Talk:Iran/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 7 |
Archive 8
| Archive 9 →


Contents

Hamegee...

There are great maps of religions, langauges and provinces of Iran on

http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/maps.shtml

Does thats not true them here on the Iran pages? The CIA maps that are already there are really bad--usually simply wrong!


HAVE A HAPPY NOROUZ

--Zereshk 22:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Happy nowruz to all of u! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.217.115.92 (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Straw Poll

Seems two sections were left out of the vote. Please vote for only one image (we dont have room for more than one image in each section). And if there is no consensus or no votes, then we will just keep the pictures that originally were, or add completely new ones. Closing date set for March 25th:

For the architecture section

#1: Friday Mosque, Yazd, Ilkhanid era.

#2: The Kharaghan towers, Qazvin province, 1067AD.

#3: Mosque, Isfahan.

#4: Ali-qapu palace at Isfahan's central square, early 17th century.

#5: Qajar era mosque of Nasir al-Molk, Shiraz.

#6 Eram Garden, Shiraz

#7 Chehel Sotoon, Isfahan

#8 Shazdeh Garden, Mahan

#9 Ali Qapu, Isfahan

#10 33 pol, Isfahan

For the Art section

#1: Miniature by Mahmud Farshchian.

#2: 17th century Safavid painting from Hasht bahesht, Isfahan.

#3: Painting on the Wall of Chehel Sotoun palace, Isfahan.

#4: Saki by Reza Abbasi from the Moraqqa’ e Golshan 1609 Golestan Palace.
Miraj2.jpg

#5: From a Khamsa of Nizami of 1539-43, painted by Sultan Muhammad, in Tabriz.
Zendegee zeebast.jpg

#6: 1940 painting from a copy of Omar Khayam's Quatrains.

Architecture Votes:

  • #2 or #5: because of better resolution, and better craftsmanship.--Zereshk 11:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • #10 or better version of bridge picture or #1. The Behnam 16:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • #1, Or #7. --Pejman47 20:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • #1 (or 5 - if there is a tie only).SSZ 15:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • #7 Shervink 15:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

Poll closed

  • #5 or #6 or #7, --Nightryder84 03:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • #2 or #5 or 9 --Azerbaijani 03:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • #5 or #7 --Mardavich 04:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • #7 --Arad 22:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Results of votes as of March 28:
#1: 3 votes
#2: 2 votes
#5: 4 votes (SSZ changed his vote on closing date:[1])
#7: 4 votes
#6: 1 vote
#10: 1 votes
#9: 1 votes


IMAGE #1 has the majority of votes (*3*)

No it doesnt. #5 and #7 also have 2 votes. That's called a no consensus.--Zereshk 01:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I counted the FIRST VOTE (and the second vote if there was a tie only). Pic #1 according to rules wins.
You are the only one who has specified a "first" and "second" vote, and you even changed specified this after the vote was closed:[2]. "Or" does not carry any hierarchy or rank in meaning.--Zereshk 03:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are wrong again. I had to clarify my position WHILE the vote was still OPEN on March 25th Eastern Time because you decided, all by yourself, to go and precipitously change both pictures, also there was NO agreement from anyone on WP to do so. I and the rest of us already gave you a "free pass" for your calligraphy pic. (I maintain it is a beautiful picture though). For the rest, please only blame yourself to ask people to vote "ONLY for 1 image" and go yourself immediately vote for 2 pics.
  • I did not vote for 2 pictures. Nobody did. That's why I used the word "OR", instead of "AND". We all voted for our favorite pics. The one with the most votes would be picked. As we did.
  • Even if we take it your way, your pic still is in a tie with #7. It doesnt win. Hence no consensus.
  • The vote was NOT open on March 25th. I clearly stated the closing date to be on March 25th. That means you had until midnight of March 24th to cast your vote.
  • I did not "change" any pictures. Please show us where I did. I only added to the pictures under vote, just like you did.
  • You were the one who suggested a vote be taken. Therefore I will not accept any objection from you now saying "there was no agreement to do so".
  • User:The Behnam changed his vote after closing date: [3].
  • Look, I have no trouble with #1. But it has low resolution, and therefore does not satisfy article 5 of WP:IUP. An image for the architecture section of Iran should be: taken in daylight, have optimal resolution, and be quai-comprehensively encompassing of the architectural heritage of Iran. #1 does not satisfy all that. I also am reluctant to use #1, because it gives the impression that Iran's architecture is only about mosques. And that's not true. The gonbad, iwan, qanat, howz, ab anbar, badgeer, and many other indigenous Iranian architectural elements are not related to religion. But if we must use religious edifices, at least use one where the design and artistic elements are dominant, such as #5.--Zereshk 00:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason that we have to respect a closing date, especially when it comes to a tie. I have chosen #1 to break this tie. It is evident that you are against using one of those mosques but this is no reason to dodge consensus by hiding behind an arbitrary "closing date." The Behnam 01:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Taking part in a poll, and not respecting its rules after the result is not right. I also agree with Zereshk that the Yazd Mosque picture should not be used. There are better pictures and many other better works of architecture.--Nightryder84 01:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, I don't care about his close date when breaking a tie. I decided I would stop the dispute by voting for one of the three tied pictures. I remembered mosques similar to the Friday mosque standing out so I voted for #1. Unfortunately Zereshk has an anti-mosque bias. I agree that there are better works, such as the si-o-se pol bridge of my initial vote, and even better pictures of that style of mosque, but that style happened to stand out here so I chose #1. The Behnam 02:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
If you "dont care about the closing date", then you wont mind if I add my vote now too then.--Nightryder84 03:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I think we are talking about "peanuts" here but here we go:

