Talk:Iranian peoples/Archive 2

Aucaman^Talk 14:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Merging the article

I have not still seen any sources regarding existence of such a term. I also asked for RELEVANT refernces supporting existence of this ethnic group (????) but there was no acceptable reply. I strongly suggest to merge this article with article Iranian languages which at least it is a scientific one. Even majority of references in this article are talkning about Iranian languages not a new/unknown/extinct ethnic group made by some users. or others are silent about it. Diyako Talk + 17:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If you must merge, I suggest merging with Demographics of Iran. It makes more sense.--Zereshk 18:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge. "Iranian peoples" is a valid term. This article is well-cited. --Khoikhoi 19:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well-cited???! So why the term "Iranian people" is invisible in all of those silent sources? Actually this term has no scientific base and only is a simple political hypothesis.

Diyako Talk + 19:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You just don't like it because as a Kurd you deny having any relation to the Persians and other Iranian peoples. This CIA map uses the term, why can't you? --Khoikhoi 19:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

First, I do not reply your personal attack just beacuse it is your POV. But actually I am a neutral wikipedian and cannot simply accept any unproved hypotheses. also i wander why you did not provide a source from this so-called well-cited article?!! You dear khoikhoi show me a map for this unknown Iranian people ethnic group, but forget that maps are used for showing distribution of populations not for "proving" issues like this. I hope either you provide a source regarding term Iranian people or help wikipedia by keeping the articles neutral and scientific. Diyako Talk + 19:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree with a merge either. Im not sure why Diyako is so persistent in merging. What are his reasons? What does he mean by "scientific"? The word Iran and Iranian has been used in Greek sources since 300BC.--Zereshk 19:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Zereshk.

I did not discuss using or not using the term Iranian in ancient times. I say there is an Iranian speaking language family (in reality), but there is not an Iranian people as this article strangely claims. Even I can accept use of the term Iranian in ancient times (although there are people who oppose this) but not in this way that this article claims. Seriously it has no scientific base i mean there is nothing called Iranian peoples in REALITY.

Diyako Talk + 20:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't like the term because he doesn't believe it is true. He denys that the Kurds are an Iranian people for one thing. --Khoikhoi 20:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I never expected such a argument from you. please act civil.

Diyako Talk + 20:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, instead of deleting an article with such importance as this, why dont you edit and fix those parts that you mention? The term "Iranian people" does not refer to an ethnic group. In that sense you are correct, and I dont think Khoikhoi is saying that either. The term however refers to more than one ethnic group. It necessarily has no one-to-one correspondence with ethnicity. That is why if you type in "iranian people" in Encyclopedia Iranica's search box, you will see the term used in 5 articles.--Zereshk 20:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I actully do not support deleting this page. Instead I suggest to use its stuff to create or improve other related articles. Also the article as you mentioned above can be redirected to Demographics of Iran or Iranian languages.

Diyako Talk + 21:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a valid term and deserves an article of its own. Please stop. --Khoikhoi 21:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No Original Research. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to verifiably demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. I disagree with existence such a article. Diyako Talk + 21:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

How about this? --Khoikhoi 21:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh Dear Khoikhoi!! That Iranian website is still Under Construction!! Sory, it is not a source. Come on help.

Diyako Talk + 22:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you all, I merge it with demographics of Iran and other related articles.

Diyako Talk + 23:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What the hell? We never came to a consensus! Wait a second! --Khoikhoi 23:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Khoikhoi, I've been waiting since long ago.Diyako Talk + 11:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus!!!!!!!!!!Buddy you are doing this because you see that Kurds are going become defined as an Iranian people so you just want to change the definition of Iranin to lingustic! Don't change anything.69.196.139.250 03:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It Seems the Articles will not be Merged; People arre not in favour & It will do academic Harm We won;t merge the articles. No merging. We are against that BAD IDEA. .69.196.139.250 03:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Anon, Glad to see you signing at least part of your posts. If you don't want the article be merged you should follow the Wikipedia policy and provide relevant sources. Wikipedia is not the place for blablabla such as this boggus article. Also note that I still do not support deletion of its stuff, but I neutrally suggest to merge it with its relevant article(s). Thanks.Diyako Talk + 11:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Since there is no source supprting this uncited Original Research and wikipedia cannot be a platform for political aims, I'll merge the content of the article to its real and relevant page i.e. to the Iranian languages and redirect page to the Demographics of Iran.

When you provide your sources according to wikipedia policy, then you can have such a article.

Diyako Talk + 16:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally oppose to this idea. It is pure nonsense. The term Iranian people has been continously in use for at least 3000 years up until now. In the beginning it was more of an ethnic classification, while more and more it has got a cultural and linguistic meaning as well. How can Kurdish people, Lur people, Baluch people, Bakhtiari people each have a page, while Iranian people having some the most profound and ancient history and languages of our planet be not worth having a page? Diyako, I truly believe you should be banned for showing such open hostility towards others. You are just about the only one supporting the idea and are single-handedly rushing to delete the article. You have no right to do so. Shervink 16:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Dear Shervink, have you any sources?

Diyako Talk + 16:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If you mean sources that Iranian people exist, yes I do. Although it is obvious enough, if you insist on seeing written proof of the existense of Iranian people, I'll suggest you a few sources as soon as I find the time. Meanwhile, stop removing articles from Wikipedia. Shervink 23:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Dear Shervink:

Wikipedia is not the place for Original Research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to verifiably demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

Every uncited nonsense are removed from wikipedia. Since long ago that there has been a dispute on this article no one could provide a source. Untill now I just respected other peoples uncited and biased POV.

I know there is an Iranian peoples but it has its own article => Demographics of Iran. Either you can move 'demographics of Iran' to this page. This is a good suggestion. Once again wikipedia is not our personal website to write whatever we like; Credible and neutral citation needed. It's not me that removes this article, it's wikipedia policy.

Diyako Talk + 23:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

For an online source about Iranian people (which also states that Kurds are Iranian people), you can refer to [1]. There are numerous books which talk partly or entirely about Iranian people, for example:

Frye, R.N., History of Ancient Iran, Munich, 1984.

Curtis, V.S., Persian Myths, London, British Museum Publications, 1993.

Encyclopedia Iranica, edited by E. Yarshater.

As you see this is not my original research. If you could prove the non-existence of Iranian people, now that would be original research for which you might get a noble prize!!!Shervink 23:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

You have not posted what those sources claim, what is their defintion of Iranian peoples. Is it the same is claimed here in this article?!!! (I do not think so).

Let's see what those sources say. Write it here.

Also source for your online reference is this article of wikipedia!!!

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia © 2001-2006 Wikipedia contributors (Disclaimer)

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.

Diyako Talk + 23:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Till now I rejected one of your sources but I do not want noble prize. I want you all guys be neutral and help wikipedia in a neutral way. Thanks.

Diyako Talk + 00:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Diyako's suggestion for merge, due to lack of neutral evidence. Since the relationship discussed here is just linguistic, it is better to include the useful info. of this page (linguistic stuff) in the Iranian languages and then delete Iranian people. The ethnic stuff and genetic relations can be transferred to the individual ethnic pages of Persians, Azeris, Kurds, Balochis,etc. Another solution would be to REDIRECT Iranian people to Demographics of Iran. Heja Helweda 00:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Heja helweda's suggestion is more accurate. I agree with it.

Diyako Talk + 01:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There are two different pages for Arabs (the race) and Arabic language although similar to “Iranian people”, Arabs are also defined by the language and many of them are not racially Arab. however they still have different pages for language and ethnicity. same goes for turkish people and turkish language

Gol 07:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That is not a good reason, Because there is an Arab or Turk but there is no iranian people except in the way explained here in its own article.

Diyako Talk + 07:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That article talks about Iran's people. This one is about Iranian peoples. Do you at all understand what a huge difference that is? What is the use in suggesting sources if you don't read them? Do I have to read and summarize for you? Or is it you who should refrain from editing articles which he has no knowledge of? Are you seriously claiming that the existense of Iranian people is original research??? Do you think Cyrus the Great and Darius had the current Iranian nation within it's current political boundaries in mind when they spoke of themselves as Kings of the Iranians? Which people is the Shahnameh about? Is it about Persians only? How many instances of Iranian do you see in it? Shervink 07:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Hi, At the beginning of this section I explained it for another user (Zereshk). I'm not discussing ancient Iranian peoples. If you think the article should be about ancient Iranian peoples, then we should delete the article and rewrite it. Maybe i can also help by improving the article. Thanks. Diyako Talk + 07:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't have time for this nonsense anymore. I don't have to prove the existense of Iranian people. If you don't think we exist, the reason is either your ignorance or your bias, or a combination of both. Do whatever you want. Vandalism can be dealt with in other manners. Shervink 07:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Yes, vandalism can mean invention of racistic new terms. Neutrality means dealing with it and asking for source or nominating it for deletion from wikipedia. Diyako Talk + 07:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

First, I am not a racist. I'm not the one denying the existence of far more than 100 million people. Second, the article is already referenced very well. Have you taken a look at this site (already in the reference list) which has the study of Iranian people as its main theme? It is a University group, by the way, so don't claim it is original research of mine or whatever. This site also mentions Kurds as Iranian people, which I think should be of interest to you. [2]Shervink 13:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

I did not say you are a racist but you for no good reason support such a unknown term. Yes, I have taken a look at that Iranian website. It has nothing to say. It does not clarify what does Iranian people mean here. Sorry, that's not a source.

Diyako Talk + 13:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Also do not accuse me of denying southwestern Asian people, (No personal attack). Sure they exist but cramming them here in this article has no good reason. they all have their own articles. Iranian languages and demographics of Iran.

Diyako Talk + 13:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It is an academic group at the University of London. Most of the articles are not even by Iranians, and the articles are scholarly and referenced, as far as I can see. This is definitely a valuable source, which we should all use to expand our knowledge on Iranian and related people. Please stop this strange behavior now, for the sake of good wikipedian manners. Shervink 13:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

It seems that you are very new on wikipedia. That website has nothing to do with Iranian people. It has no defination of Iranian people. what is Iranian people? can you show what that website say about it? What this article (on WP) claims is untrue. the defination of Iranian people is people who live in Iran and it includes Azeri people too.

The only way to verifiably demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

Once againg what is the defination of Iranian people?!

Diyako Talk + 13:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

One of your problems is that you do not trust me (as every above accusations). None of my suggestions are against Iranian culture and history. I just want to clarify unclear points and give a clear defination of Iranian and South Asian articles. If you want the problems be solved you should see me as a wikipedian not enemy of yours then you see that what I'm doing is not against Iranians. If you (all sides) follow me you will lose nothing.

Diyako Talk + 14:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see you as an enemy of mine per se, but your behavior suggests a strong anti-Iranian sentiment. I don't mind, you have a right to have your own opinion about anything including Iran. But editing articles on wikipedia is neither a matter of trust, nor a matter of following you or anybody else for that matter. You have repeatedly said that this article is racistic (more openly so on your talk page than here), without any proof or whatever. You are claiming Iranian people don't exist. The burden of proof (as if such a ridiculous claim could be proved) rests with you, not me. Nevertheless, we have provided a lot more proof to you than your funny claim deserved. Iranian people are defined as those living in greater Iran since the older times of the Persian empire and even before, which includes many of those areas which were part of the former Persian empire, many of these people are speaking Iranian languages, but what they all have in common is that Iranian culture has had the major role on forming their habits and culture. That's what you would understand after reading most of the sources provided (the papers on the website, plus the books, especially that on Persian Myths which defines itself as dealing with the ancient beliefs of the Iranian people, within the first pages.) If you don't believe me and don't like to find it in a library some where, just try finding some parts of it in google print! The website also inludes very detailed descriptions of the term Aryan and its relation to Iran as well as its use, and cites further articles on the topic, all very recent. The latter might also be of interest to Aucaman who is suggesting that that word is racistic. It is not (unless used in a very special context by a German supporting certain ideas of their past), as you can clearly see from these sources. Shervink 15:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Good, you claim there are sources for current claims on the article, which ones? can you link? how they define Iranian peoples? You refered to Ancient Iranian peoples. Ok, no problem, good suggestion. Lets start it. But first let's delete this article and redirect it to demographics of Iran OR move demographics of Iran to this page [ Iranian peoples ]. Also do not forget that according to wikipedia policy every editor may remove uncited stuf, like this article. If I do not insist and just suggest you to agree with my suggestion is because i just respect you. Diyako Talk + 15:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I read your discussions. 1. The article has been written in the same line as articles like Proto-Indo-Europeans and categories like Category:Indo-European peoples, Indo-Iranian. So this is not a sigled out article.

