30 April 2006 by Togrol (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

collage of different iranian peoples

I'd like to point out some major problems with . The second picture from the left is an azeri woman who are Turkic, not Iranic. Plus Catherine Bell's ancestry is half Scottish. I dont mean to play spoilsport, but these are glaring errors on an image that is supposed to represent Iranian peoples. -Kilhan 02:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Cathrine Belle is nevertheless an Iranian, and frankly a very good example of the new-age, mixed Iranians. Also, Azeris are defined as Iranian-Turkic people, by all sources that I know of, so certainly, they are a valuable peice to the Iranian peoples as a whole. They have been Iranian before even the country of Turkey was formed. Also, for example is a Kurdish-Turk to be discriminate against and should not be called a Turk? see all ethnicities/picture of Iranian-Azeris hereThanksZmmz 02:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of Azeris in this article is still being discussed, so unless we include them, we shouldn't have a picture of an Azeri woman. —Khoikhoi 02:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we can't include the Azeris. It seems that we are veering away from the purposes of this article. In fact, after having given a rendition of what the Iranian peoples are, how is it possible to actually trace the Azeris to an Iranic tribe, that is all of them in a manner similar to that of the Kurds, Persians, and Pashtuns who all speak Iranian languages? It's all heresay and without the language link any inclusion of other groups is not tenable. Furthermore, culture and history would include a great many people (including Arabs, Assyrians, Armenians, etc.) and render this article pointless, which it is not. It serves a purpose and explains the movements of the various Iranian peoples as a whole and their modern counterparts. By including other groups to appease one group, in this case the Persians, we open a pandora's box and the inclusion of the Azeris will simply turn this article into a Persian/Iran (the country) page rather than an academic view of the Iranian peoples. Giving them some peripheral mention is one thing, but counting them as an Iranian people is just not logical. Tombseye 03:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, nor you, nor I can decide which ethnicity belongs where. It just is, and we include that it in the info/articles here; unless, there are some new discoveries for example. Azeris are Iranian people, going back as far as the ethnic Iranian-Turkin dynasty of Safavids centuries ago. Ask any Azeri about their ethnicity, and they`ll reply, Azeri/Irany. It is beyond the scope of regular editors to re-define ethnicities .ThanksZmmz 03:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't my whim as you seem to believe, but that of the majority of academic departments which classify Iranian or Iranic peoples based first and foremost upon their language. Are you not reading the article which clearly states that 'ethnicity' is just one factor? This article is about ONE aspect, while Iranian Turks or Turko-Iranian another factor. Actually, some Azeris, such as those from the country, don't consider themselves 'Iranian' and that's not relevant to the discussion. What's more this article, again if you read it, explains who the ancient tribes were and how some connect to the present peoples as well. Where are the Azeris to fit in here? What shall we put in? That Persians consider them Iranian and thus they must be included? That they aren't actually Turks? You're pushing a POV that is not academic here just as some of the Kurdish editors wanted the classification to be more wide in scope. Everyone's actually coming here with their national perspective and then claiming that this article must conform to their wishes. The Iranian peoples article is not just the Persians. What's more, the article at Bartleby only says that the Azeris are Persian in culture, which is covered in the Turko-Iranian page and is not denied on this page either. Sharing a culture does not make them Iranian or Iranic because they do not speak an Iranian language and cannot be universally traced to ancient Iranian tribes (I already know that most of the Persians seem to want them included as 'Medes' or Scythians) because that's debateable as there is evidence also linking them to the Oghuz Turks and the Caucasian Albanians. So in conclusion, this is not my arbitrary decision, as I am only trying to render this article to conform to consistency (just as the Turkic, Germanic, Slavic articles do) and adhere towards common academic views. Tombseye 03:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not initiate another edit war here; it is not my comments, rather I provided you with both Columbia Encyclopedia and , Encyclopedia Britannica Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran. Germanic people are irrelevant here, and these disputes are frankly too frivolous, too often. Excuse me, why is there an argument here? Zmmz 03:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I just read those articles and they Azeris are a Turkic people. What's your point? Tombseye 15:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is another pic.Zmmz 04:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to be "Mr. Killjoy", but it still has the Azeri woman in it. —Khoikhoi 04:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are three more pictures Zmmz 05:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The last picture seems fine. Tombseye 15:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Azeri people

It is very upsetting for me as an Iranian that one of the greatest ethnic groups of Iran can not be included but I am afraid, I have to agree with khoikhoi and tombseye. Yes being Iranian/Iranic is much more than just linguistic but language is the most important link. If we add them then it would be fair for Turkish editors to consider adding Kurdish people of turkey to the Turkic people article. After all, I am sure they have adapted some Turkish culture after being part of a Turkish country for so long and the only clear difference that they have with the Turks is their non-Turkic language. same goes for the Iraqi kurds. We can not have double standards. Azeri people are very much part of Iran and Iranian in culture but they do not speak and Iranian language and this is very important. Remember that this article is not about Iran or who did what, who was most loyal, or who has been there the longest; rather it is about an ethnic and linguistic group of people. Almost half of the members of this group don’t even live in Iran. Talking about Azeri people and other Turkish speaking Iranians in a separate section is a great idea but we can not add them to the list.