1. Zereshk, first thank you for your numerous contributions to Wikipedia and the same to ALL of you.
2. I did not ask for a vote. In fact, I said literally that it was a "minor disagreement" early on and was ready to discuss, and you immediately decided to go for a vote days ago (which did not bother me either.)
3. Also, you asked for "1 vote ONLY" (see above at the top) and you immediately voted for 2 pics yourself, as earlier said. I decided to count the FIRST VOTE ONLY. and as you have yourself clearly agreed/stated: “PIC#1 had MOST votes among all the pics but not an absolute majority of votes.” And I agree. (Until Behman added his vote to #1 which gave it an absolute majority – also it was not required in order to have the image selected, if you ask me)
2 bis. Contrary to what you say, I did not change my vote for pic#1. It was there since March 23rd. On March 25 you closed the vote and made a decision, all by yourself, to change the 2 pics, also none of them had an absolute majority. I let you off the hook again (within the same week) for the picture regarding the miniature that you replaced with your own picture. (above the calligaraphy pic that you changed early on, in the same section.)
4. I told you the same night, before you do anything, that I was ready to discuss another picture and discuss it with you before taking any further action, since you seemed to be unhappy because it was Mosque apparently. You, de facto declined my offer and proceeded with your unilateral changes again, without any consensus from anybody nor anything supported by our collective votes.
5. Please note that I find the architecture of Mosques beautiful (including this one in Yazd).
6. I don't think that "to display a pic of a Mosque makes people believe that Iran is about Mosques ONLY" (I am paraphrasing you here). It's ONE pic (ONLY) among MANY other beautiful pics that you had the opportunity to choose from yourself for other sections of the article about IRAN.
7. You can take a look at the page for Switzerland for example and you will see there is a beautiful(in my opinion) picture of a Cathedral (in Lausanne) on the main page and no, it does not make me feel that Switzerland is "a fanatic religious society" when I see that picture.
8. Respectfully, you have made other comments previously for things written in the article about Iran like "it makes it look than we are worst that an African country.”(or something like that). I am paraphrasing you again, but I think it is first an insult for this African country you mention by name and a prejudice for you to think that way. (I did not comment then because I did not want to flame but it seems it is a recurring theme here). Be self-confident and proud of all the countries historical HERITAGE. At least I am. If people are prejudiced for no reason and remain so after education (Wikipedia IS education), then let it be. It says more about them than about Iran.
9. Finally and again, as said from the very start: I am ready, like probably many people here, to discuss other pics if that makes you unhappy to choose pic#1 (also I must clearly repeat it has MOST VOTES as of March 25, according to YOUR OWN RULES - not mine, and as you acknowledged clearly yourself at the beginning.) Best, SSZ
OK then. Lets talk about another image then. How about #5 or #7? It seems there is a large consensus on both. Is that acceptable to you? If not, then we will discuss this matter further.--Zereshk 19:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Pic#5 is one I voted for myself at the beginning, as you can see. The only reason it was my second choice is that it is not "unique" per say in terms of architecture (also it IS beautiful.)SSZ 06:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

So do we have a go on #5 then?
Also, I have nothing against mosques. And I do think they are all beautiful. But in architecture, beauty is only one of many elements that make a work stand out. One can get an F in architecture school if one designs a building only based on beauty. Now, if all of Iran's architecture were to be summed in one picture, what would really matter is representation, i.e. how good that picture is able to show the accomplishments of Iran's architecture. At 72 dpi, your Yazd mosque picture is not able to capture all the details of the iwan. Aside from poor resolution, the Yazd mosque is only unique in the sense that it has a uniquely tall iwan. Still, if I were to represent Iran's architectural heritage with a mosque, I would pick a mosque from the Ray style because it encompasses all previous originally Iranian styles. The Yazd mosque is from the Azari style. It is beautiful, but inherits less from Iran's pre-Islamic styles. The picture #2 that I proposed, and which you shot down, was not only from the Ray style, but was also not a mosque. I think it is very important that people know that Iran's architecture is not just about mosques, but many other things as well. Oh well, we'll go with #5 I guess, C'est la vie.--Zereshk 16:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm for #5 too if that will get this silly conflict out of the way. The Behnam 16:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, Here I add my vote for #7 to finish the discussion :-D. I know it's my own pic but whatever. --Arad 22:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Art votes:


  • #2 or #6: because they have more color, better resolution, depicts art and love and not war and kings and royalty, and unlike the Farshchian pic (#1), is not "fairuse", which we all know ends up getting deleted by the Image Police.--Zereshk 11:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • #2 - 3 is good too, but kind of violent. #2 is pleasant and the people don't look like Mongols. The Behnam 16:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • #1, Or #2. --Pejman47 20:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • #1 (or 3).SSZ 15:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • #3 Shervink 15:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

Poll Closed

Results of votes:
#1: 2 votes
#2: 4 votes
#3: 1 votes
#6: 1 votes

IMAGE #3 has a majority of votes. (*3*). (#1 & 2 are in a tie.)

Not really. #2 has 3 votes.--Zereshk 01:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
(it depends how you count :-)SSZ 06:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Dear WHO EVER MADE THIS ARTICLE Great job thank you for your efforts I realy like this site

There are although several problem s I have seen and I think either are mistakes by a foreigner or a very uneducated iranian.

One of the major ones is that Zarahustra or Zartosht NEVER and in his poetry and writings claims that he is a prophet of god or sent from god, which thereforew you can not technicaly call the man a PROPHET but a teacher as he calls himself. He also calls himself "Awakner" or somebody who wakes others or move them into other states of minds which is 180 degrees opposite to the prophets of semetic religions and cultures like Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

It is extremely unfair to call the guy a PROPHET that is a huge insult and I feel disgraced. He was in fact a thinker and poet with thoughts and reasons and so much other things rather than superstitious ideas and groundless claims. Still after 700 years after his existence the best roman philosophers had no thoughts even close to his ideas and thoughts and yet philosophers around the world think of his ideas as POST MODERNISM. Take note that we are in the era of modernism!

Sec of all you call Cyrus the Great and then also Alexander the Great. which one is great!?? The persian king which salutes other conqured cultures gods and respects other nations and rights the first human rights declaration and frees countless slaves or Alexander who burns persian libraries and rapes women and childeren and burns down cities??? OMFG

Somebody needs education and some common sense

Iran is a country which I have been in and I have spoken farsi with many many different people there and the country is 80 million and you guys claim ONLY 40 million speak FARSI??? woooow what do they speak then??? armenian or arabic? then you say we have survived the arabic invasion by speaking farsi or persian??? come on be consistent. if you want to know it is not diffrent languages they are different dialects of same language which is spoken in south of former russia in arabian smaler countries, in parts of Iraq, Kuwait, Pakestan, tajikestan, Afghanestan and some other smaller countries around. what even a gerat deal of the languages and words in european languages are based on persian language and words. in fact essential words such as Mother, Brother, father, Daughter, Bad, Good, Kiss ...

there are so many other things that I want to say but there is no time to !

I hope to see a sunny day without the clouds of the deception and lies.

and I hate to type long letter as I know you dont have the patience to read it and will delete it after reading the 2nd paragraph

History section needs to be reduced (significantly)

Previous discussion is archived here: Talk:Iran/Archive_7#Vote_on_trimming_the_History_Section. External parties were invited to opine on adequate size of the history section. Myself and one other editor responded, and we both agreed that the history section should be reduced, so that remains on the todo list. (It's not a question of removing the material, but what the appropriate balance is between the subsection on the main Iran article page, and the detailed history page(s).) --Psm 01:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Unfortunately previous attempts to do so were thwarted. The Behnam 01:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The history section cannot be reduced, as it is already very very short. You are talking about a nation with 3000+ years of history (and this is excluding Irans pre-Iranic history, the region of Iran has 7000 years of history...), how are you going to shorten it any further? Each part of Irans history that is dealt with in this article is very very short.Azerbaijani 03:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
There was a clear consensus that the history section should be not reduced for reasons explained in the previous discussion. --Mardavich 04:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
History section needs to be expanded. --alidoostzadeh 04:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The section about the Greco-Persian Wars is ludicrously loaded, as it stands. I dare not edit it right now as I can see this article and section is in the middle of much discussion. FWIW I also think the history section is way too long given that it has an article of its own. People seem to be getting quite emotional about this, but it's not about dismissing or inflating the importance of Iran's history, it's about breaking up the information into manageable pages.Thermaland 12:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

history section can not be any shorter than it is given the length of Iran's history Gol 09:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried editing the first sub section of the history of Iran. Not much of a change though. I only rewrote some sentences, and took out some redundant passages that were repeated in the text. See if yall approve. I'll go thru the rest as time permits me.--Zereshk 20:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for trying size reduction. The Behnam 16:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems most folks aren't reading the old discussion - e.g. : Azerbaijani, Mardavich, alidoostzadeh, and Gol are simply repeating old arguments. If you disagree with the arguments for reduction, fine, feel free to add further comments. But don't just repeat old arguments (e.g. "Iran has a long history") here, that does not move the issue forward. I'm copying back into this page the summary of arguments/counter-arguments from before. --Psm 19:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Vote on trimming: an "outside the Iranian box" perspective --Psm 23:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(I am commenting here in response to the request for impartial editorial input as requested at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/History_and_geography. I would view myself as ethnically neutral with a reasonable understanding of history. I am however raised and educated in the “western tradition” with various obvious biases related thereto.)