2. The word Iranian people has not been defined in current article as a pure ethnic group. It is an ethnolinguistic set of people. Even a better definition in my mind is ethno-linguistic and cultural group.

3. Classifying people based on their langugae and culture does not have anything with valuing them. So it has nothing to do with racism. We have Europe as a cultural continent and also indian subcontinent. We are not saying that Iranians are the best people in the world! You may even find terms like ethnic europeans in the literature. [3] 4. The word Iranian people has been used in many academic sources. The article is well cited. Here is also another example of such usage : in brittanica: [4], in scientific literatures:[5], news: (ethnic Iranians) [6][7][8] United nation’s definition for Lor as ethnic Iranian: [9] Sooni Taraporevala uses the word ethnic Iranian: [10] definition of Tajiks as “ethnic Iranians“: [11]

5. There many people in Iran and Tajikistan who are not associated with any known ethnic groups. They are neither persian not azeri nor kurd. But they define themselves as Iranian (call it ethnic or whatever). They have mixed genes ! but Iranian culture!

6. I am generally vey unhappy with most of genetic evidences that are provided in wikipedia pages about races. Most of these analysis are bullshit. Moreover: If I have adopted Persian culture but one of my kidney genes looks like arab's one and the gene responsible for concentration of sodium in my urine look like German, am I Persian or arab or German ? I recommend those who are concerned with racism, to stop looking for genes. Instead look for culture and language. Hilter also based all his works on reseach articles by famous geneticians of his time! Time passed and geneticians understood that most of their findings and conclusions were bullshit. I have seen such genetic analysis in many other wikipedia pages as well (Kurdish and Azerbaijani).

7.For those who are very concerned with racism: If we want to be on the safe side, we shoud delete wikipedia pages like Kurdish people , Persian people and so on. European governments does not track ethnic and religious classifications in the national census. Why ? due to the danger of racism. Why we should address them in wikipedia ? So let’s delete Kurdish people and Persian people page all together.[12].

8. In summary, as people probably do not like to delete pages like Kurdish people or Persian people etc, this article is also quite OK in view of pages like Proto-Indo-Europeans. In summary I think we are wasting our time. This page is OK. and there are many supporting evidences. Again I believe that Iranian people is more a cultural and linguistic term than anything else. However as you can see in the sources above, it has been also used to refer to an ethnic superfamily. --Gorbeh15:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not my problem to delete persian people or Kurdish people. You can go ahead and delete both. Also sorry, You could not provide a source regarding who are Iranian peoples. and according to wikipedia policy any editor can remove uncited stuff. please Find a defination for who are Iranian peoples.

Diyako Talk + 15:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

OK ! let's go step by step. I offered these sources to show that "Iraian people" exists and the term is used in many places and it is not restricted to Iran. It apparently includes people of Iraq, Tajikistan and even india. It means the pages "Iranian people" in wikipedia can exist. The next step is how to write the page. But first let's agree on the first step. (As we are not expert we can only search the web. and the web does not contain the big majority of sources.) Again let's take the first step .... --Gorbeh16:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Gorbeh, I never opposed existing Iranian peoples. I even have suggested to move a page which already exists there. (rename the demographics of Iran to Iranian peoples). In fact if you carefully follow my posts I oppose the way this term has been clarified here. An original research page which deserves a personal website not wikipedia Diyako Talk + 16:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I just tried to answer a few issues that you raised: you said:

1. I have not still seen any sources regarding existence of such a term. 2. I also asked for RELEVANT refernces supporting existence of this ethnic group. 3. I'll merge the content of the article to its real and relevant page i.e. to the Iranian languages and redirect page to the Demographics of Iran..

I think I could show that 1. the term exist. 2. Even it is used to refer to ethnicity. (Although I personally do not like it and I see it more as a cultural group.) 3. I think I showed that merging with Demographics of Iran is not a correct act, as it is used in my sources to refer to people of india, tajikistan and iraq.

But! as you said the problem is partially solved. There is one point that I would like to mention. Many of the main articles about Iran has been written by experts themselves. I know of a few researchers who wrote wikipedia pages about Iran. We should not simply destroy pages unless we have clear evidence that a statement is wrong. Give me time to think and provide some more references. One last point is that these terms are not mathematical terms. The definitions are generally vague. But as I said, we have terms like ethnic europeans and europe as a cultural continent. You may ask what is the definition of european culture or Iranian culture. I think you also see that although it is difficult to define terms, still we can not deny their existance. I offeres in the above a United nation definition for Kurds and Lor, as Iranian people and ethnic Iranians. The terms are even used in official documents. and you probably agree that we do not have access to many documents through the web, even the references at the bottom of this article. --Gorbeh16:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Gorbeh, According to wikipedia policy you should cite reliable sources which provide information that is DIRECTLY related to the article, not in a page there is a mention of Iranians x or Iranian y. If you find reliable source about for exemple Iranian x, that source does not belong here, it belongs to its relevant article. Here we are not creating a new definition of thnigs by comparising or personal argument. I wonder how there is not even stub definition on 100 milion people?? even unscientific one.

Diyako Talk + 17:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. There is no need for a stub. Is there any stub for europeans ??? Can you deny their existence ? About sources, we have already a list of sources at the bottom of the page. have you read all those books ?! I have already told you why I provided those pages. I just wanted to reject some of your baseless claims. When UN defines Kurds and Lors as Iranian people, it means Iranian people exist. I do not think I claimed that my sources contain definition of Iranian people. When britanicca uses the term iranian people it means they exist unless you provide a source about their extinction. --Gorbeh17:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

According to wikipedia policy pages who are not acceptable and never published will be removed. According to wikipedia policy only one who think a stuff should be included in the article must provide source not the opposer, and here I'm the opposer. that UN is not about Iranian people but about Kurds and even it i did not see claim Kurds are Iranian people. It is another issue, and does not belong here but Kurdish peoples talk page.

Diyako Talk + 17:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

To Diyako:

So what is your definition for a group of people who speak one of the languages of the Iranian branch? You can not just call them Indo European because they obviously have closer linguistic connection with each other than they have with the rest of the Indo European speakers. There is a group of people who speak languages that are named Iranian. What is your name for them?

Gol 17:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Gol.

Thank you for your question, I wish other users asked me this from beginning instead of continuous accusatuions. Before this I tried to get a well-cited definition of that in its related article Iranian languages. If we agree that this issue must be discussed there we can very soon find the definition.

Diyako Talk + 17:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

More info: I think every one agree that Europe is Cultural and Historical continent. Here I would like to say that: we have also Iranian cultural continent. Encyclopedia iranica defined is scope based on this. If we can define Iranian culture and cultural continent (which includes languages too), then there should be no problem to define members of this cultural continent. -- Gorbeh17:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Good, Iranian cultural continent is another issue. If you think you can provide relevant sources for that start it. Besides I'm not going to interfere.Diyako Talk + 17:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"Iranian people" is not just about languages. There exist a culture behind it. Language is only a part of it as I said ans sources above. Even Proto-Indo-Europeans which is a much more general term contains much more than language (see the article). --User:Gorbeh17:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You think so? Then please cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to Iranian peoples. Diyako Talk + 17:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is already such a page but it is to be expanded: Iranian continent. --Gorbeh17:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have already checked Google for Iranian continent and it is manily a geological term not cultural. I have suggested delete for that page.Heja Helweda 18:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I personally think Iranian people should be defined as people who speak one of the Iranian languages. For now I think we need to focus on language not culture we can have a separate page for culture but the definition of Iranian people should be mainly about language. Of course language brings culture with itself and is one of the most important part of each culture but I don’t think we can define Iranian people as people who practice Iranian culture. The right definition is people who speak an Iranian language. Some editors are worried that the term “Iranian” might confuse people and make them think we are talking about Iranian citizens. I am not too worried about this myself since the definition is clearly mentions in this page but if those editors are still worried then we can change the name to Indo Iranian. Just as people who speak an Indo European language are called Indo European, then the people who speak and Indo Iranian language can be called Indo Iranian.

Gol 17:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not think there is any room for confusion. Because we do not have pages in wikipedia based on nationality like American people, Iraqi People, Pakistani people and so on. There is no room for confusion. besides when we have a term like indian continent, it does not mean those areas are in the territory of indea as a country.--Gorbeh17:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There are already many pages like American people or Canadian people. If there are not still pages for some others, is because no one paid attention. I can right know make those pages. Diyako Talk + 18:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There are no pages which such titles !!! The name of the article is not American people or Canadian people. Read your sources before discussion. --Gorbeh20:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Gorbeh

I don’t think it is confusing either especially since it is defined very clearly that Iranian people are people who speak and Indo Iranian language. However some of the editors are extremely worried so I though maybe we can compromise and instead of Iranian use the term Indo Iranian. But in general I agree that it is not confusing. There is a country Germany and there is also the term Germanic people same can be said about Iran.

Gol 20:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there can be no confusion. Even if, we simply have to be careful in how we write things, not delete an article!!! Shervink 20:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Deletion

According to above discussion and reasons I'm going to nominate the article for deletion.

Don't worry, the admin who will come to deletion won't delete it suddenly but first researchs the matter (Maybe he won't delete it at once). If once in future you could provide related sources, then rewriting it is not a difficult matter and I'll help by improving it.

Diyako Talk + 20:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That is very wrong we decided to discuss the issue. You should not delete it. Respect other people's opinions. We can talk about changing the article but not deleting it while there are so many editors who are saying that it is a valuable article. I though we could discuss it rationally but you proved me wrong with you sudden action. we did not reach any decision. there is a page called German language and there is a page called Germanic people why cant the same be about Iran?

Gol 21:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact as you see after I wrote that post, did not put the delete tag in the article, that is because of your (User Gol) rational arguments.

Diyako Talk + 21:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There are a group of people who speak the Iranian languages (Indo Iranian languages) we can either call them Iranian or Indo Iranian or Iranic. However they do exist and therefore this article should exist. but we can change the name to Iranic or Indo Iranian.

Gol 22:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll reply to your last post after I explained for Zereshk that his sources are not sufficnet and relevant.

Diyako Talk + 23:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

'Aryan' is a racist word?