Sorry for the long message!Gol 04:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

My sincere opinion is that it is better to delete the article, and spread its contents over other articles such as Iranian languages etc., rather than leave it like this and not include the Azeris which are one of the most important ethnic groups of Greater Iran. I am not even an Azeri myself, but I do not know of a single Azeri person - and I know many - who wouldn't identify him/herself first and foremost as Iranian. What's the problem with stating that they are linguistically Turkic, but in most other ways Iranian? Besides, virtually all Azeris of Iran also speak Persian, as do all Iranians for that matter. The problem is the wrong definition on this page. Shervink 07:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

But you're the one who recently changed the definition in the first place. There is a difference than being a citizen of Iran and one of the Iranian peoples. See User:Grandmaster's comment here. —Khoikhoi 07:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You're merging Iranian citizens with an academic category is the problem. Note that the Hazara, who have a great deal of Mongol ancestry are considered an Iranian people due to their language and culture and yet could be argued as a Turkic-Mongol group who just happen to speak an Iranian language. This article can't be merged into the Iranian languages article BECAUSE that article is specifically about the languages and the various evidentiary traits that classify them as Iranian languages. That article actually needs more work in order to compare grammatical forms, idioms, vocabulary etc., but that's where that article's emphasis is. This article is about the tribes and languages and cultures and how they are linked in various ways. Where else is this to be rendered? Where else can you get a picture of how this group of people came to be and how these languages and peoples were formed? It serves a purpose and there is plenty of room in the Turko-Iranian and Iranian Turkish articles to discuss how Iranian the Azeris are, at least according to some people. This article is not about that aspect. Why the need to keep the Kurds in (when some Kurdish editors felt that it was too orthodox to include them as an Iranian people) and then also incorporate the Azeris who don't even speak an Iranian language? Now at this rate, nationalism has come up with the Pashtun page where some people insist that the Pashtuns are not an Iranic people and that Pashto is not traced to Middle Iranian, but is actually a separate branch of the old Indo-Iranian group. Original research pure and simple that is not substantiated. This case is the same. I'm not saying the Azeris have a great many commonalities with Persians, Kurds, etc., but they are a Turkic people according to Encyclopedia Britannica, Americana, Bartley, and all the other sources that I've been given as evidence with the only mention being that they are Persian in culture. At this point, I can only conclude that this has more to do with nationalism than a rational choice to render an encyclopedic article about the Iranian peoples. Note in the article the various discussions of the various groups. The Croatians have a theory that they are not Slavs, but descendents of the Sarmatians so shall we add them? There is a place to discuss other views and then there is a place to explain the most commonly accepted academic perspectives on various peoples. Without that, we have chaos and I won't be able to argue that the Kurds cannot be included as a Turkic people since we will have lost any semblance of consistency. Tombseye 15:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Tombseye, I think your previous post actually clarifies my point of view to a large extent. I have been saying all along that Iranian languages and Iranian peoples need two articles, not one, because Iranian peoples have a broader meaning than just language. You say the same in the previous post. Considering that as given, there is no reason to exclude Azeris from this article based on linguistic issues, since, as you pointed out, that is not the main concern here. Note also that, as you said yourself, Azeris are Persian in culture, at least in most respects. It goes without saying that the proper definition of this article would give equal weight to language and culture. There is nothing wrong with associating Azeris with Turkic and Iranian/Iranic people simultaneously. In fact, that would be more accurate, simply because they are affiliated with both. Shervink 16:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

I think that problem can be addressed at the Turko-Iranian page. I'm actually adding more information on the matter to clarify things for people. Even a small sub-section regarding Turko-Iranian culture might be in order as well on both the Iranian peoples and Turkic peoples page to help clarify that these groups are often quite fluid. My main point here is that on this page we are talking about the Iranian peoples of the past who segue into the present and that makes the direct inclusion of the Azeris higly problematic. Tombseye 16:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what is problematic about the inclusion of Azeris. Azeris are very commonly considered Iranian, and they rarely state otherwise themselves. It is the exclusion of Azeris which needs clarification and is problematic, not their inclusion. Shervink 16:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