I chose to approach this as objectively as I could, gathering some metrics. I sat down and put together a short list of countries that either qualified as being tremendously important historically (e.g. Egypt), or tremendously important in the world today (e.g. United States), or both (e.g. China). I extracted the texts from each history section and counted the words:

Country Words
China 1800
Egypt 1800
Great Britain 680
Greece 2500
India 600
Iran 4500
Japan 1300
United States 1900

As is evident, Iran stands out. Referring to the other countries, I would judge that the history section on Iran should be in the 1000-1500 words range, possibly 1800, but absolutely not over 2000.

Now, next I read in detail the arguments above that would argue that this should be an exception. Rather than address specific points above, I will paraphrase the key “object” arguments as I understand them:


Argument 1: Iran’s history is 7000+ years so requires extensive commentary.

Firstly, this in and of itself is not a sufficient reason. An encyclopedia needs to balance multiple factors to judge what space to give a specific subject – such as overall importance, likely interest from readers, and so forth.

Second, the issue here is not whether this detail merits coverage – nobody is suggesting that any level of detail of Iranian history should be omitted from wiki. It’s a question of how to *structure* that information. As the wiki guideline states: “Summary style is accomplished by not overwhelming the reader with too much text up front by summarizing main points and going into more detail on particular points (sub-topics) in separate articles.”

Third, this argument is not consistent even on the face of it. If you exclude pre-300BC from the history section, it’s still almost 4000 words (!), and that’s with all recent history (since 1989) omitted!

Argument 2: Other country summaries are even longer

Two wrongs don’t make a right. Again, the question is not whether to omit the information or not, but what amount is suitable in a *summary* that in turn can point onwards to any amount of further details.

Argument 3: You need to understand Iranian history to understand Iran

This is true of most countries, and, again, this is a structure issue, not a “should we write about it at all” argument. If you feel that the details of Iranian history are more significant for Iran than other countries, and you can back that up reasonably well with corroborative historian viewpoints, then that’s an argument that you can present in the summary section per se (e.g. “to understand modern Iran you really should read the following detailed (and separate) articles: ….).

Argument 4: Ok it should be shorter, but 10 paragraphs is *too* short

I have no idea what 10 paragraphs means. "Words" is the measure of textual scope generally in use by editors, and that's what I use. A subsection of 1500 words is not too little, as per table above.

Argument 5: Lots of good details here, we shouldn’t throw away those details until it’s been improved

That’s the wrong order of things. A main article on a country is not a scratch pad in that sense. Go ahead and copy the entire section to the Talk part of a detailed article, and then butcher the summary section down to 1000-1200 words. That will give room for people to flesh it back up to 1500-2000 words which will be more than enough.


I'm happy to pay attention to this page, and feel free to post (flame) on my talk page, to any follow ups. I love history and don't mind helping out by backing up my humble attempt to be “impartial” in this manner.

I'd like to make the following side note as well: I sense (perhaps incorrectly) a notion of "we don't get no respect" here, e.g. that Iran's historical significance is not given enough credit. Without addressing that directly one way or another let me say this: the absolute best way to get people to be convinced of the significane of *anything* is to write about it in an easy-to-understand, convincing, interesting manner. The *amount* of text is a small factor. Focus on writing a 1500-word summary of Iranian history that is so excellent that any reasonable random wiki reader will leave this page thirsting to know more about Iran and Iranian history. Then you will have taken this to a win-win for everybody. In other words, stop focusing on quantity and focus on what really matters: quality.

To reiterate, after careful consideration my opinion is that the current history section needs to be cut by 2/3 (to 1/3 of it's current size) from around 4500 to around 1500 words.

Bias, slight removal.

Edited out the following passage: "Also, Iran has never attacked any of its neighbors in the region in the past 300 years, even when it was badly provoked in 1998 by the Taliban in Afghanistan, which had a much smaller army.[1]" from the Military section.

It's an idealistic and unnecessary POV addition to the section. (It was at the end of aforementioned section.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ninjarrr (talk • contribs) 20:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC). Ninjarrr 20:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really, It is a material FACT that Iran has NOT attacked ANY country in 300 years.SSZ 06:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it was removed because of the part of you saying that the Taliban in Afghanistan had a much smaller army. Not sure why else though.

Um, if by Iran you also refer to Persia, then it most definitely has attacked another country in the last 300 years. A number of attacks actually. 300 years ago was 1707. For perhaps the most significant attacker in that period, please read Nader Shah. The Behnam 15:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I think they mean after Nader Shah. They should be more clear and say "for nearly 300 years".--Zereshk 16:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Well the Qajars tried invasions too but were generally incompetent; didn't Agha Mohammad Khan (who was somewhat successful at it) sack Tblisi? And Fath attempted something though it might be called reactive invasion. I think that mentioning anything like 'how long its been' should be avoided since it suggests that Iran has just been some peaceful angel. It is quite reasonable to suggest that Iran didn't invade other countries because it was no longer capable, not because it just didn't want to. The Behnam 17:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I dont think judging intentions would prove anything. "If Iran could, it would" is a double edged argument. It cuts both ways: If the US could drop nukes on the USSR and China and Iran, and get away with it, it most certainly would too. I think the author of the 300 year sentence was having a comparison in mind: There was no invasion in the sense of what Britain did to India, France did to Algeria, Belgium did to Congo, the Ducth, Portuguese, Italians, etc.
I wouldnt count the attacks on Tblisi as eligible either, because Georgia was a "province of Persia" during the 17th century. As Iranica states: "Agha Mohammad Khan was determined to recover those provinces that had once formed part of the Safavid empire. Georgia was the special object of his ambitions", and again: "For much of the 18th century Persia generally maintained its position in Georgian affairs, but the viceroys asserted their independence whenever the opportunity arose. They looked for support to Russia". And the Russians did drive out a Persian minority from Tbilisi. Persia and Georgia have had much mutual cultural overlappings, influences, and exchanges since the Achaemenid days. The word "Gor" of Gorjestan (Georgia) is even originally a Persian word. They were a vassal of the Sassanids, and by the end of the 16th century the Georgians were threatening to replace the qezelbash, as the military aristocracy of Persia. Persian was the official administrative language of the country during Safavid times. And even today, Ossetians constitute a minority of Georgia. My point: Tbilisi is different, they were part of Iran for many centuries, an Iranian cultural satellite, so to speak.--Zereshk 22:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The military section reads " Iran's military doctrine and capacity is defense of its own territorial integrity only." The first part of this statement would be best supported by quotes from Iran's constitution, leaders, or similar documents. In the second half, one should note that ,military capacity is a combination of both technical means and tactical skill/leadership. As such, stating that "defense" is Iran's "only" military capacity hints at a bias. The phrase would be better supported by showing Iran's physical means in comparison to other "defense" oriented countries and listing previous Iranian military activities as well as leadership rhetoric.