Really Aucaman? Please explain :) Smitz 11:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, really. This is the first source in the Aryan article. See how it says the phrase is "no longer in technical use"? That's what I was referring to. Even when it was used in the technical sense (which is no longer acceptable), the term was used to refer to the ethnicity of the Proto-Indo-Iranians (even this by itself is controversial). The Proto-Indo-Iranians lived more than 4,000 years ago. The modern Iranians have very little to do with the Proto-Indo-Iranians in terms race or ethnicity. To somehow try to re-introduce the word Aryan as the race or ethnicity of the modern Iranians is neither acceptable nor accurate. Where are the sources for this anyway? Aucaman^Talk 13:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not think we are supporting racism by writing pages about Aryans or Iranian people. see above for my viewpoints. --Gorbeh15:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No I just want to know why people are throwing around the word "Aryan" without knowing what it means. Aucaman^Talk 16:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

About the word Aryan: I think it is a victim of politics. The word did exist before Hitler. And it did not carry with itself anything indicating that such people are nice or beautiful or have high quality genes! Inversely there were a lot of sources saying that they were dark skin people. However Hitler abused the word. and when Iranian recieved his ideas they were surprised how nice this race was and they were unaware of it. Anyway, I think the reason that the word is not used is simply political and to suppress neo-Nazis. If there were not these neo-nazis in europe, the word would come back to academia.--Gorbeh17:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Read what I said. The word has nothing to do with modern "Iranians". It is used to refer to people who lived MORE THAN 4,000 years ago. There's no genetic or ethnic relation. Even if the word hadn't been corrupted by Nazis, it still wouldn't apply to the modern Iranians. The point I'm trying to make is that most of this article is personal opinion and research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Aucaman^Talk 19:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please also take a look at these .[13][14], and maybe also the references therein. The word is still in academic use. It is related to the words Iran and Iranian, but of course there is not necessarily an ethnic relation to all Iranians of today. Shervink 19:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

To Aucaman: Who defines academia ? When we are talking on a subject e.g. Persian literature, american universities or encyclopedia britannica are not in a position to say what should be in use and what not. We should see whether the term is also in use in our academia or not. I also did not say that modern Iranians are or are not aryans. I am just saying that the word is out of in the west due to political issues and nazism. The word Iran literary means "land of Aryan". So discussing such issue is completely relevant here. --Gorbeh20:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It means land of Aryans, but who said Aryan is an ethnicity? Aryan means "noble". Is "noble" an ethnicity or people? And no, you have not produced any paper by any academic source that says Aryan is an ethnic group. Aryan is a self-designation meaning "noble". Your insistence to use this word in other contexts without much reason only further proves your bias. Read WP:NOR. Where are the sources of your information? You're supposed to do your research first then cite them here, not the other way around. Aucaman^Talk 02:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I never said Aryan refers to an ethnic group (a well defined genetic pool). I am not at expert in the field. I personally think this is a very difficult subject (or even impossible) for today's researchers to investigate this issue genetically. I have only said it is not about racism in our context. Today the word "Aryan" is only a name like "OXFORD" or "KURD" for instance. When you are using the word "Kurd" or "Oxford", you do not have even in mind what is the literary meaning of the words. Today, the words are only names. When an iranian uses the word aryan, it does not bring to mind its very original meaning. It is just a name. --Gorbeh08:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This page is not up for deletion

Up til this point, users User:Heja Helweda, User:Diyako, and User:Aucaman have not convinced the majority (me, User:Khoikhoi, User:Shervink, User:Gorbeh, User:Gol, User:Tajik, among others) their reasons for deleting/merging this article.

User Diyako, who is spearheading this campaign, claims that he has a right to delete and merge the article on the basis of "Iranian people" not being a valid term. [15] and that there is no such ethnistic name.

"Original research" in fact means questioning the validity of external sources, the very thing Diyako is doing. Especially that he hasnt provided any opposing counter evidence aside from personal convictions. And even then, he could only add those counter sources if any, to the article, not erase it. Aside from the other users involved here, here are my sources on the matter to add to the other sources alredy provided:

1. Encyclopedia Iranica uses the term "Iranian people". So it is a valid term.
2. The phrase "Iranian people" does not have to be, and is not, an ethnic term as Diyako claims: The Dictionary defines Iranian as "Of or relating to Iran or its people, language, or culture." [16] And as Richard Frye puts it: Iranians are defined by their culture and religion, not just languages. [17]

Therefore, this page will not be merged or deleted. The best you can do is put an NPOV tag on the article. Otherwise any attempt to merge/delete will be dealt with as tampering with articles.--Zereshk 23:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Zereshk. First those links are not related to the discussion. Second, I see you not only cannot provide a related source to the article but even prevent any consensus between other users discussing the matter. Then I should follow the wikipedias policy more seriously. to see what will happen.

Diyako Talk + 23:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes they are revelant, and exactly to the point. Your basis for removing the page was that the term "Iranian people" does not exist. Well it does, as the links prove. C'est ca.--Zereshk 23:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

really?!! how those sources define Iranian people? Can I ask u you show me please? Diyako Talk + 23:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

OF COURSE IRANIAN PEOPLE ARE AN ETHNICITY! All Iranian peoples (Persians, Azaris, Kurds, Tajiks, etc...)share common physical traits, and countless genetic tests have proven that the majority of the Iranian DNA regardless of what "language" they speak, (ex Kurdish) is the same. This page MUST be kept intact as it is a seperate topic from Iranian langauges!

Before merging or deleting this article, the following articles should be deleted: Germanic peoples, Slavic peoples, and Turkic peoples. Btw: this article is called "Iranian peoples" and not "Iranian people". Tajik 00:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tajik. This is not our problem to delete Germanic people or not. maybe it is a well-cited article (and it is). I wish you carefully read the merging section from beginning. many issues have already been discussed. the problem is not with the term people or peoples, as in Germanic people and Germanic peoples both are refereing to the same thing. the problem is what the article claims. we have not been able to find any related source which directly provides info for it. The article looks more like original research than a scientific one. Can you provide a source that exactly and directly supports this the defination of Iranian peoples as in this article?

Diyako Talk + 00:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Diyako, Encyclopedia Iranica uses the term "Iranian people", and the dictionary clearly mentions the word "people" in the definition of Iranian. If you dont have eyes to see it, that's too bad. Please stop wasting our time.--Zereshk 01:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I ask you again Diyako

What do you call the people who speak one of the Iranian languages? You can not say they have no name do you? And calling them only Indo European is wrong since they have a closer connection (linguistically) with each other than with rest of the Indo European speakers. The same goes for Germanic people they are Indo European speakers as well but they share a closer connection with each other than they do with the rest of the Indo European speakers which is why they have their own branch.

There is a group of people who speak Iranian (Indo Iranian) languages and they should certainly have a name.

Gol 01:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Leave it alone

I see this as another atempt to make life harder for Iranian Wikipedians.

For what is meant by Iranian people, either read this article, look at the picture.

File:Iran peoples.jpg

here

Since the start of Persian Empire, there has been attempts to unite Iranian people e.g. the people of the Iranian plateau, who were the descents of the Indo-Iranian branches of the Aryans, these include all Ethnic minorities in Iran, as well as the Iranian people OUTSIDE Iran, such as Ossetians. These people are connected ethnically, linguistically and culturally. For more information, read up on the Pan-Iranism ideology.

There are enough references already in this article. Unless you are blind or in ignorant, I suggest you leave this article alone. --Kash 00:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The article claims that Iranian people share genetic DNA. This is a proven fact. All you have to do is look at a Persian, Kurd, Azari, etc...and you will see that we share the same blood. Iranians all came from the same Arians tribes, regardless of what language we speak.

I feel that their is some racist motivation behind this proposal to merge these articles!

I see no sources that directly provide info about those iranian people who are defined in the article. the article is totally an original research. some links who are provided discuss other issues, not what is claimed and needed here.

Diyako Talk + 01:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No its not. Sorry Diyako. We dont buy your argument. Not being able to see "Iranian people" on the 15 sources posted here is not a reason. You have to do better than that.--Zereshk 01:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It is quite clear where this whole issue comes from. I suggest to all interested editors to read the discussions on the talk: Kurdish people page. It is directly related to the efforts of Diyako and to a lesser extent other users to deny the existence of Iranian people. In fact, almost all scholarly sources classify Kurds as Iranian people, and this should be included also in the article on Kurds. What some anti-Iranian editors are trying to do is to remove the article on Iranian people in order to avoid referring to it in the article on Kurds. Of course Diyako will now deny this, but I think it will be very clear to anybody who follows the discussion on both pages. Please have a look for yourself if you like. As for this page, already more than necessary evidence has been provided to support its necessity and its content. It can definitely be improved very much, and that's what we should work on. By the way, the term Indo-Iranian is not exactly the same as Iranian. We should not replace one by the other. Shervink 01:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

It's just your POV, the same way as this article has been written. I still wonder how those 150 million peoples (if they still exist) have not a well-cited defination.?? or no, maybe they have but does not support what claimed here! Anyway still i ask you provide relevant sources.Diyako Talk + 01:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Some groups of Iranian people are: Persians Tajiks Tats Pashtuns Kurds Baluchis Gilanis Mazandaranis Bakhtiaris Lurs Laks Talyshi Zaza Ossetes Parsis Azarbaijani's

All of them share a SIGNIFICANT portion of their genetics and ethnicity. Nothing can change that. All educated and intelligent people know that. Dont let the unfounded opinions,lies and propoganda of some stupid people bother you.

PERSIA4EVER

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Iranian http://www.wordreference.com/definition/Iranian http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/IndoIran;_ylt=AnUThQWCRO4xyJuA7V3W6_BVt8wF

These 3 dictionarys provide evidence that all the groups of people listed as Iranian on this page are indeed IRANIANS...I can post hundreds of similar links the whole world knows that these different groups all share the same genetics and ethnicity (Iranian)

Diyako, yes, that is my POV. I just asked all others to form their own point of view and draw their own conclusions by having a look at the talk:Kurdish people page.

Genrally, something not being easy to define is not a reason for its non-existence. Evidence for such a term being very well used in academia, as well as many of its aspects being studied, known and understood to a great extent, has been provided. If you think we should find a clearer definition that is no reason for deleting. It is a matter of editing. Shervink 01:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Dear shervink, I do not say you are wrong, I just want reliable relevant sources which directly provide info about the article.Diyako Talk + 01:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Good, so your point is basically not the existence of the article, but its content. so you agree to edit the article by finding better sources and writing the article accordingly? That is fine. In that case problem is solved. Shervink 01:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

The same as wikipedia policy. I'm very tired right now. for long hours i've been sitting and replying many people. I want to leave. tomorrow morning I more clarify the issue. Diyako Talk + 02:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to do the same. I wish you a pleasant rest! Shervink 02:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Hi again, Dear Shervink if the article is rewritten and remove the wrong ethnic ties between the distinct ethnic groups who are members of linguistic family of Iranian languages-speakings esp in its intro then I will leave the article for you. Diyako Talk + 11:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Being a distinct ethnic group does not mean having no ethnic ties to others. There are no ethnic Persians, Kurds, Baluchs or whatever in a purely genetic sense of the word. Don't you agree? If distinct ethnic group in case of Kurds means the language, culture, and so on, then there should be no problem in discussing the relationships they have with other people with related languages and cultures. The point is not only language and that has been mentioned already. I am, however, also against a racial reasoning when relating Kurds to Iranians, because I think it is simply irrelevant and not the main point here. Kurds do not define themselves in a racial manner, nor do Iranians actually do that. The article is also not about a race, it is about culture, language, and things of this kind. So these should be the focus.

I think concerning the stituation and the way the discussion s going there is no question that the article should stay. Shervink 12:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

I agree with parts of your post. but please may I ask u clarify a little more what you mean exactly? in other words can you please suggest here your defination of iranian peoples which goes to the intro. Diyako Talk + 12:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What I said is essentially the same as the first parts of the article, which I find ok. One might say that saying ethno-linguistic could create the impression that we are certain they all are genetically related to the old Iranians. While the relation does exist for most of them, the emphasis might be unnecessary. I do not find it problematic, however, since ethnicity in Wikipedia itself is not only defined as a matter of genes. But I would understand if somebody did. So we might change it to something like The Iranian peoples are the linguistic and cultural descendants of the ancient Iranians, themselves an early branch of the Indo-European peoples. Most of them also share ethnic roots with eachother and with the ancient Iranians. What do you think? Shervink 12:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

I still do not agree. It's the same unknown claim which more looks like a political proposition than a scientific hypotheses or proposition. Allthogh the page only deserves redirection but still i can suggest:

Iranian peoples are those people inhabiting southwestern Asia who speak a member of Iranian languages group which is a branch of Indo-European languages family.

But actually all of these still remain original research since the real defination of Iranian peoples is people who live in Iran and this suggestion is only because i want to give an opportunity not a consensus!. and this is because I just want to leave the article for you if you agree with my above suggestion.

Diyako Talk + 13:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not a matter of your decision to leave the article for me or anybody else. The article is going to stand anyway. If you like, you can cooperate with others in editing it, and you must be very clear in your argumentation when doing so. Before making any changes to the article you should discuss them here, which is also what I do. The alternative would be an edit war which is something we should not pursue. Iranian people are defined in terms of language and culture. You might like to forget about mentioning the word ethnic altogether. That's fine for me. But then, what makes Kurds, Lurs, etc. ethnic groups? Is it genetic or is it culture? If you remove it here we should also remove it on those pages, don't you think? Then it would look like this: The Iranian peoples are the linguistic and cultural descendants of the ancient Iranians, themselves an early branch of the Indo-European peoples. We would then need to have a revision of the concept of defining Kurds as an ethnic group, however. Would you like to do so?