I think you're taking a Persian perspective rather than an academic one, but here's a compromise then. We can create a sub-section under ethnic groups regarding related and overlapping groups and include a discussion of the Azeris and not list them as an Iranian people as that is just viable within the parameters of this article. In fact it's already kind of started as I've been added information on the subject and the interaction between Persians and Azeris etc. Tombseye 16:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don’t think it is correct to include Azeris with Iranian people. I have nothing but respect for Iranian and Persian people, they are our brothers and sisters, but the ethnicity is based on the language, and Azeris are Turkic speakers. They belong to Turkic people, despite their close historical and cultural ties with Iranian people. Grandmaster 18:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"ethnicity is based on the language"? Since when? Also I don't think Azeris have spoken Turkic languages from the begining. Although I doubt there is any historical evidence to support/oppose this -- - K a s h 23:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Azeris belong to the same group as Yakuts and Gagauz, despite Azeris being culturally closer to Persians and not having much in common with many Turkic people. That is because all those people speak Turkic languages. So Azeris don’t belong to Iranian people, insisting on the opposite would not be an academic approach. On the other hand, there are close cultural ties between Azeris and Persian people, but this should be addressed a different way, not by inclusion of Azeris with Iranian people. Maybe a special section should be created for that in the article. Grandmaster 04:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Frankly they belong to both Iranians and Turks, i.e., they are Iranians-Turks,; not each one individually. Much like a child born to parent from two different countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmmz (talk • contribs)

Hmm in a way. They may be called Turk because of their language, but historically speaking Azeris have been as Iranian as much as any other tribe in Iran -- - K a s h 23:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly the reason why they should be included within both groups, with a notice on each page to point out the relation to the other group. Shervink 23:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

Genetics

Why is this section even here? Does it say anything in particular about the Iranian peoples, or rather does it simply concerntrate on the Kurds? In case anyone is curious, there is already another biased article regarding the "genetic origins" of the Kurds. I find it curious that these speculative racialist theories are included here as fact, when they are simply the POV of a group of scientists. At any rate, I ask again - does this information belong here considering that it cannot be used to generalize millions upon millions of people spread across the region? I'd really like to know. SouthernComfort 07:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not 'racialist' at all. National Geographic now regularly employs genetic and genealogical tests to prove or disprove population movements, such as with the Phoenicians and the Mongols. It also gives us insights into cultural assimilation and is actually becoming quite common in academia. How is it biased if we find genetic markers that show Kurdish links to people in the Caucasus? They are still an Iranic people and also have common genes with Iranic people in addition so what's the problem? These tests, once a wider sample has taken place, will give us more insights. The Kurds will remain an Iranic people since they do possess the main criteria, an Iranian language as do the Ossetians and Hazara etc. the problem is that people think of these tests as a litmus test for race when they should be looking at the common genetic markers that show links between various peoples and to what degree. The question of cultural assimilation shows that the Azeris, who are bitter adversaries of the Armenians, are actually closely related to them. I'm more in favor of adding information than deleting it at any rate. If you have information or think the findings are controversial and can word it well, then add what you can. Tombseye 14:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this article is about the Iranian peoples in general and using a genetic study that focuses only on one group to make generalizations about the whole is POV. If you have genetic studies that compare similarities/differences between Iranian/Iranic populations, that's one thing. But as it is the section is rather speculative and this is unnecessary. As such, I suggest including only the first study since it does mention specific populations (according to the article: "Persians, Iranian Turks, Lurs, Iranian Kurds, Mazandarans, and Gilaks") - I haven't read the whole article, but it seems, however, that they only sampled populations from Iran. More details from that article could be incorporated here, i.e. how many were sampled, what regions were they from, etc. The second source appears to focus only on Kurds from Iraq (correct me I'm wrong). Again, there is already another article with this same exact information. My suggestion is to only include sources which collectively compare Iranian populations, rather than focus on a single group. SouthernComfort 05:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a valid argument. Actually, I didn't particularly want the Kurdish study myself, but then there are a lot of things that I don't want done that people insist upon for their own reasons. It's not easy since everyone is a critic and everyone wants something to be placed in a way that may make no sense. Now on the Pashtun page we have people who insist that the Pashtuns are not Iranic at all. It's a never-ending thing on wikipedia. Well, like I said, I don't have a problem with taking out the studies that don't talk about all the Iranian peoples and whatever you have in mind sounds okay to me. Tombseye 21:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

When Iranians started called themselves Iranians

This might be not relevant to the topics above. But interesting to know the answer if someone has a source for it. Might be an idea to put the answer in ethymology section here or in Iran.

We know for sure that Iran and Iranians widely called themselves so in times of Samanids and Ghaznavid dynasties since the term was extensively used in Shahnameh of Ferdowsi. We also know that different versions of the term is used in some Avestan text but not sure if those texts were widely used due to class system in Sassanid empire. Also if the term is used in tehr same context.