It seems we should just remove "capacity," which seems dubious anyway. Thanks for pointing that out. The Behnam 18:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

State Sponsors of Terror

1. Isn't it worth mentioning that Iran is considered a state-sponsor of terror? I mean, seriously, it's not even mentioned in the wikipedia article?

2. What about the fact that Iranian officials have explicitly and publicly threatened to "wipe Israel off the map"? This is not worth mentioning?

3. In the US article, the author mentions some BBC poll that found 51% of those surveyed believed the US had a primarily negative influence in the world. Why doesn't the article on Iran mention that 54% of those surveyed in the same BBC poll believe that Iran had a primarily negative influence in the world.

4. The bias is baffling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stewstew03 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC).


Completely agree, there should be a mention of this.GazMan7 11:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

response

Response also..

1. While this may be true from a certain perspective, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. This represents a non neutral point of view and also would earn the article a US-view tag.

2. I wouldnt doubt youd hear much different from americans or israelis about what theyd do about Iran, they just say it.

3. This isnt a debate forum about world opinions and whos right or wrong, its an encyclopedia.

4. Lol... pot calling the kettle black?

I realize this isnt a forum, my comments are simply pointing out that the above statements would violate the wp:npov and also would represent almost a solely american point of view on the matter. Species2112 13:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Response

1. No because WHO says so? This article is NOT about what others say about Iran (whether true or not) but about IRAN itself. This point is however mentionned in the article about the United States-Iran relations. Besides, there are so many things that Iran says about the United States that it would be a waste of time to mention them all here. (lol)

2. Iranian officials have said it was meant in the sense of "the end" of Soviet Union and not to be considered militarily. Whether true or not, it is very controversial and I would leave that OUTSIDE of Wikipedia, except for the specific article relating to this subject that you can find by yourself. You just need to search for it, because it is more like news also (see also WP:NOT).

3. I know about the BBC poll. If the BBC says so, it must be that the image of the USA must be really really bad in the world (lol). Why not mention it about IRAN? First, because this is an encyclopedia and an article about Iran does not need to be a perfect mirror of the article about the United States. Second, because most international medias, including the good old BBC, are controled by you know who :-), so it does not need to be a true and fair representation of REALITY, necessarily, when it comes to Iran.

4. May be too much Fox News/"Faux News" recently?SSZ 07:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the points made from both sides. I also think that a criticism of Iran section is worthy of inclusion to the article. There is enough documented criticism of Iran from all media sources to warrant a whole article. Jamie 10:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's add "the Great Satan" to the US article; plenty of groups have agreed. The Behnam 10:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that there is a bias. This article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax related to Iran paints the British as crafty conspiritors. SSZ, according to what you said, that would also be heresay. "Who says" the British lied to the U.S. about Iran turning communist? If there is suitable evidence that something is true, based on intelegence or retrospective like the Op. Ajax article, why can we not mention it? This is like having an article on Germany and not mention the holocaust. Some dispute the holocaust ever happened, but reasonable people believe it did happen and the Germany article mentions it. The Behnam, it can be proven that the Iranian government stated that they would like to wipe Isreal of the map, plan on making nukes, sponsor terrorism, etc. Where is the proof that America is in fact, Satan? However I think I probably agree with the broader point that opinion polls shouldn't be in articles if that is what you're implying. Ryratt 19:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The western media refuses to accept the facts and they keep repeating the same trash about "wiping Israel off the map" again and again and again, as if trying to "seek a crisis" (in the words of Javad Zarif on The Charlie Rose Show). Here is an exact text, with my translation, of Ahmadinejad's interview with France's Channel 2 recently:
شما گفته ايد كه اسرائيل بايد محو شود .محو اسرائيل از روي نقشه يك آرزوست يا يك اراده .؟
France2: "You have stated that Israel must be wiped off the map. Is wiping Israel off the map your wish or your will?"
چرا بايد نگران شد؟
Ahmadinejad: "Why is there any concern here?"
شما چنين اظهاراتي داشته ايد
F2: "You did say that, didnt you."
مگر شوروي محو نشد؟ شوروي كجاست آيا محونشد؟ ما براي فلسطين يك راه حل انساني داريم ، برگزاري يك رفراندوم براي پايان دادن به 60 سال جنگ و نتيجه آنهم قطعي است
Ahmadinejad: "Was not the USSR wiped off the map? Tell me, where is the USSR today? We have proposed a humane solution: lets have a referendum there, to end 60 years of conflict, which will undoubtedlty yield a final result."
داويد بوژاداس: براي شما نسل كشي يهوديان يك واقعيت تاريخي ميباشد يا خير؟
F2: "But is the Jewish Genocide a reality for you or not?"
احمدي نژاد:آنچه را كه من گفتم اين بود كه اگر نسل كشي واقعيت داشته باشد پس اتفاق افتاده است .چرا بايد فلسطينيها بايد بهاي آنرا بدهند؟
Ahmadinejad: "What I said was that if the Holocaust happened, then it happened. Why must the Palestinians pay for it?"
Link to interview's text:[4]
When Javad Zarif, who officially represents Iran at the UN, rejected claims that Ahmadinejad does not deny the existence of the Holocaust, Charlie Rose said "yes he did", to which Zarif said "the US always seeks to create a crisis".
The same thing can be said about the nuke allegation. There is no proof that Iran plans on building nuke weapons. The media just keeps repeating the accusation, because the news sells well, and it works well with the US administration. Who wants to keep hearing about Anna Nicole Smith's lame court case or a lost boyscout in the woods, when there can be a "threat" to fill up the air time of major news networks? Sad but true.--Zereshk 21:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
And it has been well documented that those extremist Muslims such as Ahmadinejad and various imams say one thing to western media and another to their own people. I could cite other's reasearch on the subject if you really want something to back up that claim. Also, Should we remove the U.S. invasion of Iraq from the Iraq article because "Bahgdad Bob" said the US made it up? Ryratt 23:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Ahmadinejad repeatedly uses the word "Zionists" to make clear what he means. Think about it: if Iran wanted to destroy Israel, the 20% Arab population of Israel would also be destroyed in the destruction, which goes against Iran's stated goal of supporting the Arabs. And if Iran wanted to "nuke Israel", it would also have to kill off the Palestinians along with it, because of being right next to each other. (the nuclear fallout would probably kill the nearby Hizbollah and the millions of refugees in Jordan as well). Not to mention that in return, Iran would be nuked off the face of the earth itself as well. Do you really think Iran would "Nuke" Islam's second most holy site? These conclusions are so simple to make, and yet nobody cares to think about them. It's all childish media trash; illogical, dumb and sensational.--Zereshk 00:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Persian Language?