About the picture above the box: I find it funny that some Kurds have a problem being called Iranian on the page related to Kurdish people, but that they want a Kurd depicted here as an Iranian for the sake of impartiality. I don't mind. Which Kurdish personality would you suggest to be depicted there? Shervink 16:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Hi again, Thank you for your reply and for allowance to me as a non-persian to edit Iranian related articles. Because of continuous accusation by Iranians which remind me the famous words: "Separatist, Arrest her/him" I'm always anxious to touch such articles, and always I fixed typos and links in those articles not important edits. Also I did that edit not for starting an eit war, I would not revert it if you reverted it. Also this is not only me who claims kurds are an ethnic group but THOUSANDS clear, credible and reliable sources prove that Kurds are an ethnic group not our argument. as well as Turks and Arabs and Persians all are ethnic groups. but Iranian peoples are anot an etrhnic group. in the 'ancient' times there were almost homogeneous peoples speaking almost mutuable languges/dialects that have their own name, Ancient Iranian peoples. Those people later were attacked and mixed heavily with other peoples such as Semitics, Turkics, Mongolians and other surviving indigenious people of the region. so that all of them (almost) totally lost their past Homogeneity. New ethnic groups born, so that they are totally distinct from eachother. but those ancient people had influenced their ruling areas and as a result they left after them dozens of languages which today they comprise an accepted 'language group' called iranian languages, here in this article we should clarify this.

Also I'm not sure what you mean by a picture, i did not asked it.

Diyako Talk + 18:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Iranica and "Iranian people"

A search in the Encyclopaedia Iranica about the word Iranian people brings up several pages. The first one is an article on the roots of the word Arya (pp. 681-683) under the entry Arya. On page 682, after discussing the roots of the word Arya, it says : No decision has yet been reached regarding the earlier meaning of the Iranian and Indian words. No evidence for such an Indo-European ethnic name has been found.

The other articles that contain Iranian people in this Encyclopaedia are articles related to Buddhism [18], [19], [20] and [21]. But the term Iranian people just appears in the title of those articles, and the author does not specify what he/she means by the term. So Encyclopaedia Iranica does not support the claims in this article. I suggest a merge with Iranian Demographics or Iranian languages, and removing all ethnic references. Heja Helweda 02:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What would you name the group of people who speak languages of the Iranian branch? Surely they have a name don’t they? If you merge this with Iranian languages what term would we have to define people who speak those languages?

Gol 07:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Heja misquotes E.I. (psst..it's called lying)

1. Firstly, the very fact that E.I. decides to use the term "Iranian people" in its title 5 times is enough by itself to discredit your claims.
2. You didnt read E.I. carefully. It doesnt say evidence for the word Aryan does not exist. It says evidence of the "earlier meaning" and "IndoEuropean meaning" does not exist. Youre quoting out of context. On the contrary, the start of the same paragraph reads "these facts are undisputed". Which facts?....the facts above it about the name Aryan and its usage.
3. The very first sentence when defining "Arya" on p681 says: "Arya: An ethnic epithet". Paragraph 4 starts: "The same ethnic concept was later used..."
4. Even (and that's a far cry) if you were to prove that it is not an ethnic term, so what? The article says "cultural" and "linguistic" traits define the Iranian people. You cant ignore the cultural traits in favor of the linguistic ones. That's POV. Because Frye argues exactly against that.
5. And even if that's not enough, Heja, Diyako, and Aucaman are outnumbered. Wikipedia's policy specifically mention "consensus" as a yardstick in disputes.

Look. Im sorry. But you just cant erase something like "Iranian people". It's too well established to expunge.--Zereshk 05:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's cool down

Please need to cool down here and don't let their emotions control their reasoning and behaviour. I think we need to start cleaning up the article and focus on finding sources. I'll try to go through the references already provided and determine their relevance and validity. Aucaman^Talk 03:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

User Gol asked, There is a group of people who speak Iranian (Indo Iranian) languages and they should certainly have a name. It is the impotrant question. i won't suggest any term (because of your (not user Gol) childish accusations). this is your job.

Diyako Talk + 09:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Iranian peoples

http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/pages/I/R/Iranianpeoples.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by ManiF (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your help.

The east Aryan group of peoples of the Indo-European family that today inhabit Iran, Soviet Central Asia and Transcaucasia, Afghanistan, and parts of Pakistan, Turkey, and Iraq. In ancient times they also inhabited southeastern Europe.

It almost claims the same definition which i had suggsted except use of the word of Aryan that currently there is a dipute ongoing for this word by some other user.

Diyako Talk + 14:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"east Aryan group"? If Iranians are "East Aryans", then who are "West Aryans"? Can someone explain this to me? Also note that "East Aryan" forms a compound name so that the word "East" has to be capitalized. I don't know if I can trust a source that is grammatically incorrect. Aucaman^Talk 17:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, its from the Aryan invasion theory.. Indo referring to Indo-Iranian (which may be called East Aryan) and European (e.g. Scandinavians). --Kash 20:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica

I suggest to remove ethnic terms from this article. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, [22]: Since early times the region(Kurdistan) has been the home of the Kurds, a people whose ethnic origins are uncertain . It does not talk about their inclusion in Iranian peoples or any other group.Heja Helweda 20:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read about genetic studies mentioned already above on this page. --Kash 20:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion for quite a while. There are sources which link Kurds to the Jews, and other sources linking them to Iranians. In any case, there is no consensus in the academic circles about their ethnic origin.Heja Helweda 21:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You cannot have a double standard. If the ethnic origins of Kurds are unclear (and as you pointed out they can be linked to several groups), then the reason for the grouping called Kurdish is linguistic and cultural. The same goes for Iranian. If those are enough reasons to include the term ethnic in the Kurdish people article, they should also be included in the Iranian peoples article. Shervink 02:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Kurds have uncertain racial origins, they have also uncertain ethnic origins and you should not confuss these two issues; so that in a certain way we only can classify them with Iranians by their language, it requires that we drop ethnic ties between this totally heterogeneous ethnic groups in this large linguistic group. because we are 1500 years late, Note that we are not discussing ancient Iranians people.

Diyako Talk + 14:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Diyako, it seems we are going in circles, and I think the reason might be that the way certain terms are used here are a bit sloppy. could you please more or less define the meaning of the terms ethnic, racial, cultural, and linguistic? I see that some of these are being used interchangably by some editors while being seen in a more precise manner by others. I think people cannot reach agreement over something when they have different meanings in mind when talking about it. Also, based on those definitions you might like to point out in which of these ways (ethnic, racial, cultural, or linguistic) Kurds or Iranians can be grouped (ethnic groups, cultural groups, whatever), and in which manners the two groups (Kurds and Iranians) are related (is the relation linguistic or cultural or ethnic ... and why). This would make your points of view clear in a very precise manner. We would then have the opportunity to see where exactly our differences lie. Thanks. Shervink 16:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

It is clear, The relation of Kurds with other Iranians is only linguistic; this is also true about most of other groups. they are all dinstinct, independent and different ethnic groups, they all have their own language and culture. this is only their language which goes under a classification; a language group, which they are members of that classification.

Diyako Talk + 18:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you, but you just repeated what you had already said before. I was hoping for a clearer, more detailed answer. In particular, you give no clear definition of the term ethnic. Some editors here seem to equate it with racial, for some others it is a mixture of racial, linguistic, and cultural matters. For you, it seems, it is culture plus language, thus no mention of race. I am not questioning any of these at this point, but I think as long as we do not have the same definition of what ethnicity is, we cannot agree on its instances in the real world, as applied to groups of human beings. Please define what - in your opinion - ethnicity is, and thus what makes a group of people an ethnic group. Lay out then, how this applies to Kurds, and how it - again in your opinion, according to your previous definition - does not apply to Iranians as a whole, or to the relation of Kurds with other Iranian people. The only way to get out of this stalemate is to have a clear, to the point discussion. Please share your views with us, and be precise (even lengthy, if necessary!).Shervink 18:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

By every defination of that words the only tie between Kurds and other speakers of iranian languages is linguistic. Kurds are different from those people by their every thing, but there is only a langauge classification which Kurdish is a member of it.Diyako Talk + 18:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you for not participating in discussion by avoiding my question. If you have lost interest in this, I don't mind. But I see no need to keep the content warning on the page if those who have risen their concerns avoid discussing them here. Shervink 19:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

I have participated from begining, and one of the persons who realized this wrong definition in this article was me. I have the right to not allow change the disscussion. What is the ties between speakers of iranian languages? Their language, not anything alse at least in the case of the Kurds. (Although may there are other groups who their situation is as Kurds and still not discussed but) if you clarify in the article that the relationship between kurds and other members of this linguistic group (not among all of them, ONLY kurds) is only linguistic, then no problem otherwise there will be a dispute on the article til our other Turkish and non-Persian friends will find this interesting discussion and will discuss and solve the problem.

Diyako Talk + 19:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, then let me give you a few hints so you can think about this a bit more. You said that the relationship between Kurds and other Iranians is purely linguistic. Don't Kurds celebrate Norooz? or a lot of other cultural traditions of other Iranians? I am sure you know about haft-sin for example? Are these things related to language? Or are these things which people in Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and parts of Turkey, including Kurds, Azeris, ... have in common? These are obviously not linguistic ties. The article on Kurdish people even (wrongly) is claiming that Norooz is a Kurdish festival. It is, as we know of course, something Kurds have in common with other Iranians. What I'm saying is that there is much more that these people have in common than only language. There numerous examples for this. What you might say is that we don't know whether there is also a racial relation. That's true, there seems to be no consensus about it. But race is not included as the definition of Iranian people here, so that should not be a problem. Shervink 20:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Well, I've not prevented you to discuss cultural issues or other relations in the article. You can discuss it in the article in its section as much as you can find stuff for it. but actually the definition is the way which I suggested before. Also the issue of Kurdish new year as fars as I know is because of the article is about Kurdish people and not Iranian peoples which you can discuss it there and we will cite our credible sources for that, wether you will agree with us or we with you it is another matter. You for exemple in this article can have numerous sections and discuss every thing but defintion is another issue. it must be free from any unclear words and aother accepted and clear issue goes there. => Look at Germanic peoples. Diyako Talk + 20:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

And I'll fix it now, and towmorrow will improve the article. really right now I'm very busy. See you later.Diyako Talk + 21:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Germanic people and Iranian people are two different groups. you cannot say we do this thing here because somebody did that thing there!!! Also, since there are numerous cultural elements all Iranian people have in common, obviously a good definition of them must include those as well. Your way of discussion is not serious, and you don't show the maturity needed to have an intelligent discussion on such a complicated topic. Moreover, your way of writing is very hasty, and full of gramatical and typographical errors. Please pay more attention to the quality of what you write. As long as you don't come up with better arguments and spend some time thinking rather than writing your false assumptions over and over again, I consider it a waste of my time and a waste of server space to continue discussing with you here. My dear friend, grow up please! Shervink 21:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Eee...?! really?! So why they are so unknown in this planet?!!!

Diyako Talk + 11:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The article on Germanic peoples is a good one to look at and compare to. This article should try to correspond more to it as well as the Slavic peoples article. Obviously, the IRanian peoples vary as do the Germanic peoples and Slavs since they split off over the centuries and have lived in various regions, although for the most in close geographic proximity. It should be noted thus that for example, the Czechs have many closer cultural ties to Germans than to the Russians even though both are 'Slavs'. This article shouldn't become too orthodox and promote a pan-Iranic perspective either, but simply explain the appellation and its usage. Tombseye 23:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tombseye, although it is not still what I exactly want but for now at least I fix it as your insance.

Diyako Talk + 11:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Inquary

Who are we talking about? Ancient Iranian people or the ones living in Iran or something else? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 23:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Iranian people as in the same grouping as Germanic people or Slavic people. It is not just the Persians and others of Iran that this article is referring to or the ancient populations. Tombseye 23:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

That was my impresion, so what is the dispute? Dont get me wrong I am intentionaly inquiring these basics so we get to the root of the dispute. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Cool Cat, As user Tomseye said I corrected the definition of the term Iranian peoples as any other existing linguistic term, such as Germanic peoples or others. Speakers of Iranian languages as you know are more heterogeneous than any other languistic family so that everyday they massacre eachother. The defintion and usage of this term is only linguistic although some of them have or have not some weak cultural ties but the only accepted and exact tie among them which is classified is their languages. There is no place to create or invent a new large athnic group with this tottaly different people.