However, in the pre-Islamic times, I am not sure. Most Arab texts refer to Sassanid Iranians as Persians (فارسي) or Ajams (عجمي) and earlier times Greeks also used their equivalent of Persians. I wonder if the term was used for the first time by Iranians after Islamic era and possibly during Samanids. Persian Magi 01:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

My guess is since Iran means, Land of Aryans, and archeological evidence show that Cuneiforms indicate Darius I stated he was the King of Land of Aryans, then it may very well go back to Achaemenid era; 2500 years or so ago.Zmmz 01:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it goes back to the Achaemenids. See Behistun inscription. It was at least used by the Sassanids as the name of their empire (Eranshahr), but it's not clear how widespread it was otherwise. Whether or not it was used between the Arab conquest and 1935 is not clear. Was it used in the Shahnameh? My English ebook version of Firdausi doesn't have one Aryan in it, though that's hardly conclusive evidence. I also looked for noble or nobles, and got citations like, "the king and his nobles", which don't seem to imply an ethnic cognomen. What did people living in the area that is now Iran call themselves between 850 and 1935? Does anyone have any cites? Zora 04:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

True, Shahnameh does not mention Arya. But, if you look at of Shahnameh you find many many mentions of the term Iran there which implicitly means Aryans. Persian Magi 06:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Aha, you're right, I was thinking of Aryan, not of Iran as Iran versus Turan. So we get a country, or an empire name (Eran, Iran), but not the name of a people. Fits with Garthwaite's thesis that the realm was constituted by the ruler, not by the people? It's us moderns who put the "people" first. Zora 07:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"Whether or not it was used between the Arab conquest and 1935 is not clear." Purely your opinion. Provide evidence that there is no "clarity." SouthernComfort 05:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm asking -- are there any cites that prove it was used? I haven't seen any such use of "Aryan" in the books I've read on those centures, but my reading is hit or miss, in English. If it's so common and well-attested, surely there would be some quotes that would show its existence? Zora 05:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have not heard and read anywhere in Iranain sources the term "Aryan" being using before modern Iranian literature. I am not sure even if our poets and writers knew that Iran meant Persians, Meds etc. Remember Persepolis was called "Takhte-Jamshid" since no one knew it was Achamenid palace. Persian Magi 06:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Darius in Behistun inscription said: "I, Darius, great king, king of kings, king in Pars, King of countries, Son of Vishtasp, grandson of Arsham the Achamenid" and did not mention Aryans. Please refere to the complete text and its translation of Behistun inscription here. I went through the whole document and found no such a mention of Iran or Aryans. Even the ending mentions that he made another Cuneiforms with help of Ahuramazda where the writer interprets that Cuneiform as Aryan Cuneiform. So even there no mention of Arya by Darius himself! Lots of mentions of Pars and Parsi, however. And indeed lots of bragging even about gruesome details of punishments of defeated; ear cutting, eye poking etc.; well Darius was like any other empror with his own version of brutalities and not a saint. Persian Magi 06:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I found it! I was wrong on the source (it's the Naqsh-i-Rustam, not the Behistun), but the inscription says:

2. (8-15.) I am Darius the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage.

I would also think that claiming to be divinely ordained to rule by Ahura Mazda entails Zoroastrianism which means that the historical accounts from those scriptures, which do mention Aryans, would be relevant. Zora 08:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"Land of Aryans"

The term Īrān in Modern Persian comes from the Middle Persian term Ērān which in turn comes from the Old Persian term ariya-. In the 19th century the term ariya- was "discovered" by archeologists and linguists studying various Iranian texts - and it was later incorporated into Modern Persian with a very limited usage (usually having to do with the history of Iran, race, and nationalism). So, to make a long story short, you cannot find any mention of the exact word "Arya" or "Aryan" in any Persian text between 300AD-1800AD. You can find it after and before, but not in between.

The term Ērān in MP, however, is a cognate of the OP ariya-. It's sad to see so many people going around saying "Iran means 'Land of Aryans'". How can a four-letter word mean "Land of Aryans"??? Iran, Eran, and ariya are altimately the same word: *arya- (the asterik means it's reconstructed). This "land of Aryans" business is probably coming from the other term Ērānšahr (MP pron.: airaan-shahr) which is usually translated "land of Iran" or "land of Iranians". But Iran by itself doesn't really mean anything. If you stretch it far enough you can say it means "noble", but I don't know where this "land of Aryans" nonsense is coming from. Probably some ultra-nationalist thing. Heh. Aucaman 09:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It's funny that you said its nonsense, did you read the sources? How can you say Iran by itself doesn't mean anything when you have, your self, in the same paragraph, described where it comes from?!!! I can stretch it even further for you, Airyanem Vaejah, Aryana, Eranvej, Iran Shahr, Aryanam and Iran. It's always been pretty much the same title, but language has changed through out the time. It's sad to see a self pro-claimed "Iranian" denying his Aryan heritage - K a s h 09:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

We know that the word was used by the Achaemenids to describe a people, and by the Sassanids (and by Firdausi in writing the history of the Sassanids) to describe a land ... but it's not clear what words were used for realms and peoples between the Sassanids and the Pahlavis. I'm starting to suspect that it was discontinuous, but I could well be wrong. Instead of just stating "it's so", surely some cites could be found.