Persian is not a language. The people of Iran are Persians, but they speak Farsi. HikageMaru 04:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)HikageMaru

Actually, it is. I don't know where you got that idea from, but "Persian" is the English word for the language, while "Farsi" is the native word. It is sort of like "Italian" versus "Italiano." In general, colleges refer to the program for that language as "Persian" and not Farsi. The Behnam 10:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Persian is an umbrella term for many dialects of the same language, to include Farsi (official language in Iran), Dari (official language in Afghanistan), and Tajiki (official in Tajikistan). It also includes many smaller dialects such as Luri, Bakhtiari, Hazaragi, Aimaqi, Bukhara'i, Khojandi, etc., etc. Those Iranians who wish to identify their language with the name of the dialect in which they speak, they can correctly state they speak Farsi. Those from Afghanistan, would call it Dari. But the term Persian--Parsi--is a very useful term that unites all dialects of Persian, from Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to Afghanistan and Iran. People in Tajikistan, for example, do NOT speak Farsi, but Tajiki. And yet, these both are the dialects of the same language. Therefore, those Iranians who feel super nationalistic should in fact prefer the term "Persian" over Farsi. The term "Persian" unites linguistically most of the inhabitants of the Iranian Plateau, from the Namangan in the Fergana Valley, Uzbakistan to Ramhurmuz in Khuzistan, Iran. But hey, if one rather wishes to limit himself to just a single dialect of a greater language, (s)he has every right to just say (s)he speaks Farsi rather than Persian. But then, (s)he should not state that his language is also the official language of two other countries: Afghanistan and Tajikistan, because Farsi is not. But Persian is.


Behnam is correct. Jokerst44 16:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The city of Beverly Hills, California passed new a law to print ballots in Farsi. I'm no expert on this by any means, but the majoity of the news articles related to this story refered to the language as Farsi:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/24/america/NA-GEN-US-Farsi-Ballots.php
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=ballots+farsi&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGki10FwxGBgoApq9XNyoA?p=ballots+persian&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&x=wrt
Ryratt 19:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a common mistake that all of the media are commiting. It's like "German" vs. "Deutsch". The Academy of Persian Language and Literature, which is the highest body in matters of Persian language and literature, calls it "Persian" when conversing in English, as well.--Zereshk 21:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It is, of course, Persian. Calling it Farsi when speaking English is a very new phenomenon, and most if not all scholars of Persian studies discourage it as far as I know. Shervink 22:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

Sectional edit

I edited the Sassanid section. It was shortened, but improved, I think. Here is what I did:

  • I took out the names of all the lands conquered by the Sassanids, because the map there actually shows the extent of the empire and the lands that formed the empire.
  • I deleted the daily details of how the Arabs defeated the Sassanid army. I think that detail is not needed on the main page.
  • Instead, I inserted a paragraph of some of the cultural accomplishments of the Sassanids during that era. I think a bit more could be added there.--Zereshk 17:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Did the same for "From the fall of the Sassanian Dynasty to the Mongol invasion" section.--Zereshk 16:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Mamoud Ahmadinejad

I looked up Iran to find the spelling for Ahmadinejad and was curious to find that his name is not mentioned anywhere in the article. I have found several other countries' listings that have their current leader mentioned somewhere. Should not this one?

Cogknight 14:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just another sign that this article is too much a 'history of Iran' article. The Behnam 23:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Iranian etiquette and Taarof merger (RfC)

Hi, can people make comments about whether it is advisable to delete almost entirely the Iranian etiquette article. Some people (mostly one) keep arguing that we should delete the article (also they talk about "merger") but I think the article makes sense completely as it is, with minor improvements needed may be. Please comment on the Taarof talk page. Thanks.69.116.234.208 19:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Islamic Revolution and Iran-Iraq War

why is there no mention of the mass executions that took place in the months of 1988. (thousands of people were killed without any trails)

This is the country's general article. While the Revolution and War affected the entire nation, the 1988 executions generally targeted only MKO, Tudeh, and similar leftist groups. We do have an article for this event if you interested, see 1988 executions of Iranian prisoners. Thank you for your concern and feel free to ask more questions. The Behnam 23:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda

This article is yet another of the many instances I've seen of nationalist Iranian propagandizing on the Internet. It's very easy to tell for several reasons. The grammar and the syntax of the history text is at times awkward, as some have pointed out. Second, there are phrases of absolute praise for Iran that are completely out of place in an encylopedic, informative article. Furthermore, there are glaring omissions and imbalances conceived to prop Iran up. The Greco-Persian wars are conveniently brushed away. Alexander The Great's destruction of the Empire is summed up in one or two lines. There are no mentions of any negative aspects whatsoever of Iranian culture or its polity. No slavery, no massacres, no conquests. I could go on, but a simple glance at the text by anyone who is objective knows a minimal amount about the subject will understand it. The visual design of the article is great, but the text of the history section is clearly part of a grassroots Iranian campaign to prop up Ancient Persia. I know about this because I've seen it elsewhere, in history forums I frequent. I think the article should be more balanced and include negative aspects of ancient Persia. The tone in general must also be changed, because it reads like a government pamphlet or a grade school textbook designed to inspire pride in a nation. Suffice it to say that is completely out of place in Wikipedia.