Diyako Talk + 16:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand where you get the impression from that Iranian people massacre each other every day. Do you know the meaning of that word?

There is a lot of relations besides language among Iranian people, as pointed out in several references before (already given in the talk here, and a few of them summarized by me on Cool Cat's talk page). The definition of Iranian people is accordingly not only linguistic. Iranian people are still a much more coherent group of people than Germanic people. The equivalents of Norooz, Haft-sin, glorification of the sun and fire etc. which remain alive among Iranians can be traced back to pagan traditions. How could you compare that to Germanic people, among which almost no trace of the old bonds has remained (unless for reasons related to their shared christian beliefs, and even then, they are very divided due to the different branches of christianity.)

The only invention here is the denial of a culture which has been continuously alive for thousands of years, even referred to in the old testament, at which time it was known by the exact same name as used in this article, as evident from Achamenid inscriptions. Please stop denying such an abvious truth. Iranian people have many ties: linguistic, cultural, in many cases ethnic, and in some cases also religious. They are one of the oldest groups of people which still share a common identity, although spread over a quite large geographical region, and although each having developed their own beautiful traditions. Shervink 17:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Your POV is only a simple political propaganda which nowadays is out-of-date. Speakers of Iranian languages have no accepted ties rather than their linguistic classification. if your POV is that some of them have cultural ties, ok no problem explain in its own section, otherwise you have not the right to change defintion of a linguistic group. Some of you Iranians think that history begins only with invasion of Iranians to the region, it's wrong. Most of those people who you are refereing to have been living in the region for thousands of years before arriving and invasion of Iranians. They have some weak similarities in their different cultures it's not anough and does not serve your aims. They all have their own cultures. Different cultures. This is only their language classification which classify them in a groupping, not anything else. also none of references in Cool Cat's talk page is related to the article. I have read carefully all of them, They all discuss other issues. like ethnicity in Iran not outside Iran, or in ancient times. Or others do not use the term Iranian for 'all of speakers of this simple lingustic classification. You are only wasting your time. the term is not accepted worldwide as your defintion except in some biaesd sources who even still are unclear on the term and have not described what does it mean. They are so biased that classify Azeri Turks as Iranian peoples!!!! I cannot accept such a website which even in top of it, the right corner has an pro-Iranian chauvnistic slogan "If there is no Iran I'll die"!!!!.

Also don't lie please, Speakers of Iranian languages inhabiting large parts of southwestern asia are all culturally different. As far as I know even most of the Kurds who live in Iran have nothing called haft-sin, Kurds who do not live in Iran, never heard of Sizdehbedar, if you in Iraqi kurdistan say Sizdebedar they never understand you what it is! and many other issues. Diyako Talk + 18:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I won't allow myself to use the same kind of rude and inappropriate language that you are using. That chauvinistic slogan as you call it is part of a poem by the great Ferdowsi. I know a great many Iranian Kurds, and your strange claims only let me conclude that you can be neither Iranian nor Kurd. Kurds do celebrate Norooz with all that belongs to it! Norooz is celebrated in Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and Turkey, among other places, as well as among those with Iranian origins allover the world. A look at the Kurdish people page even reveals that some (apparently) Kurds try to claim it is actually a Kurdish custom. Do you disagree with that? Isn't that a cultural tie? Is there anything comparable within Germanic people? Once again, Iranian people are those with linguistic and/or cultural and/or ethnic ties to the ancient Iranians. They have existed for thousands of years, and still exist. They are not confined to the borders of Iran, which is by the way why you see the picture of Afghanistan's president on the page. Any more clarification necessary?And for God's sake, spell check your entries before posting them!!!Shervink 19:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Interesting! by your definition Kurds are not included in the article! Kurds neither culturally nor ethnically are similar to those Speakers of Iranian language. I suggest to remove every mention of the Kurds in the article! Otherwise my suggestion for defintion of such a linguistic group is as following: Iranian peoples are those people inhabiting southwestern Asia who speak one of Iranian languages a branch of Indo-European languages family. Only in this way Kurds are included in the article.

Diyako Talk + 19:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Kurds are Iranians because - contrary to what you say - they have lots of cultural ties with other Iranians.

Moreover, your suggested definition is totally wrong, even gramatically! Shervink 19:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

The Iranian peoples are the people speaking Iranian languages a branch of Indo-European languages family. This time no gramatical problem! and the issue of culture is not the same way as you think. We will discuss it in it's own section. Ok?

Diyako Talk + 20:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I suggest (gramatically only) something like The Iranian peoples are those people speaking one of the Iranian languages, themselves forming a branch of the family of Indo-European languages. Nevertheless, the definition is still incomplete. The issue of culture is an integral part of these people, and belongs into the definition. Your POV-pushing is essentially stuck the same place it was a few days ago, and you keep repeating your wrong assumptions despite having seen so much evidence to the contrary. I did what I could to convince you, and I think anybody else has lost interest in dealing with your ignorant stubbornness anyway. Considering the references, your suggestions are simply unacceptable. I think we are done here. Discussion is over because there is no evidence whatsoever supporting your claim. Ignoring references and falsifying articles cannot be dealt with on talk pages indefinitely. If you don't back down and don't stop removing content or spreading falsehoods which contradict all scholarly work, there will be more appropriate ways to deal with it. Shervink 20:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

So, I we have in the article: The Iranian peoples are those people speaking one of the Iranian languages, themselves forming a branch of the family of Indo-European languages. About references I saw no acceptable refernce as explained above. They are not disscussing the matter. They all are about people who live in Iran. The culture issue also will be discussed in the 'culture' section. After that I see no problem with the article unless small ones. And we should also discuss with Aucaman, as far as I know he is discussing the usage of the term of Aryan.

Diyako Talk + 20:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You are understanding this wrong. You are pushing your POV without valid proof or references, are removing content from WP and are spreading hatred toward several ethnicities. If you continue vandalizing this page you will sooner or later be blocked. Once you change your attitude and start discussing in a civillized manner then we can see whether any changes are necessary. Shervink 20:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

This is you dear Shervink who are pushing your POV. What is spreading hatred toward several ethnicities?!!!! you see keeping articles neutral as such nonsense because you are biased. You want to change defintion of linguistic groups. You never can push your POV here.Diyako Talk + 20:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Look guys, the usage of Iranian peoples is basically the same as that of Germanic and Slavic peoples. The main focus is language followed by some common ethnic origins, cultural traits, etc. The Ossetians, for example, sharply contrast with the Hazaras but are all Iranian peoples when explained in the context of having some common traits most notably their languages. If there are cultural traits that people would like to bring up then a culture section might make a good addition as well. Tombseye 21:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, time out.

1. No more acusations or "personal attacks". Do not call each others input as "propoganda" or "pov" either.
2. Please try not to edit the article until we come up with an agreement on content.
3. Please have your argument based on sources. I know none of you are making things up, but as an observer I would prefer to see what your argument is based on.
4. Both views can be present on the article (based on the final concensus of course).

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 23:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool cat - I demand you do keep an eye on this topic because so much time is being wasted on Diyako and other anti-Iranian wikipedians trying to change article to whatever else, I think they just can not accept reality. I suggest they do take a time out and sort their head out. --Kash 01:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

History of Mixing of Persians and Arabs

1. In 651-671, Ziad settled a permanant garrison of 50,000 Arabs of Tamim and Bakr from Basrah and Kufa at Merv, which became the main center for defense and expansion on the north-eastern frontier (in Khorasan) Encyclopaedia Iranica, p.208, under Arab Conquest of Iran.
2. Whereas Arab settlement in western and southren Iran tended to be relatively small, the colonization of eastern Iran (Khorasan) was both extensive and systematic. Tribesmen of Bakr bin Wael were established in Qohestan and garrisons of troops were certainly quartered at Nishapur and Merv.This policy can be explained in part as an effort to relieve the surplus population pressures in the Iraqi camp cities (Encyclopaedia Iranica, p.213).
3. In 730 CE, Jonayd bin Abd-al-Rahman sent 20,000 Arabs (half from Basrah and half from Kufa) to Khorasan. At the time of Qotayba bin Moslem governorship (early 8th century), there were 40,000 Basran, 7,000 Kufan troops in Khorasan, the Arabs coming from the tribes of Bakr, Tamim, Abd-al-Qays and Azd.
4. Because of the distance from Iraq and the attractiveness of the country, large numbers of these soldiers acquired lands in villages throughout Khorasan, married local women or brought their families from Iraq, and settled permanently in the province. This implies that the Arab population in Khorasan must have been huge in comparison to that in western Iran. Even if the primary component of the Arab colony in Khorasan was limited to just the 50,000 families settled there by Rabi bin Ziad, the total Arab population would have to be estimated at close to a quarter of a million people.(Encyclopaedia Iranica, under Arab settlements in Iran,p.213).
5. Because of the common danger on the Khorasani frontie, Iranians and Arabs overcame their initial antipathy and cooperated extensivle in military operations. In addition to military garrisons, the Arabs included merchants, artisans, religious scholars, landlords, peasants, beggards, vagabonds and badits. It was natural that in time these groups blended in with their Khorasani counterparts. These speacial circumstances in Khorasan, which integrated Arabs and Iranians into a common social fabric, facilitated the assimilation of Iranian culture by the Arabs and the gradual acceptance of much of Arab culture(above all the religion), by their Iranian subjects and peers..(Encyclopaedia Iranica, under Arab settlements in Iran,p.214). Heja Helweda 00:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

No one denies the "mix" of Arabs, Turks, Indians, Persians, and so forth. But the numbers you have posted are NOTHING compared to the large Persian nation that already existed. Even if you put the number of Arabs in Khorasan to 1.000.000, it would be still very very small. Tajik 23:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Persians and Arabs

Due to the extensive inter-marriage and mix of Arabs and Persians, at least one paragraph must be devoted to these ethnic mixing.Heja Helweda 00:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You posted the exact thing on the Persians article and now here. This is getting extremley annoying and soon we will confront it much quickly.

In short: These quotes which you spent your time getting, about Arab soldiers who stayed in Iran after the conquest, they do not bring in any evidence about the extensive inter-marriage of Arabs and Persians. Basically, there are 3% Arab ethnic in Iran, and sure I agree there have been some inter-marriages, but if this is so it does not bring any significant and useful information to the article, because there were also many Greek, Mongol, Turkish, Indian, Russian, and even American and British!, etc etc soldiers who also stayed in Iran after their wars and invasions and settled down and inter-married with Iranians.

If you would like, I suggest you start an article about these intermarriages, and use genetic studies to support your claims, however these would be original research and will not be acceptable in Wikipedia. --Kash 16:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is "mating behaviour" relevant? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 23:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not. It is only because these Anti-Iranians who are trying their best to include these unrelevant information as well as many attempts to stop Iranians contributing to their articles. It is quite funny actually how they claim all Iranian wikipedians who contribute are 'nationalists - EXTREMISTS'!! it is dissapointing to see how much time is wasted because of 3 or 4 people on so many different Iranian articles, but they can't change history, and Iranians will fight back to keep things accurate. Shame its got to this --Kash 01:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Leaving

I'm leaving this discussion, probably Wikipedia as a whole, for a while. I think the current dispute is the best demonstration of the inherent problems of an open encyclopedia. Discussing with these anti-Iranians is simply not worth my time. I'd rather forget about the idea of relying on something like Wikipedia as a source of information. It was a worthwhile experience, and I might get back to it now and then. But I think we can see here that an open encyclopedia is simply a lousy idea. Whenever it gets to a topic which is a little sensitive, for political, religious, cultural, or whatever other reasons, such a medium can simply not be trusted. That is what I take as my Wikipedia experience's conclusion. Wikipedia is turning from a source of information to a medium for people who are too uneducated to be taken seriously elsewhere. As you can see on my page, I believe in the motto Truth is strongest. My conclusion today is that this does not hold for Wikipedia. Shervink 19:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

Estmation of number of Persian people of Arab ancestry

Quarter of a million is a small number nowadays, but in that period when the whole population of Iran was just a few million, it was a huge influx of people. Population of the world in 700 A.D. was just around 270 million [23](see the chart). The percentage of Persian population of Iran(almost 34.68 million [24]) to the world's population now (6.446 billion)[25] is 34.68/6446= 0.00538008. So around 700 A.D., the Persian population of Middle East should have been around 0.00538008*270=1.453 million. So while there were 1.45 million people living in all of Persia, there were 250,000 Arabs' living only in Khorasan. That's a big chunk of the population. and this is without counting other Arabs living in other regions of Iran, like Qom, Qazvin, Hamadan. So the percentage of Arabs in that period would have been much higher than 250,000. This is something close to 20% of the population of Persians, i.e., almost 20% of Persians have Arab ancestry. Heja Helweda 00:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

- Original research, does not belong to wikipedia, keep your guess work to yourself. --Kash 02:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

More speakers of the Iranian Language, please add to the list

there are more iranian speaking people in the world then those listed: iranian azerbaijani's iranian turkomens iranian arabs and so on.

they all speak the iranian language. i think if we put iranian and then the enthnicity, like iranian arabs then there should be no problems because its not like we are claiming that they are iranic.

for example, iranian turkomens speak Persian but arent iranic. so technically, they speak an iranian language.

thanks.