Ah, just found one reference. The Garthwaite first chapter says that "Iran was the term commonly used in Iran and by Iranians, except from the seventh to the thirteenth centuries." So he's saying it's discontinuous. Thirteenth century -- that would be after the Mongol invasions. Dang, I wish I had his book, I could turn to that chapter. Zora 09:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Whats your point? ofcourse the country had a different name under invasion! Thats just irrelevant - K a s h 10:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Pictures: vote please

About the picture, I like the current one but it might be a good idea to include some people who are NOT Iranians citizens. This way it would clearly, at first look, show the readers that this category has nothing to do with Iranian citizens. Hamid Karzai is a very good choice but all the other people are from inside the borders of Iran and more than likely Iranian citizens or children of Iranian citizens. Maybe a Kurdish citizen of Turkey or a Tajik person would be a good idea. Gol 05:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. The new picture now has a Persian Jewish guy from Israel that is still Iran-specific. I'd suggest, at the most 2 people from Iran, 1 Afghan, 1 Kurd, and someone from one of the other groups such as a Tajik, Baluch, Ossetian etc. Tombseye 21:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly interesting! I like how pictures are placed :) -- - K a s h 22:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The picture really needs more diversity though. It's too Iranian/Persian specific and the picture of the Shaul Mofaz seems pointless as the section isn't about Persian Jews who are an Iranian people since they speak Persian so there is no cultural assimilation so that is the wrong place for that picture and there really isn't room anywhere for it on this page. The collage should include more diversity with a Kurd and a Tajik at least to be included. Persian-Canadian isn't really different from Persian for example. Tombseye 00:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I asked you before, and in the discussion you said the pic is fine, submit it. It is extremely difficult to get high quality, unique pics, and the copyright permissions from creators of the pics, and I have done so. As a compromise we can replace the Gilaki woman with a Kurd, but in text only, such that the pic is only a model representing generically Iranian peoples. So, she is actually representing a Kurd. In fact, the designer himself states, “My work is always inspired from my culture: Googoosh, Qajars, Kurds, Qashqais, as well as revolutionaries”, see pic description by the designer here. You can view his web site. And, I already added a pic of a Tajik. Also, Persian Jews, are as Iranian as anybody else.Zmmz 00:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't have a problem with it, but this Pashtun guy who look at this article seemed to take offense to the page as it seems to be Persian top heavy. The Israeli guy is a Persian ethnically so it's pointless to have him and he's in the wrong section as he belongs in the religion section, but frankly the article is now too cluttered with pictures. The collage could be okay ethnic diversity, but detracts from the article at the top in my opinion and belongs in the place of the Tajik guy who should be added to your collage instead. The woman in traditional dress looks great under the culture section though and is appropriate to the section. Don't just add pictures to fill up space as that will make this article look less than appealing. Your collage at the top now has 4 Persians and 1 Pashtun. How is that representative? And then there is a Tajik, an eastern Persian basically and then another Persian from Israel. Do you not think that there are far too many Persians on this page?! Tombseye 01:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I don’t. There is now, a Persian, a Kurd, a Tajik, Canadian-Iranian, an Afghan/Pashtun, and a Persian Jew. And, frankly I think I breathed life into the article with pics, as it was boringly only texts. The colleague belongs at the top, and should not be buried down there. Just the intro saying Iranian peoples is relevant enough to keep it up there. Please let’s have some other opinions here.Zmmz 01:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, tell the Pashtun guy, if he is so concerned with Iranian peoples, which I respect, then he could start with stating Pashtun are Iranian peoples in the intro of that article, instead of, keep erasing it there. Although, I have not tried to, nor want to mediate that article.Zmmz 01:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's have some more opinions on the subject actually. I've dealt with the Pashtun guy as best as I could. This page actually has 5 Persians (the boy at the top and the Iranian Canadian), the Persian woman in the cultural dress, and 2 Israelis of Persian origin. That's very disproportionate and I'm not alone in thinking so I don't think. This article is not People magazine is not meant to dazzle readers with pictures of people. It's meant to be an encyclopedic article and the pictures should be relevant to the sections and not simply pictures for hte sake of pictures. If one wanted to be fair, keep 1 picture of a Persian in the collage and 1 of the Persian woman in the cultural section. That's plenty. The collage should be 1 Persian, 1 Kurd, 1 Pashtun, 1 Baluchi or Ossetian, and 1 Tajik to be fair. I'm starting to think you're turning this page into a Persian page rather than a page about the Iranian peoples as a whole. Hope I'm wrong about that. Tombseye 01:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Instead of a collage, just one pic next to a section on each ethnicity and/or linguistic group claimed. Zora 01:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, a collage is needed for the introduction. --ManiF 01:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote on collage

The pic contains one Persian, one Kurd, an Afghan/Pashtun, a diaspora Canadian-Iranian, and a Persian Jew who are as Iranian as anybody else. Also remember it is very hard to get copyrights to pics from creators, as I have done, which means the pic would not be deleted by Wiki. I think the pics breath life into the article, as Wiki as an encyclopedia has the advantage of having these pics placed in articles, so they do matter.