Patrizio 15:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)SunShock

I know that there is whitewashing. Feel free to edit, or at least point out specific problems for us to address here. Perhaps such propaganda is what we can trim from the history section? The Behnam 17:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
We should be careful about about using provocative terms like "propaganda" while addressing other editors' contributions. If there are any specific issues, bring them up in a constructive way, and they will be addressed. --Mardavich 17:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I've left a message on his talk page asking him to come back and bring up specifics. I do remember seeing 'peacock terms' reading the article in the past so I'll probably take another look myself. The Behnam 17:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, reading over this article (and being non-Iranian) the (much too long) section summarizing the Iran-Iraq war struck me as being quite biased. It presents the origin of that war as pretty much exclusively one of Iraqi aggression. Reality was a little more nuanced. The main Iran-Iraq war page summarizes the origins by saying "The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes and demands for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime." That's pretty much in line with any average history book you might pick up (at least one published in the west).--Psm 19:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Patrizio Please AVOID touching the article as it seems you know nothing about Iran. Ancient Iran (Persian Empire, Parthia and Sassanid Empire) never practiced slavery. And about Alexander what should we say? A paragraph? This is not the main article. Yes, I agree we can improve a lot and make the article more NPOV but not by adding false statements such as slavery in Persian Empire. --Arad 22:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
We actually had some text about the Greco-Persian wars and about Alexander some time ago. Both were deleted because some users thought the history section was (is) too long, and that the Greco-Persioan wars was a "reaction to the movie 300". Alexander's attack was more of an incursion that only lasted a few years, compared to the 1000 year empires of Persia that came before and after him. He practically didnt have any lasting impact on Iran, save maybe for in literature. As for slavery, I agree, there isnt a shred of evidence (except for the movie 300) that proves that ancient Persia practiced any slavery. In fact, unlike Egypt and Greece, all the craftsmen and builders of cities like Persepolis were paid, and women enjoyed more freedom than their Greek counterparts. I dont call this "nationalism", but sourced fact.--Zereshk 23:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to address the (nutty) history version in the movie 300, then please do, but that should be in the 300 article, no? --Psm 19:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Many of the comments I have seen in this Talk page prove my point. There is lots of campaigning, lots of nationalism, even abject anti-semitism. I can prove easily that this article is biased to the point where it loses almost all educational value. First and foremost, it is a known fact that almost the entire Persian Army was composed of slaves - like every militar force of its day. It is naive and ignorant to pretend for the Persian Empire to be a unique exception to the Ancient world. It was not. Second, as I said before, this Iranian/Persian nationalist campaign has been going on for years. I've encountered it before. Among history aficionados it is well known that Iranians have a deep distrust of Greeks and frequently display willingness to downplay the Greek victories over Persia. This article is a clear example. The Iranian user Zereshk says Aléxandros' campaign was a mere "incursion". In fact, the Persian Empire was completely eliminated. Its King was killed by his own guards. His satraps were coopted. Both capitals were razed. For entire centuries the region was under the yoke of the Seleucid Greeks. Going further back in time, the articles sums up the most important event of Ancient Persia's history, its two invasions of Greece, in a line or two. That is bias by omission. The entire Persian Army was routed -permanently- from Europe by a league of city-states. It might be sad to some Iranians, but it is the historical truth. The fact that the article bothers to point out one meek Persian victory in the middle of those two campaigns is clear evidence of an effort to minimize foreign actions and maximize Iranian/Persian victories and successes. A third example of the bias in the article is in the pictures themselves. I spotted at least two that have been through Photoshop: one to enhance the brilliance of the water in a fountain, the other in a botched job to make the hills greener and the sky bluer. It's right there for everyone to see. I know they were Photoshoped for two reasons: I myself saw the previous versions in other versions of this article some time ago, and one of them even has "edit" as part of its filename. Fourth fact that supports my assertion: the profiles of those who debate me. A simple glance clearly proves my point that these are people bent on all things Iran, in a nationalist tone. Biased authors, biased article. Fifth, other contributors have signalled the same concerns I have. Sixth, a variety of historically dubious assertions that casually all point to a notion of Iranian supremacy, such as:
If you have a particular objection, please be specific. We also have seen a lot of Iranophobic racists that desperately wish to portray Iran and Iranians as savages and uncivilized, labeling them anti-semitic.--Zereshk 12:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
As I pointed out, my objections are both to the general tone of the history article and to many specific assertions I criticized. By the way, I noticed certain sensibility about my saying there was anti-semitism in this Talk page. It's easy to prove: just look up, near the top of this very page: "Second, because most international medias, including the good old BBC, are controled by you know who :-), so it does not need to be a true and fair representation of REALITY, necessarily, when it comes to Iran.". It's not just that comment in particular, but the general intervention. Skepticism and denial of any possible claim, even the most glaring ones like the Ahmadinejad quote on the one hand. Complete insistence on posting and keeping positive considerations about Iran on the other.Patrizio 02:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I see. So "complete insistence on posting and keeping positive considerations about Iran" is considered anti-semtic by you. That's good to know.--Zereshk 12:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If you wish to expand the history section, go for it. We support you. However, please provide documentation saying "it is a known fact that almost the entire Persian Army was composed of slaves".--Zereshk 11:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually this does come from a source. Contemporary Greek sources I believe. I saw it mentioned over at the 300 article. I'll look it up and see if we can bring it here for balance. The Behnam 10:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you really mean *contemporary*? I didn't think there are any surviving contemporary sources.--Psm 19:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Well not exactly contemporary, but rather writings from 'back then' that describe the army as being of slaves. It is worth mention. The Behnam 21:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I know what I'm talking about. I've seen this before and every intervention by Iranian nationalists further proves my point. By the way, I noticed you did not dispute my criticism of how the Greco-Persian wars and the Macedonian invasion are grossly ignored.Patrizio 13:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Patrizio, I don’t agree with a single word or letter in your posts, but the most incorrect quote must be that Iranians supposedly have a “deep distrust of Greeks". Who are you to make such assumptions? You are neither Greek nor Iranian. If you have a deep dislike of Iranian culture history etc. that’s fine, but at least save the BS for yourselves. The Greek part in Iran’s long (underline LONG) and eventful history had the least effect than any other ethnicity trying to “conquer” Iran. In popular believes amongst Iranians, the “villains” were/are the Turco-Mongols. Contrary to Alexander and his crew, they absolutely ravaged and annihilated Iran. Also the Arabic caliphates have a very negative impact on Iran’s history. So you see, Alexander’s impact meant and means absolutely nothing negative in that sense that you are fantasizing about.

As an Iranian living in Greece, I can truly say that you are absolutely 100% wrong and as our friends Zereshk and many others have noticed, you seem to have a pre-dislike of anything Iranian and you seem to be irritated by the fact that people in another country than yours are nationalistic. You come here to criticize Iranian history on what bases? On the Islamic Republic’s public announcements? Iranians are not “anti-Semitic”- just because Ahmadinejad is anti-Israeli doesn’t make Iranian people the enemies of Israel. Jews and Iranians have lived together in peace for almost 3000 years until recently (Islamic revolution 1979)- And also, did you know that the most fervent Iranian nationalists are of Jewish faith? Sorry to break your dreams, but Iran is not Palestine and our country is not what you have seen on your TV and read in your newspaper for the past 28 years.