--Iranian Patriot.

User Khash and clear vandalism

This user reverts uncited info which already disscussed but remained and forgot to remove it from the article and removes valid and wellcited texts from the page provided by Heja helweda.Diyako Talk + 02:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Also what a hell does this boggus template here in the article?????? This template is for ethnic groups such as Armenians, Assyrians etc. not linguistic families. It should be removed now.

Diyako Talk + 02:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman and Heja are currently under investigation by administrators for their attacks on Iranian articles, and will probably be banned sooner or later. --Kash 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

and other users for their personal attacks.Heja Helweda 02:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This user khash even removes dispute tags.!!!! she is very new on wikipedia. quite unfamiliar! Diyako Talk + 02:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Diyako Stop adding dispute without mentioning it in the talk page, this is Vandalism, if you are new, please read here: Help:Contents/Editing_Wikipedia_-_the_basics --Kash 02:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

and what I've explained above in the begining of this eection?

Diyako Talk + 02:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is everyone still arguing over this page?

The last version by Dbachmann was fine as it was well organized and explained everything necessary to understand about the IRanian peoples. What can still be disputed at this point? It states all of the various types of Iranian peoples and within what context and specifies the primary linguistic link. Its fine the way it is. Tombseye 02:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tombseye. These users think people are their enemies. Here this uncited section which I disagreed with Thus, not unlike the previous example of Germanic peoples involving the English, who are of mixed Germanic and Celtic origin, Iranian is an ethno-linguistic group and the Iranian peoples display varying degrees of common ancestry and/or cultural traits that denote their respective identities. and the other one the section which Heja helweda added and was well-cited but this user reverted the first one and remove the other one. I add dispute tag removes! Please help! Thanks you.

Diyako Talk + 02:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see that you're back Tombseye. The Iranian editors have been having a huge dispute with Diyako, Heja, and Aucaman recently. It's a really long story, with one group calling the others anti-Iranian, and...well it's a really long story. See the huge discussion on Talk:Persian people for example. --Khoikhoi 02:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad too. Although I have my own disputes on the persian people, but still did not interefere seroiusly, maybe later. But here in this article I'm against any biased and uncited stuff which is in favor of political issues as X-ism or y-ism. I cannot accept a user/vandal who removes other users valid and well-cited info even if he is the messenger of God.Diyako Talk + 03:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I am even more glad. Sadly, political beliefs have blinded some users in to 'Anti-Iranian' behaviour, who simply refuse to accept things, after tens of sources mentioned, in tens of discussion pages, they simply refuse to see. It is a sad story, and it is bad for wikipedia, I do hope admins can get out and block such actions --Kash 03:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Aryan should not be used as a racial term

However, the use of the word Ārya or Aryan to designate the speakers of all Indo- European (IE) languages or as the designation of a particular "race" is an aberration of many writers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and should be avoided [26].Heja Helweda 04:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need Totally disputed tag?

Can somebody outline what is really disputed in the article, can lessed tags be used (as {{Disputeabout|Topic of dispute}}, {{Check}}, {{Sectfact}}, {{POV-section}}, etc. be used (see Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes)? Please outline the dispute matter using the section bellow. Please avoid personal attacks and also forget the conflicts you could help in the past or over the other articles. Here we want to improve the article Iranian people

We did not need the tag, and every single info is factual in there.Zmmz 04:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing Dispute

The article should be labelled Totally Disputed because:

1. It uses the term Aryan in a racial sense, which according to recent academic sources should be avoided ([27], p.3, last paragraph). The term Aryan is now used in linguistics only in the sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages Encyclopaedia Britannica.Heja Helweda 04:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Most of the article is uncited and disputed.
3. While the article is on a linguistic family it should not have a template which is special to ethnicc groups not linguistic families.
4. There are some people who systematically remove valid and well-cited text.

Diyako Talk + 04:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Solutions

1. I propose to remove the word Aryan as the ethnic/racial origin of these people, and explain in one or two lines that the term Aryan is used only as a linguistics classification.Heja Helweda 05:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not an expert on the matter, but Wikipedia used Aryan and Indo-Aryans as the main title for the ancient people. Proto-Indo-Iranian is just a redirect to Proto-Indo-Iranian language. I would think we should use the main title of the correspondent articles unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. abakharev 05:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

1. 2Absolutley not, the word is part of these people`s culture and identity. are getting invloved now to get rid of such unnecessary over use of editing.Zmmz 05:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I searched under [Iran], and invite everyone to check out the links. The results are; in the Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries, Columbia Encyclopedia, and Encyclopedia Britannica, they all said the same thing; they never mention the term is outdated here, not even a footnote. By the way Iran means `Land of Aryans`. Should they change that too, because you are sensitive to the word Aryan? Under Aryan, Encyclopedia Britannica says, “(from Sanskrit arya, “noble”), a people who, in prehistoric times, settled in Iran and northern India. From their language, also called Aryan, the Indo-European languages of South Asia are descended. In the 19th century the term was used as a synonym for “Indo-European” and also, more restrictively, to refer to the Indo-Iranian languages (q.v.). It is now used in linguistics only in the…...”[28]. But, know your limits, and [do not try] to come up with new names telling a race what to call itself.Zmmz 04:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Aryan does not have a racist meaning in Iran, Tajikistan or Afghanistan. Look at this article.

http://www.chn.ir/en/news/?Section=2&id=5611

If the term Aryan was racist UN would not agree to it. Would it?

The national anthem of Afghanistan talks about “soil of Aryans” Tajikistan asked UN to name 2006 the year of Aryans and Iranian newspaper referred to the Iranian soccer players as “Aryan boys” just a few weeks ago. Obviously this term is used in these countries as they seem to consider it their origin.

Gol 04:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

To User:Diyako:

1. Fair, though arguable, please propose your solution
2. It is very important! Please put {{fact}}, {{dubious}} etc. templates in the text. It is much more productive to look for sources for specific statements than to discuss user's behavior
3. Fair. Maybe we should modify the template for the ethnic groups, so to create a template for the linguistic families? Or remove the info box altogether?
4. Please comment on the text of the article not on the behavior of "some people". If there are significant helpful blanked fragments of the text, please put them to the proposed solution section. abakharev 04:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately Alex, you're only hearing one side of the story. Diyako doesn't believe that the term "Iranian peoples" exists, something that is disputed by virtually all the Iranian editors here. They resent the fact that he has tried to get this page deleted in the past, and they even more resent what they see as an "anti-Iranian" campaign by Diyako, User:Heja Helweda, and User:Aucaman. Remember, I'm trying to remain neutral, but I'm also just trying to explain the Iranian editors' point of view. Anyways, another issue is with Aucaman and the Iranian editors. Aucaman believes that the word Aryan, because of its Nazi connections, should not be used on Wikipedia. However, the Iranian and Indian editors point out that although the word is racist in Europe and America, it isn't in the Middle East and India, it's a part of their culture. See the Aryan article for more details. It's something similar to the swastika. In places like Korea you can find it all over the place above Buddhist temples. Anyways, that's my explanation on the the Iranian editors' side, and I hope that you'll understand that this situation is a lot more complicated than it looks. See Talk:Kurdish people for example. --Khoikhoi 05:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, I am listening everybody who care to tell their position and to not attack the others. I am possibly the least knowledgeble on the matter of all the other invlolved editors, but at least I think I am neutral. Thanks for the background. abakharev 06:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I am glad that finally we have an admin who can hopefully put an end to this once and for all. Maybe even the outcome of this dispute can spill into the Persian people article. These discussion pages are being flooded with rhetoric, and it is costing the integriuty of Wikipedia` s policies. As we did so before in the Persian people article, when a neutral user Khoikhoi, we invite any neutral user or admin to look up the word Aryan for themselves in one or two major encyclopedias and dictionaries. This discussion page already contains all the info an admin needs to know, please submitting stop redundent messages.Zmmz 05:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Iran is a cognate of Aryan

This is actually true, but do people here know what "cognate" is referring to? The word "Aryan" is found in the Rig Veda and Indo-Aryans used it a lot. The word Iran is the cognate - i.e., the related word in Iranian languages. I suggest we change the sentence to: "The word Iranian has been used by Iranians since ancient times. It's a self-designation meaning 'noble people'." Any thoughts? The fact that Iran is a cognate of Aryan is not related to this article. It belongs to the Aryan article. Aucaman^Talk 05:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Aucaman, The word Aryan has been used by Iranians since ancient times. Hehe have you confused yourself? The words are similar in meaning, Iran is only a short from Iran-Shahr or Land of Aryans. The words Iran and Aryan are similar in meaning. I think where the name comes from is extremley important in this case, so people like you would learn and understand the importance of Aryanism in Iran. --Kash 10:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Britannica

Hopefully everyone considers Britannica to be a legitimate enough. Right?

“The Persians, Kurds, and speakers of other Indo-European languages in Iran are descendants of the Aryan tribes that began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the 2nd millennium BC”

Here is the link

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-230041?query=in%20Iran%20are%20descendants%20of%20the%20Aryan%20tribes&ct=

(With ManiF permission)

Gol 05:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I second that. I searched under Iran and also the word Aryan, but this time in the Columbia Encyclopedia, and saw the same things Gol mentioned. Here is what Columbia Encyclopedia said,“Early History to the Zand Dynasty Iran has a long and rich history. For a detailed description of the Persian Empire, see Persia. Some of the world’s most ancient settlements have been excavated in the Caspian region and on the Iranian plateau; village life began there c.4000 B.C. The Aryans came about 2000 B.C. and split into two main groups, the Medes and the Persians. The Persian Empire founded (c.550 B.C.) by Cyrus the Great was succeeded, after a period of Greek and Parthian rule, by the Sassanid in the early 3d cent. A.D”[29].Zmmz 09:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is what the Merriam-Webster dictionary says, “1 : INDO-EUROPEAN 2 a : of or relating to a hypothetical ethnic type illustrated by or descended from early speakers of Indo-European languages b : NORDIC c -- used in Nazism to designate a supposed master race of non-Jewish Caucasians having especially Nordic features 3 : of or relating to Indo-Iranian or its speakers”[30]. Zmmz 09:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC) ”[31].Zmmz 09:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute. Continuing

It appeares that there are a few almost non-related disputes around this article. I will try to outline all of them. Lets correct me if I am wrong. Let us discuss them separately, hear all the arguments, them have a straw poll. If the straw poll will be inconcusive, lets have a formal RfC over the matter. abakharev 13:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Aryans

The article thrice mention Aryans as the common ancestors of the Iranian people and twice uses the term Indo-Aryans. Once it put an explanation to the word Aryan as Proto-Indo-Iranians. Some editors state that because of Nazi abused the term Aryan, it should not be used outside the word Indo-Aryan, otherwise it would hurt feelings of Jews. I am personally been a half-Jewish myself don't have my feelings hurt, but that is probably just me. Can we somehow check if the term hurts feelings? Maybe we should find a reference about it or ask on the Judaica portal?