Keep-Zmmz 02:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep- I think the current picture is fine. No need to make it too diverse. You can not include all. By the way, Persians are the prominent part of Iranian peoples. So no problem in including more of them, in my opinion. Would have loved one Iranian Azeri/Turk in it too. But... Persian Magi 13:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete or Change to reflect diversity. Persians comrpise about 1/4 of the Iranian peoples so, proportionally they should be 1/4 represented on this page. Otherwise, as we have seen already, other Iranian peoples and laypersons will think, wrongly, that Iranian peoples is a reference to the Persians or citizens of Iran only. Definitely, no Azeris as then frankly I personally will let the Turkish folks know that they can list Kurds as a Turkic people and I'm done with this page myself as clearly nationalism will have won over neutral academia. Tombseye 15:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete or Change, per Tombseye.Heja Helweda 04:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote on Tajikistan President picture in the `Ethnic diversity` section

Keep- There is already a picture of a model in the collague, and I think because of the President`s status, his picture is a better fit. Also, his futures, are a better indication how vastly different Iranian peoples look from each other.Zmmz 02:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Integrate into Collage or Delete. Any visuals should be relevant to the article and the sections. Tombseye 15:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete and instead replace with Hammasa Kohistani. Tajik 22:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote on picture of Israeli Defense Minister in the `Cultural Assimilation` section

Delete-Zmmz 02:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete Persian Jews comprise a tiny percentage of the Iranian peoples, while the Kurds, Pashtuns, and others are as large or almost as large as the Persians. Completely not fair and irrelevant to the section it is placed in. Tombseye 15:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote on adding a famous Baloch, Ossetian, Talysh, or Hazara to the page

Include - I think we should only have an image of 1 Persian, to show the diversity in Iranian peoples is not limited to just Persians. —Khoikhoi 02:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Include - I am already working on that, but let`s concentrate on the colleague and others.Zmmz 02:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Strongly favor including-I agree with Khoikhoi here as there is not enough diversity of the Iranian peoples shown here and the pictures should relevant and not for decorative purposes. Tombseye 15:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

- Yeah, I was talking about the collage. Nice work anyhow. :) —Khoikhoi 03:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Then, stop the confusion please guys and vote under the correct heading; stating your concerns there. It is extremely hard to get copyrights for these pics, then make them, then somebody else turns around and says, “Oh, why did you add the vendor with a beard and a turban? ”; somebody says , “Don’t use Azeris, we are Azeri, fighting for our freedom, we are not Iranians, we need our rights back”, one guy says; “WHY ARE YOU PUTTING JEWS THERE?”; another guy says, “Add one of those Persians with blue eyes and blond hair”. Then there is this lovely guy who keeps erasing the fact that Pashtuns are Iranian people, but complains that there are no Pashtun pictures in an articl named Iranian peoples, which actually is incorrect because President Karzai is in fact, a Pashtun, and blah blah blah.....

I am really getting tired of all this nagging: every separatists, political group attacking these articles, every anti-nationalist, pro this or pro that; every nationalist with an agenda and a computer....etc….etc...Etc. Make-up your minds please, , and if kept fine; if not, these are my pics, I have the rights for them, and I will delete them. These articles are a waste of precious time. So, once again, vote under the right section, and let` s get it over with please.Zmmz 03:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Stay calm man. I understand your frustration, I know how it feels. I can make the image if you want. —Khoikhoi 03:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

After all my hard work, now you can make the image? OK. Wait in line, because ManiF is going to ask somebody to make his version, then yours will be deleted after a week, then some anti-nationalist (you know who), is going to come and refute his version, and it goes on, and on. I don`t care anymore, you guys duke-it-out. BTW, thanks for voting in the other sections, and not as usual elongating these discussions. Good job guys.Zmmz 04:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote on the Hazara Girl picture

Keep-Zmmz 20:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote on keeping cartoon picture such as the `Kurdish Sultan`, or replace them with real pictures

Delete- As such it is about Iranian peoples, and pictures of real people are more appropriate.Zmmz 18:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep-I don't think you understand what this article is about. It is about Iranic peoples past and present and from all over the Iranic world and that is not a cartoon, but a picture from the 12th century (close to Saladin's time). If another picture of Saladin is preferred, then fine. In addition, Durrani is an important Afghan figure as well. These pictures are far more relevant (and appropriate for the sections that they were placed in) then your pictures of random people placed throughout the page. This is not an ethnic survey article and pictures of real people can be used, but sparingly. Again, compare to Germanic peoples and Slavic peoples and you'll see what these types of articles, in the academic sense are meant for. The history section is about historical figures. What do you propose to put in instead, another picture of a Persian of today? Save that for the Persian people page or Iranian demographics. Tombseye 19:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Kurds of Turkey and Iranian Turks!!!