Are you surprised that I agree with some of your statements? Are you shocked?--Zereshk 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. I'm glad. I was trying to make a point.Patrizio 02:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
So was I :)--Zereshk 12:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
For the record I signed an alliance with my swiss-greek friend when I was 10. It was a formal alliance between Perisans and Greeks, and also a pact of non-agression. I know this document will come to hunt me one day (lol) SSZ 10:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, there's nothing wrong with having photoshop pictures. The United States article uses 6 pictures that have been doctored. 5 are Photoshop.--Zereshk 09:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur again! SSZ 10:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not. It's irrelevant what's in another article. These photos were clearly and irrefutably altered to embellish the way people look at Iran. They were uploaded previously in their unedited form and they were modified to advance a political point, it's so obvious I can't believe you're even debating that. If Iran is so beautiful -which it is- then it doesn't need Photoshop.Patrizio 13:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It is relevant. Practice what you preach. First change all the pictures on the United States and all other articles, so as not to "advance a political point", then come here and lecture everybody. One rule for all.--Zereshk 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
"Dozens of pre-historic sites across the Iranian plateau point to the existence of ancient cultures and urban settlements, centuries before the earliest civilizations arose in nearby Mesopotamia." Ridiculous. No historian would ever agree to that. You can get picky with findings of pre-historical sites in any place in the world, even with several-thousands-years-old mummies in the Andes. It proves nothing. The ancient civilizations rose in Mesopotamia, the Indu Valley and China.
"The Persian Empire represented the world's first global superpower,[15][16] and was based on a model of tolerance and respect for other cultures and religions.". This assertion has no place in an encyclopedia. Furthermore, the sources are of poor quality. Don't be fooled by the fact there are footnotes.
Please don't use the word "superpower" about any ancient civilizations. (See the discussion on the Sparta pages) --Psm 19:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. Rules say those stay. That fact is undisputed. And I just added 3 more sources to corroborate.--Zereshk 09:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh really? Where do the rules say you can assert something as unprovable as "based on a model of tolerance and respect for other cultures and religions". Those words could not possibly apply to any political entity of the Ancient world, including Persia (you might want to ask the Israelites to confirm that). How can you even pretend to say that "fact" is undisputed? It is one thing to say Persia was more tolerant than other empires, or that the moderation and openness it displayed were unusual for its time. But the sentence, as it is, is propaganda. Your sources do seem better, though I'm wondering how you came up with three books that support a single, overarching statement, just overnight.Patrizio 13:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh certainly. I'd love to ask the Israelites how their asses being freed by Cyrus does not count as respect for other cultures. He wasnt Jewish, and he didnt have to free anyone. I'd like to ask how the Cyrus Cylinder does not count as the "first human rights declaration" (according to the UN officials). I'd like to ask Thomas Jefferson how seeking inspiration from the Cyropaedia does not count as looking up to a model of tolerance, when he in fact used it to set the ideological framework of his new state:
"America's own founders such as Thomas Jefferson were influenced by Cyrus the Great in the field of Human Rights". Ted Koppel, abc's Nightline, Aug 24, 2005.
Please, spare us the pointless enmity, and instead help us improve the article.--Zereshk 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
"Subsequently, an Athenian assault on a major Persian province culminated in the sacking and burning of the city of Sardis. It is this destructive event that started what is known as the Greco-Persian Wars, which included encounters such as the Battle of Thermopylae. In 494 BCE the Persians defeated the Greeks at the battle of Lade, and the coast of Anatolia was once again peaceful.". That passage speaks for itself, especially in reference to the things I said before. That's very poor, biased and incomplete history-telling. Anyone with an objective mind knows that.
"the Parthian (250 BCE-226 CE) and Sassanian (226-650 CE) dynasties. The latter was able to defeat the Roman empire at the height of its power on several occasions.". Ridiculous. The article leads the reader -with more sentences like those in the Parthian section- to believe the Romans were weaker than the Parthians. In fact, Trajan smashed the Parthians and conquered their very core in Mesopotamia - not to mention many other facts that prove Rome was a vastly superior superpower than Parthia.
"Parthians were one of the most persistent enemies of Rome, having in 53BCE inflicted upon Crassus a disastrous defeat at Carrhae." From Aristotle to Zoroaster: An a to Z Companion to the Classical World. Arthur Cotterell. p.272--Zereshk 09:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Same thing as with the Greco-Persian wars. You incur in a phallacy, you seek to prove that the Roman and Parthian empires were comparable based on a single battle. In fact, as I said before, there was no parity between them. As I also said before, the Parthians were conquered to their very core by the greatest of the Roman Emperors, Trajan.Patrizio 13:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I intentionally gave you a direct quote stating "Parthians were one of the most persistent enemies of Rome". The statement clearly does not refer to just one battle. Therefore you are wrong.--Zereshk 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's still a fallacy. The Gauls and the Carthaginians were irrefutably "persistent enemies of Rome". In fact they were a much more dangerous and continous enemy than the Parthians. Yet that does not in any way mean they were comparable powers to the Romans. Also, as I said before, it seems biased to point out a single Parthian victory while ignoring the many defeats they suffered, including Trajan's campaign. There's a huge Pillar in Rome, standing even today, celebrating Trajan's victories overseas.
I'll bring you another direct quote then, and I will not hear any more claims of "fallacy" from you. Your opinions are respected though.--Zereshk 12:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
"Inheriting a heritage from thousands of years of prodigious civilization, and being at the "crossroads of the major cultural highways" ". That sentence speaks for itself. More unnecessary additions to enflourish Iran/Persia.
It's sourced.--Zereshk 09:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
"Prodigious civilization" is not a quote, and therefore it is not sourced. What is sourced is "crossroads of the major cultural highways". My point stands. If the Persians were a "prodigious civilization", then we should add those qualifications to many other articles, like the one on the Tang Dynasty for example... Patrizio 13:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Fine then. Change the wording.--Zereshk 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
"Others followed in a somewhat tortuous pattern, but Persia was once again the master of its own destiny". Same thing. Ridiculous.
That's a fact. The Samanids even declard themselves successors to the Sassanids.--Zereshk 09:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, the problem is with the wording. I said before that this was propaganda. Propaganda involves a combination of things: hyperbole, unverifiable assertions, lies, distortions of truth, cheerypicking of facts, etc. In this case, the problem is with the language. The phrase "master of its own destiny" is out of place, it just doesn't fit with the general tone of Wikipedia in any of its best history articles. Nowhere have I read about the Americans being "masters of their own destiny" after their Revolution or the Africans being that after decolonization. That phrase just does not belong there.Patrizio 13:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Fine. We can change the wording there too.--Zereshk 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
There was some grave whitewashing about the Islamic Revolution. Someone claimed above that the only people who were killed were members of organizations opposed to the new regime. That is outrageous and false. There are many documented cases of people as young as nine and as old as ninety years old being executed in the early months and years of the Islamic regime.
Please provide.--Zereshk 09:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a pity that it is necessary to dissect an article like this, but the evidence is compelling. I rest my case. Patrizio 00:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You're not going to get very far in Wikipedia with that kind of attitude. FYI you have presented no evidence, just your own opinions. See WP:OR, WP:CIVIL, and WP:SOAP. Khorshid 04:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It is worth noting that many of his complaints are examples of POV projections in the article. We should work those out. The Behnam 10:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You mean pointing out the lies and distortions in articles? I thought that was the purpose of Wikipedia, improving knowledge through cooperation, it's the whole point of it being the free, open encyclopedia. I thank The Behnam for supporting some of my claims.Patrizio 13:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The purpose is to improve indeed. Not to storm into somewhere accusing everyone of nationalism and "anti-semitism" (wtf??) when the article is already under reconstruction. Go to Archive 7 of the talk page. I was the one who initiated the drive to get rid of the amateur wording of the article. Your tone however is not one to help improve things around here. In a true improvement effort, editors never use ad hominems. NEVER.--Zereshk 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Although I was critical of people, I never named names. I was careful to point out a general, visible tendency within the article. My point was that it was not just that there were errors or disagreements I had with the article. They were rather connected, threaded into a narrative, which I described with the term "propaganda".Patrizio 02:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you're right about the Islamic Revolution part (white washing). Please provide sources, and we gladly accept. But the part that you say the whole Persian army was slaves is stupid. Read a book or two. Just go and watch History Channel: Engineering and Empire The Persians if you don't like reading. --Arad 03:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

History of Iran

I read the history of Iran section in the main article a few days ago and found it well written and balanced in its views. I learned a lot of FACTS. I also removed a few sentences recently added (apparently) at a place where it was like responding to the movie "300" instead of simply narrating the story of Iran. All in all, a good article and I enjoy watching the pictures also. The more I look at this article, the more I see how close Americans and Iranians are. SSZ 07:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC) 03:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh come off it...