Solutions:

Leave Aryans in the article

Pro:

• Seems to be title of the main article about these people on Wiki
• Used in many references including Brittanica
• Name is used by the ancestors of these people
• Short and understandable

Contra:

• Encyclopaedia Britannica, Aryan is now used in linguistics only in the sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages.
• (Autochthonous Aryans?, By Michael Witzer, Harvard University, p.3, last paragraph),The use of the word Arya or Aryan to designate the speakers of all Indo- European (IE) languages or as the designation of a particular "race" is an aberration of many writers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and should be avoided.
• Aryan as a race or language, By David Frawley, American Institute of vedic Studies: In Vedic literature, Aryan is not the name of the Vedic people and their descendants. It is a title of honor and respect given to certain groups for good or noble behavior. In this regard even the Buddha calls his teaching Aryan, Arya Dharma; the Jains also call themselves Aryans, as did the ancient Persians. For this reason one should call the Vedic people simply the "Vedic people" and not the Aryans.
• India through the Ages: It is notable that in the Vedas, the word Arya is never used in a racial or ethnic sense. It is still used by Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Zoroastrians, as to mean "noble" or "spiritual". Heja Helweda 00:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hurts feeleings (have to be checked)

There have been no Jews showing any interest in the matter at all. This could be because of the fact that it has nothing to do with Nazi Germany (Obivous) --Kash 20:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Change Aryans to Proto-Indo-Iranians

Pro:

• Does not hurt feelings

what do you mean does not hurt feelings? there are way many more Iranian editors concerned on this topic. On the mediation here majority if not everyone are pro using such term. So basically, it does not have any pro but a victory for a bunch of Anti-Iranians, yes great solution --Kash 20:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Contra:

• Long and Clumsy
• Redirected to the language group
• May hurt feelings of Iranians

Verifiability

The article has 8 inline references and 11 External links. Seems to be not bad but allegedly many info are either not referenced or referenced to dubious sources.

Solution

Please outline dubious places in the text, so we can look for the sources abakharev 13:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Impression that Iranian people is a nation, not a language group

The article formatted as an article for an ethnic group, including the infobox. Potentially it may be considered as some endorsement to the Greater Iran idea or as a call for the separatism, etc.

I have looked on Wikipedia for the similar language group like Arab, Slavic peoples, Turkic peoples, Germanic people. The last article is missing all together, Arab is formatted very similar to the Iranian people (including the controversial infobox)), Slavic and Turkic peoples are formatted without the infobox.abakharev 13:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Solutions

Leave formatting as is

Pro:

Contra:

=Removing the infobox

Pro:

• That info box does not belong here. Iranian peoples are not an ethnic group. They are several different ethnicities speaking different languages. Also the article Arabs is not a good example, The correct example is Semitic peoples. Diyako Talk + 20:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Contra:

• You were already provided with massive amount of refrences from encyclopedias and dictionaries that prove you are wrong, and this argument is water-thin.Zmmz 21:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Cloning the infobox and editing it removing the inappropriate content

Pro:

Contra:

History Section

There is nothing wrong with the history section. As I recall the problem was that some editors disagree that Persians and other Iranian people are descendants of Aryans. We provided source, a very legitimate one, that they are indeed. If there is any other worries please mention it but this one is solved.

Gol 20:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Gol, History section needs clarification, while linguistically all of those people are related but it does not mean that ethnically they are all related to eachother, I am pointing to the last paragraph of the history section. It should be clarified. Thanks.

Diyako Talk + 20:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It does mention very clearly that they are not all genetically alike and are mixture of many different groups. Also this was not the original problem. The problem was whether we should mention the word Aryan and say that Iranians are descendants of them or not and all of you guys were saying it is not true and there is no legitimate source. Well now we have the legitimate source which says the exact same thing. Iranian people are descendants of Aryans and anyone with common sense knows that it does not mean all Iranians today are PURE Aryans and article does mention that they are mixed with other races so there is no problem.

Gol 20:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Diyako and others, we have provided over-whelming proof that the words Aryans, Indo-Iranian etc., are used to related a certain ethinc group AND their linguistic heritage. Please stop redundently stating the same old argument you have, even though you were provided with dictionary definitions. There is no more discussion.Zmmz 20:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. Aryan does not have any ethnic/racial' meaning, and that's the main problem of this page. My sources for this are the following:

1) Encyclopaedia Britannica, which clearly says: Aryan is now used in linguistics only in the sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages.

2) (Autochthonous Aryans?, By Michael Witzer, Harvard University, p.3, last paragraph), which says:The use of the word Arya or Aryan to designate the speakers of all Indo- European (IE) languages or as the designation of a particular "race" is an aberration of many writers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and should be avoided. Heja Helweda 23:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

NO, you`re wrong actually, you cannot pick and choose words. I searched under [Iran], and invite everyone to check out the links. The results are; in the Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries, Columbia Encyclopedia, and Encyclopedia Britannica, they all said the same thing; they never mention the term is outdated here, not even a footnote. By the way Iran means `Land of Aryans`. Should they change that too, because you are sensitive to the word Aryan? Under Aryan, Encyclopedia Britannica says, “(from Sanskrit arya, “noble”), a people who, in prehistoric times, settled in Iran and northern India. From their language, also called Aryan, the Indo-European languages of South Asia are descended. In the 19th century the term was used as a synonym for “Indo-European” and also, more restrictively, to refer to the Indo-Iranian languages (q.v.). It is now used in linguistics only in the…...”[32]. But, know your limits, and [do not try] to come up with new names telling a race what to call itself. Zmmz 00:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You can't dismiss peer-reviewed scientific papers published in prestigious scientific journals as "student projects" and say that they are out-ranked by dictionaries. Nor is there any evidence that some group of Iranians constitute a "race", or that you speak for this hypothetical group. Zmmz, you're presenting yourself as the champion of the Aryans, but you may only be the champion of Zmmz.

Please do not repeatedly attack me, and you need to assume good faith. Please be warned you be reported for personal attacks. You cannot treat Wikipedia discussion pages as a chatroom. Peer review or student projects are not comparable to dictionaries and encyclopedias.Zmmz 00:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

3)Aryan is a linguistic term that refers to an ancient language group that was ancestral to the Indo-European family of languages. [33]

Diyako Talk + 00:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

ALL the major dictionaries and encyclopedias use the word Aryan. To show that the word is still used everyday in the Iranian culture, see for yourself; one of the most wellknown Iranian web-sites is called Arya.com.Zmmz 23:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I searched under Iran and also the word Aryan, but this time in the Columbia Encyclopedia, and saw the same things Gol mentioned.  Here is what Columbia Encyclopedia said,“Early History to the Zand Dynasty 

Iran has a long and rich history. For a detailed description of the Persian Empire, see Persia. Some of the world’s most ancient settlements have been excavated in the Caspian region and on the Iranian plateau; village life began there c.4000 B.C. The Aryans came about 2000 B.C. and split into two main groups, the Medes and the Persians. The Persian Empire founded (c.550 B.C.) by Cyrus the Great was succeeded, after a period of Greek and Parthian rule, by the Sassanid in the early 3d cent. A.D”[34].Zmmz 00:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is what the Merriam-Webster dictionary says, “1 : INDO-EUROPEAN 2 a : of or relating to a hypothetical ethnic type illustrated by or descended from early speakers of Indo-European languages b : NORDIC c -- used in Nazism to designate a supposed master race of non-Jewish Caucasians having especially Nordic features 3 : of or relating to Indo-Iranian or its speakers”[35]. Zmmz 09:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC) ”[36].Zmmz 00:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

WE SHALL NOT REPEAT OUR SELVES

SEE AND COMMENT HERE.

THERE IS NO POINT TO DO THIS OVER AND OVER. IF YOU HAVE ANY ARGUMENT AGAINST THE USE OF THE WORD ARYAN IN THE FORM OF RACE OR ANY OTHER, PLEASE STATE IT THERE.

Thanks! --Kash 01:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Content Dispute

I'm going to try and mediate the Iranian peoples dispute here could you please post your arguments there and we'll try and come to an reasonable comprimise -- Tawker 00:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

1)Hi, History section needs clarification, while linguistically all of those people are related but it does not mean that ethnically they are all related to eachother, I am pointing to the last paragraph of the history section. It should be clarified. Thanks.Diyako Talk + 00:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Modern Persians themselves are a diverse group of peoples descended from various Iranian and indigenous peoples of the Iranian plateau including the Elamites. Although all Persians are linguistically connected to each other ethnic backgrounds are diverse with many different cultural traits.

Would something like that be preferable to you Tawker 00:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the word Iranians instead of Persians. Persians are by themselves a member of that linguistic group.Diyako Talk + 00:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I stand corrected (I'm not familiar with the topic matter at hand here, I'm googling trying to find information) - if nobody objects I propse changing the paragraph to the above, it seems clearer to me -- Tawker 00:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No sorry this paragraph: Thus, not unlike the previous example of Germanic peoples involving the English, who are of mixed Germanic and Celtic origin, Iranian is an ethno-linguistic group and the Iranian peoples display varying degrees of common ancestry and/or cultural traits that denote their respective identities. Diyako Talk + 00:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Here I meant Iranian peoples linguistically are related but it does not mean that ethnically they are all related to eachother. so the claim refering to common ethnicity in the articler is not correct. Diyako Talk + 00:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, is Germanic peoples involving the English, who are of mixed Germanic and Celtic origin also an ethno-linguistic group? If so, should we add "only" to Iranian is an ethno-linguistic group and the Iranian peoples display varying degrees of common ancestry and/or cultural traits that denote their respective identities

Tawker 00:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The Iranian people Unlike gernmanic people are from quite different etnicities like Turkic, Persian and others uncertain. The whole sentence is wrong and POV. we should drop the word common ethnicity and clarify that it is only a linguistic term'.Diyako Talk + 01:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

2)The info box does not belong here. Iranian peoples are not an ethnic group. They are several different ethnicities speaking different languages. It should be removed as in any other linguistic group.Diyako Talk + 00:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you have a valid point there, I would like to see the argument to the contrary before making a recomendation though.

3)Aryan is a linguistic term that refers to an ancient language group that was ancestral to the Indo-European family of languages. [37]. I do not say use or not use it as a racist word but I say clarify this in the article what a term ia this.

Diyako Talk + 00:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you also have a valid point there, but I would need to see the opposing argument before making any recomendation Tawker 00:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This dispute has been dragging on for so long that most of the involved parties (the majority consensus) have given up and left. The talk page here and the one on the admin board already contains evidence. If one is to repeat onself ten times, why then submit a signed dated message to be saved?--Zereshk 01:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Zereshk, They never had an acceptable answer to me but instead they wrote long and irrelevant comments.Diyako Talk + 01:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My answer to you was very short: "If E.I. is using the term Iranian people, then it means it simply exists." Hence your polemic unfounded. Simple.--Zereshk 01:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to E.I. - I don't know what it is / context - thanks Tawker 01:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the majority here agrees that Encyclopedfia Iranica is the ultimate authority on Iranian matters. Go to here and type in Iranian people in the box. You will see that it is used by them. Not only that, but the word "Arya" (the root of the word "Iranian") is fully described in one of the articles.--Zereshk 01:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Zereshk I'm not discussing using the term Iranian people (although is not a valid and widely used term). I'm not sure what you mean.Diyako Talk + 01:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Also as I have explained above the term Iranian peoples is used for ancient Iranian peoples who are quite different than modern speakers of Iranian languges. as well as people who live in country of Iran. the term Iranian people in this meaning we use it is not a widely used tyerm but still i do not oppse using it. this is another matter.another matter those links which appear in that link or are in PDF.Diyako Talk + 01:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You in fact started this whole debate stressing on the invalidness of the term.--Zereshk 01:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes but soon after u left the discussion I compromised with other users to use it but clarify what it is.

In more short and clear words:

Not generalizing ethnic ties among all of them. Sure there are ethnic ties between some of them but not all of them. it shoul be clarified.

In article in front of the term aryan we shoul clarify that it is a linguist term refering to ancient languages spoken in ancient Iran.

Removing the wrongly used infobox.