I see this comparison often used in arguments against including Iranian Turks here. This comparison is completely out of relevance here. Turkic people in Iran are Iranians and have been so through history of Iran from the past to present. Can you name one Kurdish ruler in Turkey in their history? Where is the Kurdish infleuence on historical Turkey or Othomans? Look at the history of Iran, Turkic Iranians ruled Iran through anciant times and modern Iran as Iranians. The numerous Iranian Turkic speaking scholars through history and modern times are anotehr indication of how Iranian they were. We are not talking linguistic groups here. If we do please refer to Iranian languages.

I think this comparison is completely un-academic and irevalent. I am sure people who are editing the pages relevant to modern Turkey and Turkic people have enough academic understanding not to do this comparsion. So lets not worry about them.

203.48.45.194 02:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you!

We never voted on inclusion of Iranian Turks who are mainly Azeris here in the list. I am strongly for inclussion of Azeris here.

I asked voters to reconsider a few options such as merging the article or changing the name to address the above but they were narrowly voted out.

However, the positive outcome of the discussions followed the voting was the inclussion of Iranic term and a wording to clear that a bit.

At this stage, due to the great contents of the article and with the above compromises, I am happy to keep it as is. But I would have loved to be able to convince editors to include Iranian Turks and not to be scared of what goes on other pages.

Persian Magi 02:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The only rational acceptable to not include Iranian Turkic speaking people in the list is only linguistics and this article claims not to be solely about linguistics. I do not think any compromise is acceptable. 59.167.26.16 12:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, linguistics is the central criteria IN ADDITION to other factors. We already voted and majority rules so it is acceptable. As for the Kurds in Turkey, well actually many famous Turks, including leaders, have been Kurds and the cultures have clearly blurred together. If Azeris are going to be included here, then I see no reason why Kurds can't be considered "Mountain Turks" as the Turkish govt. used to refer to them as. You're all projecting modern Iranian/Persian nationalism in the place of rational neutrality. And as Persian Magi has correctly stated, we have done a lot to address the matter without directly incorporating the Azeris. Tombseye 16:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Tombseye, you are missing the point here. No one have ever and could assume Shah Ismail as a non Iranian ruler of Iran and that is 500 years ago. Same goes with many other Iranian Turks through history. But Kurds in Turkey are called by the government and in modern times as mountain Turks!!! How do you compare these two situations???? It is not government of Iran calling someone Iranian. It is Ferdowsi calling Turkic Sultan Mahmood, king of Iran zamin, 1000 years ago. How can you even compare these two situations???? You tell me how that is rational neutrality to make such comparison? 203.48.45.194 04:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well in addition, the Kurds have interacted with Turkic tribes for centuries and in Turkey their cultures often blend together in ways similar to the Persian-Azeri situation. The reality is that the Iranic and Turkic peoples diverge starting with language, but do share cultures and often bloodlines. However, that is something for the Turko-Iranian article and not this article which is about the Iranic peoples who must, first and foremost, speak an Iranian language which clearly the Kurds do and the Azeris do not. Also, references to peoples as "IRanian" is not relevant because Ferdowsi, for example would not have included the Pashtuns or the Ossetians as Iranians. He was talking about a culture centered in Persian-speaking regions, which had been conquered by Turks, many of whom were adopting or had adopted the Persian culture and language. The meanings of Iranian are obviously many and varied. For the purposes of this article, we are talking about the academic term regarding Iranian peoples who speak Iranian languages past and present. The other groups who have close ties are thus outside the parameters of this article. If you'll note, the history and origins sections that I wrote discuss the Iranian peoples of history. Ferdowsi would not particularly know or acknowledge the Sarmatians as an Iranian people, whereas for this article we are. Tombseye 04:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Iranians and Turks?

The term Iranic peoples is sometimes alternately used in order to avoid confusion as this article does not include Iranian Turks who are often considered a closely related cultural group to Iranian peoples throughout history and in modern times.

What does this sentence mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Togrol (talk • contribs) 17:25, 24 April 2006.

Well, that was written to placate some folks who wanted the Azeris to be mentioned in some capacity and their status clarified as a closely related cultural group. It would properly refer to all non-Iranic citizens of Iran of course in addition to Turks. Tombseye 00:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The main or maybe the only reason to use the term IraniC is to avoid confusion with non-Iranian citizens. It has nothing to do with Turks or other peoples. The current way is too biased and should be corrected. Togrol 00:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually the term Iranic was meant to be applied to people who speak Iranic languages first and foremost and then have some other common linkages to varying degrees. Thus, Afghans who are Pashtun and Tajik are Iranic, whereas Uzbeks aren't. Also though, it is meant to avoid confusion with the term Iranians which is popularly used to describe all Iranians who include non-Iranic peoples such as Arabs and Turks. Hope that helps. Tombseye 00:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Azeris are Iranians

