Talk:Chicago's Persian heritage crisis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Zoroastrianism Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Zoroastrianism, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Zoroastrianism-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 BBC Persian link 2 Articles in Persian language 3 Title 4 View of the Iranian government

[edit] BBC Persian link

Could somebody find a English version of this article? If not, could somebody write the ref tag in accordance with {{cite news}}? Also, what is the exact ruling being made and why? This article doesn't really make any sense in regards to this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind; took information from the Sun-Times article and filled in details. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles in Persian language

Could somebody read the Persian articles and add in the cites if they repeat the information. I'd also hope that the Persian language articles can add more to the "Iranian response" section. I feel that trying to use only English language sources only contributes to our systemic bias. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Is this the best title? Isn't calling it a "crisis" sort of imply a POV? I mean, I would say that the plaintiffs wouldn't consider this a crisis. Perhaps the best way to deal with this is to add the details of the bombing itself and consider the rest of the article as part of its aftermath. I'd like to have a discussion first, as I would hate to have some sort of page move war going on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It was indeed a crisis. A huge collection of Persian antiques have been taken hostage in US. It produced nation-wide anger and fear in Iran. Two decades ago, Iranians took several American diplomats as hostages in order to put them on trial. It is called the hostage "crisis". It produced nation-wide anger in the US. The two events are very similar in nature. Sangak 15:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that the title of this article is poor. The crisis part isn't a POV issue, its an issue of fact. The Iran Hostage Crisis example does not work because unlike in that case, this is not a militarized or otherwise escalated dispute, whereas the hostage crisis was highly volitile. In international relations, crisis is well defined. AlexeiSeptimus 21:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Crisis is not necessarily political or military. It can be economic etc or in our case an attack on cultural heritage of a nation. Of course this is a crisis in our eyes as Iranians. Americans or European will not care naturally as they are not losing anything here (if not benefitting).

Also: Assume that there are two countries one strong (A) and the other one weak (B). when B threatens and attacks A, A can use news agencies, and United Nations and many other means to show that some thing terrible happened. People in the world will notice that and it will be considered a crisis. When A threatens or attacks B, B will not have any access to the media and no body will notice that. Even if others notice it they will not mention it because being close to A is beneficial for them.

On the same line you see that when one Israeli soldier was kidnapped by palestinians, it was considered a crisis but kidnapping Iranian diplomats by United States has not been even condemned by a single country or United Nations![1] Both kidnapping were inhumane and the latter one illegal but the world reaction was terribly different. In any case, the attack on Persian antiques is a terrible crisis for Iranians and it is mainly a threat to our identity and culture (and not much politics). Sangak 18:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The University has been working in Iran for decades and transfered a huge number of pieces from Iran. If they refuse to give it back, it will be considered a cultural terrorism by Iranians or a terrible cultural and national catastrophe. It costs for us more that september 11 for the United States. Sangak 18:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

We are not talking about crisis in international relations here. This is a crisis for Iranians as we are the only one suffering. Here is the definition from Webster:

• Crisis: an unstable or crucial time or state of affairs in which a decisive change is impending; especially : one with the distinct possibility of a highly undesirable outcome.
• Crisis: a situation that has reached a critical phase.

Sangak 18:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] View of the Iranian government

Sangak, why did you remove the sentence "Strachman said that Iranian commentators had been going into "crazy conspiracy theories", including calling it a Zionist conspiracy."? I didn't want to start an edit war by just inserting the language back in, so please remember to use edit summaries. I think it helps to emphasize the point (albeit probably not in the best language) that the Iranian are mad at everyone involved, including the greater American society. I think it would help if someone could read the actual Persian article, which might have more on what the Iranians are saying. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The language used is dirty and the argument is baseless. There is no "conspiracy theory" there. It is clear who is attacking and stealing our heritage. No need for speculations! Moreover Iranian government's reaction was very moderate. I would say even weak. Where is the "crazy" reaction? Also when Iran's minister says something in the name of Iran, only US minister's comment can be put next to it not a minor's comment. The section is about Iranian response, I suppose. Sangak 15:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You may want to contact other experienced Iranian-American wikipedians like User:Zereshk for further discussions. Sangak 15:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I am a bit offended by this statement: "Iranian are mad at everyone involved, including the greater American society". Aren't you mad at everyone involved in hostage crisis including the greater Iranian society?! Sangak 17:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A lawyer's comment is notable only when he/she talks in a formal language and in a well-defined framework. Any other comments are considered personal comment of an ordinary citizen. Sangak 17:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am leaving this discussion: I have spent enough time on this article. I have other commitments now. I hope others will come and participate. Good luck. Sangak 17:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not sure what happened here. I simply wanted to avoid an edit war and ask an honest question. I'm putting the sentence back in because, regardless of what Sangak says, the Iranian government is going into conspiracy theories because they probably blame this on the US government. Again, does anyone have some other source that's better? I'm sorry that I offended you so much, Sangak. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

American government is also going into conspiracy theories because they often blame any terrorist attacks in the world on the Iran government (and the whole Iranian society in this particular case). The Bush Administration's anti-terrorism rhetoric could be characterized as a form of conspiracy theory, epitomized by Bush's use of "Axis of Evil".[2] Peace! and bye!Sangak 13:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see the guidelines on talk pages. I am not going to even respond to this comment as this is not the purpose of this talk page. I would hope you would strike and move on. Please discuss only the article and how it should be written. My point was that a citation that was in the article *at that time* had a quote from someone that the Iranian government was alleging a conspiracy theory, which is exactly what I put: this person says that the Iranian government is saying this. However, even though I felt it was ridiculous, something about their view needed to be said. Thank you for finding those other articles; I was hoping to find something directly from Iranian officials (which is why I asked if someone could read the articles in Persian) to use. I will work on helping to format the citations for you and please don't take it personal and assume good faith. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no reference to "you" in my comment!! The above comment what just a copy-paste from "Strombeck, Andrew. Whose Conspiracy Theory? Postmodern Culture - Volume 15, Number 2, January 2005, The Johns Hopkins University Press" . It is directly related to our discussion as this is where the whole story starts. You also deleted my addition saying that "there is no need to insert POV views about him." The short statement that you deleted was a copy-paste from the Washington post article where you got the quote from! In any case, I am sorry if I overreacted. I think the article is now in a good shape (a more or less balanced treatment, after User:Zereshk additions). Sangak ^Talk 11:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

PS:thanks for formating the references. Sangak ^Talk 11:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)