Diyako Talk + 01:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so youre not challenging the term "Iranian people" anymore, even though you keep advocating it. We did make changes to the article. Did you not notice them? I for one made changes stressing the fact that ethnicity alone does not define Iranian-ness. Also, which ethnic group has no ethnic ties to the rest of Iranians? Could you clarify that for us?--Zereshk 02:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm even not discussing this! I'm saying that whatever you call them theý all have not common ethnic ties. Diyako Talk + 02:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

But you just said that there are some groups that have no ethnic ties with the rest. Who are they?--Zereshk 02:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

If we say it more exactly is that not ALL of them but some of them. Diyako Talk + 02:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I read the ethnic groups in the Iranian plateau all have ethnic ties together, at least after some time they did due to mingling, and mixing. Everything that needs to be mentioned is really already mentioned in the section. By the way there are no evidence that Iranians had ties to Elamites, at least for now. Here are two links from authoratitative sources; http://www.bartleby.com/65/ir/Iran.html, and http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-230041?query=in%20Iran%20are%20descendants%20of%20the%20Aryan%20tribes&ct=.Zmmz 05:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yes the links are on people who live in Iran and the article does not clarify what is Iranian origin. before Aryn invasion there was a large indigenious people in the Iran. Here in that link is no refer to whether what is Iran. Probably it means people who lived in Iran (region) since long time ago. In many articles (for example in britannica) which is more directly on Kurds does not claim they are Iranian origin. .Diyako Talk + 05:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Evidence against ethnic use of the term Aryan

• Encyclopaedia Britannica, which clearly says: Aryan is now used in linguistics only in the sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages.
• (Autochthonous Aryans?, By Michael Witzer, Harvard University, p.3, last paragraph), which says:The use of the word Arya or Aryan to designate the speakers of all Indo- European (IE) languages or as the designation of a particular "race" is an aberration of many writers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and should be avoided.
• Aryan as a race or language, By David Frawley, American Institute of vedic Studies: In Vedic literature, Aryan is not the name of the Vedic people and their descendants. It is a title of honor and respect given to certain groups for good or noble behavior. In this regard even the Buddha calls his teaching Aryan, Arya Dharma; the Jains also call themselves Aryans, as did the ancient Persians. For this reason one should call the Vedic people simply the "Vedic people" and not the Aryans.
• India through the Ages: It is notable that in the Vedas, the word Arya is never used in a racial or ethnic sense. It is still used by Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Zoroastrians, as to mean "noble" or "spiritual". Heja Helweda 06:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you are completely [wrong]. I looked at the links, and you have left some crucial words out from Britannica for example, that clealy say, the Indo-Iranian language; note the word language. But, if you go in Britannica and search under Indo-Iranianians or the word Aryan, or even the word Iran, you see they are still used today. In fact, it is used to describe the ethnicity of Iranian ancestors.Zmmz 07:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

And this is the clarification of aryan in the artice: Aryan is a linguistic term that refers to an ancient language group that was ancestral to the Indo-European family of languages. [38] Diyako Talk + 06:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The Aryans came about 2000 B.C. and split into two main groups, the Medes and the Persians. [39]. That's from the Columbia Encyclopedia. There's plenty more where that came from. SouthernComfort 06:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Aryans came (which is by itself disputed but I'm not going to discuss it) but Aryan is a linguistric term as clarified above. in front of Aryan the term should be clarified otherwise people think it is a race the term shouldnot treated as a race or ethnic group.Diyako Talk + 06:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, let's be clear on this - you agree that the Iranian peoples are descended from the ancient Aryan tribes? Nevermind. It's fine, Diyako, you don't have to agree with anything and I'm not going to try to convince you. But many academic sources are available that clearly state that the Iranian peoples are primarily descended from the ancient Aryan tribes and indigenous peoples of the Iranian plateau. SouthernComfort 06:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Southerncomfort. Those sources as far as I know are on country of Iran and its people. an ethnic group who has unknown ethnic origins can easily named Iranian origin. but it does not mean it has the same ancestors as persians do Diyako Talk + 07:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You mean sources like these are not good enough, http://www.bartleby.com/65/ir/Iran.html, and http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-230041?query=in%20Iran%20are%20descendants%20of%20the%20Aryan%20tribes&ct=. Please take a minute and read them, you`ll see that Iranian peoples are primarily descended from the ancient Aryan tribes and indigenous peoples of the Iranian plateau. The Parsees, Medes, Scythians and other mixed and mingled and formed the country of Iran 2500 years ago. Before that, there were a lot different ethnicities and tribes that lived on that plateau that would be called Iran later.Zmmz 07:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the bottom-line, that in an ideal world would replace confusing names used in the English literature; Persia as a [country], and its people then and now known as Persians? No, they should be called Iran and Iranians. The Iranians in the province of Pars, or Fars being called Persians? Yes, [that] is correct. The languge of Iran also being known as Persian or Farsi? Yes, [that] is correct.Zmmz 07:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry ZmmZ your comment belongs to talk page of Persian people not here please move it.Diyako Talk + 07:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you acting confused, or are really confused? My comment clearly answers your questions, and endless confusion.Zmmz 07:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not confused, but the discussion is not meither on the name of persian people. nor people who live in Iran. Look at these sources that more directly referce to all of the Kurds:

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9369506

http://0-www.search.eb.com.library.uor.edu/ebi/article-9275335?query=Kurdistan&ct= Diyako Talk + 07:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, you are debating about the plateau that would later be called Iran. We are concerned with the birth of the country known as Iran. And, clearly by the time the country was formed, all the tribes were well known, and today we know they mixed and mingled, and Cyrus the Great united all those tribes. The main tribes were the Aryan Medes and Persians, and later the northern Scythians mixed with them as well and all formed the country of Iran, who are the decendents of the Medes and Parsees, who were in turn Aryans. This is exhausting.Zmmz 07:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, This is your POV please have a look at my sourcesDiyako Talk + 07:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My POV, huh? All the encylopedias are watching my back huh? You mean sources like these are not good enough, http://www.bartleby.com/65/ir/Iran.html, and http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-230041?query=in%20Iran%20are%20descendants%20of%20the%20Aryan%20tribes&ct=. Please take a minute and read them, you`ll see that Iranian peoples are primarily descended from the ancient Aryan tribes and indigenous peoples of the Iranian plateau. If you have your own opinion, and don`t buy into scholars who research, that does not mean scholars have their own POV.Zmmz 07:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, Here we need mediation. I ask all admins judge. Your sources are about Iran and people living in Iran, only a small minority of Kurds live in Iran. Mine are directly on Kurds. We need medoationDiyako Talk + 07:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You said you want evidence that Iranians are ethnically mixed and are from the Aryan ancestors. You are now saying Kurds are pure, and never ethnically mixed with their Iranian countrymen? Before, your argument was about people from the province of Fars, now it is about the Iranian-Kurds in the province of Kurdistan in Iran?Zmmz 07:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not say Kurds are pure. I say ethnically they are not Iranian. their ethnic origins are unknown and they are close to Iranians not completely Iranian as article claims now. I just want it be clarified in the article. I could do it without this long discussion but did not. and please do not change the matter, I discuss people from Fars in the article persian people not here.Diyako Talk + 08:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The "dispute" is politically motivated, the current version of "history" is based on facts and should remain the way it is. --ManiF 20:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The Reason for This Edit War

Ah...Diyako, just as I suspected. So, that`s what this is all about. About the Kurds. Hhmm, well you Diyako have almost entirely devoted your edits to articles involving the Kurds. Heja Helwelda has almost a 98 percent edit history in articles involving the Kurds. And, you guys have brought in all these Iranian, and other editors, that are forced to defend all these hypothesis and allegations made against these articles about Iran. I also noticed that Heja Helwelda had made 3/4 of the history section that you guys are now disputing in this article about a genetics study involving the Kurds. I personally erased that because it did not belong here, in an article about Iranian people, and it also did not have authoritative refrences---and then after I did that, a war ensued. NOW, it is all starting to make more sense.Zmmz 08:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I have stated my concerns completely. Maybe you do not understand my words. So I'm going to leave the discussion for other neutral wikipedians such as admins who had watched the discussion. It is not guilt to write on your people and homeland.Diyako Talk + 08:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No, but it will allow ultra biased views to flourish, and much like politics, some nationalism can lead to some hypothesis that a certain ethnic group believes itself, yet the scholars disagree. That genetics test did not belong in an encyclopedia, at least not yet. Also, most of the history article was and still is about that genetics test, and the Kurds. How come, and why in so much detail? That belongs in an article about the Kurds, if valid refrences are provided, not here. Diyako, that is the definition of POV.Zmmz 08:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not think so. I'm not a nationalist (although being a nationalist does not mean bad thing) but here I never want and never can push my POV. Also in the genetic article we do not claim any thing we only reflex results of some scientific DNA test. Also We never can think like eachother. We are different. All are different. also I'm not from CIA. I'm a young Kurdish man. Diyako Talk + 08:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I`m sure you believe that, but you certainly have an agenda, and although you have tried to present yourself as a neutral user, you definitely have a POV. You have a political ageneda, as does user Heja Hlewelda, I have quotes from both of you that shows not only you personally attack others[40], but you have a political agenda. With all due respect, this may be fine if you are writting a newspaper article, but it is not OK if you are writting an encyclopedia. People like you just end-up driving away editors who have some factual, legitimate contributions to make to these articles.Zmmz 23:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "correcting the infobox"? What's the problem with it? SouthernComfort 08:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It's only for ethnic groups not articles like that for ex Germanic peoples. even if you carefully look at the template will see that. also you can see the talk page of the template.Diyako Talk + 08:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. But considering the diversity of the Iranian peoples, I think it helps keep the page organized and makes the links easily accessible to the reader. I'd like to hear what others have to say though before any action is taken. Why do you object to it anyway, other than the reason you already stated? Is it the picture? SouthernComfort 08:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the genetics section needs some NPOVing - each of the studies in question were limited and cannot be used to make any widescale claims about the Iranian peoples as a whole. SouthernComfort 09:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

.Yes the picture is another problem, either add all other etnicities or remove the picture. Related ethnic groups is also another problem, the correct term is related linguistic groups. Genetic section: we can use text from the source not by ourselves.Diyako Talk + 09:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's not a bad idea - we could put up a collage of something like 20 or 40 images, drawing from all ethnic groups. Well, most of the genetic section includes text not from any source. It needs to be clarified exactly how many people were sampled in each of these studies. SouthernComfort 09:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

A comprehensive collage? Good idea.--Zereshk 10:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurds and Iranian people

It looks like one of the main sources of the problems with the articles is that according to some editors it creates an impression that Kurds are just a part of a homogeneous Iranian people. Thus, the article can be seen as politically charged. I think the article already stated the Kurds are special in this group. Maybe it stresses it not strong enough and we should have a special section Kurds and Iranian people, showing the similarities and differences between Kurds and the other Iranian people? If necessary we could add similar sections Pashtuns and Iranian people, Farsi and Iranian people, etc. abakharev 12:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article which claims that the Iranian peoples are "homogenous" - that would be impossible, considering the diverse range of peoples categorized as "Iranian." The article, in fact, goes to great lengths to stress this diversity. And by the way, the use of "Farsi" as an ethnic term is totally absurd and there are no academic sources to back up the usage of that term the way one or two editors have been doing in these discussions. The proper form would be "Persians and Iranian people." SouthernComfort 13:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sound like propaganda. What kind of info. do you want to put at Kurds and Iranian section ? Secondly, Farsi is a Turkish word used for Iranian people. SouthernComfort is correct. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was just trying to find a compromise, so that instead of the edit warring all the fine editors here could do productive work. There is already info about the genetic markers been different, but language been very close. A couple of phrases about the most stark similarities in the heritage and history could not hurt. abakharev 23:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"Farsi" is actually an Arabic word used for Persians. Arabs do not have the letter "P", therefore they replaced it with an "F". The Turkish word for "Persian/Iranian" is "Tacikler" - that's why Persians in Turkish-dominated Central-Asia are called Tajiks, which is taken from "Tacikler". Tajik 19:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That is an interesting piece of info that should go to the article. Please be careful and not state as a fact that Farsi and Tajiks are the same nations, the last thing we need here is a new edit war. abakharev 23:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No actually it should not, because the Arabic alphabet was adapted by the Persians, by force mind you, nevertheless adapted. So, as a result, in some instances, P was replaced by F, but P is still used as well. So, Parsi became Farsi, however, the Arabs call it Al farasi.Zmmz 23:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The version with P, i.e. Parsi, is still very commonly used in Iran in order to refer to the Persian language. Shervink 15:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

I second the two comments above. --Kash 00:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)