This article is not about linguistics alone, nor is linguistics its main point. Linguistic and cultural factors should be considered when classifying people, both to the same extent. Even if you want to give the preference to one of them, it should definitely be culture rather than language. We speak of the Iranian cultural continent, not the linguistic continent. Azeris are just as Iranian as other Iranians, and I do not mean citizenship of modern Iran when I use that word. With the same reasoning, Kurds of Turkey, Syria, and Iraq are Iranian people. No compromise on these points is acceptable here, as it would severely reduce the validity of the article. Also, the term Iranic is being taken too seriously. The term is not common in academia, although used sometimes. Making it the main terminology of choice, by using it throughout Misplaced Pages, is thus original research. Misplaced Pages cannot make this kind of decision. We must stick to the more common term Iranian. Shervink 11:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

You know then that there should be no problem with excluding the Kurds then. I mean since this article is turning into a Persian nationalist front article rather than an article about the Iranic peoples. Which ancient Iranic tribe are the Azeris to be linked to? What of their ties to the Oghuz Turks and the Caucasian Albanians and others? The Iranian peoples start with their language commonalities and then with other factors IN ADDITION. The Iranian languages article is about the languages and not the peoples who speak them. It's a very easy and clear distinction. And besides which we voted and most people favor keeping the article as is. You can't make unilateral decisions and go against the majority. Tombseye 04:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Voting to include Iranian Turkic speaking groups here

I do not think we had this voting before. (The voting previously was for change of the name of the article etc. was to address this issue but not to include Azeris). Hope this will close the issue once for good.

For Inclusion

59.167.0.169 14:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Iranian Turkic peoples were part of Iranian peoples through history and they are too importan in Iranian history and modern Iran to be excluded. I can not think of any comparison among other peoples.
Strong support - There is more to be "Iranian peoples" than the language. There is a definate cultural and historical component. Azeris are as much Iranian as any other Iranian tribe. -- - K a s h 16:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Against Inclusion

Strong opposition-for reasons already stated, the inclusion of Turkic peoples or Arabs etc. will dilute the article and make any classification pointless. Instead Turko-Iranian should be developed as a platform for discussing the cultural overlap between Turkic and Iranic peoples across the board. Lastly, the article already now discusses the issue, whereas incorporating the Azeris (in the history and other sections) would be both problematic, subjective, and largely untenable since there is no Iranic ancient tribe that they can be linked to with certainty. Tombseye 16:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong opposition This has to be a ambitious Pan-Iranian joke. If this goes ahead, Turks, Greeks, Kurds, Georgians, Bosnians, Bulgarians, Albanians, Arabs, Serbs and other former Ottoman nationalities should be grouped together since they all have had a common history and their cultures overlap. Just think of the other kind of stuff we can come up with, Ethiopians being related to Italians, North african Arabs being related to the French, Filipinos to the Spanish:) --Kilhan 17:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong oppose per reasons above. —Khoikhoi 18:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments on inclusion of the Azeris

Comment: - Ottomans conquered those places, however Azeris (ex-Medes) have been part of Iran from the very beginning. Infact at the beginning of the Persian empire there were probably more Medes than Persians -- - K a s h 19:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It's highly argumentative that the Azeris are descendents of the Medes. For example, the Azeris may or may not regard them as ancestors while most will claim the Oghuz and sometimes the Albanians of the Caucasus as ancestors. In addition, the Medes are claimed as the ancestors of the Persians and the Kurds (although linguistic and genetic evidence points towards the Kurds being more eclectic at any rate) as well. Without that linguistic continuity to show some link to the ancients, we have conjecture and largely guesswork. Tombseye 21:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never read anywhere that Medes are claimed as ancestors of the Persians, I think that is not correct. The only claims that I know of are that of Azeris and Kurds. The Kurdish genetic tests are far from good quality IMO, the ones I have seen did not test Kurds of Iran which discredits much of the project. There is no question about Kurds being Iranian people just because of their language, but I think Azeris should be included because of atleast some genetic evidence backing up that they are Iranian (See Azeris#Origins) and if they do indeed share the same ancestors as Kurds (Medes), then this would be out of question (as there is supporting evidence that Azeris are close to Persians - then we should certainly mention them, and the fact they have been part of Iran from the very begining and still are the biggest ethnic "minority" group in Iran (20% or so). -- - K a s h 23:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Azeris are of Turkish origin. They are the most and most pure Turks. Azeris are more Turkic than even Anatolian Turks. Whatever you hear of Iranian/Persian minority is that to pretend that Azeris were an Iranian people who changed their language without mixing with their Turkic ancestors!! or their neighbouring caucasians. Azeris in second degree (after Turkic) have a caucasian mix. The same goes for Persians. Several times during history large linguistic populations migrated to the so-called Iranian plateau. One of these but only with few invaders were Iranians/persians. The other larger imigration was by Turkic groups. Turkic languages are today the most widely spoken languages in all over Iran (or modern Turan). Turkic languages are and have been spoken in EVERY region in Iran even in Fars province!!. After immigration of Turkic population, the region more resemble to Turan than to an outdated Iran!! Togrol 09:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)