John 07:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Poetry

I don't think we actually need to quote lines of poetry in this article. How about we just mention who the important guys are and leave it at that? It seems a waste of space and I generally don't see if much elsewhere. Now don't find one article, like Rock of Ages, and say that because of it having lyrics, it is OK to have poetry. I think that the article will be improved and shortened by removing the poetry regardless of what the other articles are doing. Anyway, how exactly do we decide from all of the poetry in the first place? Best just avoid the issue by getting rid of it. Maybe we can link them under 'further reading' to books of poetry translated into English. The Behnam 10:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a reflection of the Iranian characteristic. If you ask an Iranian one thing theyre proud about today, most if not all would probably mention their literature and poetry (i.e. culture). Put simply, poetry is not such a big part of the life of an American, or say, a German, as it is for an Iranian. And that's what we're trying to reflect here. As for the selection criteria, the verses selected (except for that Rumi one) all have one thing in common: they are about "Iran", whioch is the topic of the article. It's very difficult to find such verses. And as for the Sa'di verse, it is probably the most popular verse of Persian poetry. Though there are probably other popular verses too.--Zereshk 11:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Well if you insist upon having actual lines in the article, perhaps we could at least limit it to one? Then the problem is which one. Should we add more? The section needs trimming in any case. The Behnam 03:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I do agree with reducing. How about ditching the Rumi lines? I dont see how any large significance those particular lines carry.--Zereshk 12:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. Unfortunately not knowing much Persian, I can't really appreciate the poetry, so I'll leave it to you Persian fluent people to choose the most significant. But I agree that those particular Rumi lines don't seem particularly significant, so they should probably be removed. The Behnam 19:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep the qoutes, It reflects the Iranian Psyche Cyrus111

Hmm, I am not sure. Rumi is the most famous and significant Persian poet in the English-speaking world. --Mardavich 19:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying he is insignificant, but rather that those particular lines aren't very special. Personally I'd rather not have actual lines of poetry arbitrarily placed in the article, but people here seem keen to it, so I'm trying to figure out what is the best way to cut down on size in that section. It really seems unnecessary to post that much poetry into the article. The Behnam 19:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but those are the only lines from Rumi in the article. If those particular lines aren't very special, then we should find a better Rumi poem to replace them with. And to cut down on size in that section, we should start by removing Avicenna's poem. Since when is Avicenna known for his poetry anyways? He was a scientist, that's what his best known for. --Mardavich 20:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fine. The Behnam 20:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've taken out Avicenna's. I also note that there is one about Iran by Nizami, followed by another about Iran by Ferdowsi. Since we already have a Ferdowsi a little bit up, I think we can remove the second one. Sound good? The Behnam 20:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Iranian Revolution

Some problems with the section and the main article Iranian Revolution. I don't know who has been editing these two, but whoever it is thinks that the Revolution revolved entirely around Khomeini! That is very wrong. The Communists and the nationalists were the ones with the largest level of support, with Khomeini only being popular among rural people and some university students. He wasn't even a major player until after Shariati was murdered in 1977. If Shariati had still been alive, he would have been the de facto leader of the revolution. Please, someone who has time and is expert on these matters fix this. I can try to get to it but I don't have time right now. Khorshid 00:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Sa.vakilian might know more about this matter. I'll relay the matter to him. The Behnam 00:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
This idea that "Communists and the nationalists were the ones with the largest level of support" isn't common among the western scholars. These are the references which have supported this viewpoint and some criticism:

Also you can refer to these books:Iranian Revolution#Bibliography

However I propose to ask User:Leroy65X. He's knowledgeable American and has a lot of academic references.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I replaced this part which looks like OR and doesn't have references with another text.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Science section

Manu kian maheri 13:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)I think the scince section is very limited in comparison to9 its importance in Iran. PLEASE HELP EXPAND IT.Manu_kian_maheri

In regards to IMOD, the herbal "medication" discovered by Iranian scientists using "nanotechnology" for treatment of HIV, it is rather careless to make mention of this "medication" in the article without any hint of skepticism and mistrust. The suspicion surrounding this medication is very well described under IMOD. There has been no scientific documentation as to the discovery and efficacy of this medication on any scientific journal, and the limited sample size of the supposed conducted trial only adds to the dubiety surrounding this "herbal medication." With the failure to make note of this uncertainity and skepticism, the statement currently made on wikipedia could very well be disseminating an Iranian government propaganda. --Houman 01:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

History revision update

Here is what I did today in the changes I made to the History section:

  • I rewrote almost half of the Parthian section.
  • I think that the new text I put in is much more informative than the previous text we had. It is less pompous, and yet conveys more of the history of the Parthians.
  • I sourced the important parts, so that some editors wont accuse us of "nationalism" and "anti-semitism" (!) again.
  • I switched 2 pictures: One was the Parthian coin picture, because there were two pictures related to Phraates. If anything, the most important Parthian king was Mehrdad (Mithradates), not Farhad. The other pic I replaced was the Sassanid relief. It doesnt show much detail, and gives a war like imagery to the Sassanids, not an accurate depiction. The Shapur II bust on the other hand focuses on artistic prowess and grandeur.--Zereshk 18:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I replaced the shah Ismail I picture in the Shi'a Islam... section because it made the section more appealing.Manu kian maheri 12:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Iran's Picture

Dear Editors,

I will be appreciated if you would make a link to my Iran's pictures here. The gallery is vastly interested by people around the world and seems to be suitable for here. Link: http://www.pbase.com/k_amj/throughout_iran

Also I have gallery about ancien Iran reminders: http://www.pbase.com/k_amj/persia

Best Regards, Ali Majdfar 217.66.214.191 08:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ali,

Thanks for the offer. I am not sure to understand if you want to make your images available on Wikipedia or you just want to create a link to your website. If you want to make your pics available on Wikipedia, you will need to do either 2 things:

1. Upload them yourself one by one, and tag them correctly with tags such as "I have created this file and make it available to Wikipedia for free use and unrestricted distribution", if applicable (You can choose this option from the menu when you upload them). WITHOUT a tag, they will be DELETED within a short period of time as per Wikipedia's policy and as I experienced it myself, in my early experience with Wikipedia.

-OR-

2. Place a note ON YOUR OWN website with the mention that you have copyrights of all the pictures and they can be uploaded on Wikipedia for free and for unrestricted usage and distribution.SSZ 11:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If you give your permission, we can upload the pictures here and use them. That'd be a great help. I don't think it's necessary to put a note on his website? as long as he can confirm he is the copyright owner and gives us his permission in whatever way --Rayis 16:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Tourism section added

About time there was a tourism section added, the Islamic Repuplic have been promoting it for years. Go ahead "fine adjust it" if you so wish or have anything to add. Other than that Ill like to say Good Work to all. Keep it up.Cyrus111

I quit

Unless the improvement drive for this article does not become organised, all efforts to make the article more professional are useless.

Either there must be some sort of agreement between the editors about what course of action to take, or the article will always remain sloppy and amateurish.

Here are some problems:

  1. People, it's "SASSANID", not "SASSANIAN". Check the English dictionary.Cyrus111 keeps reverting back to the latter.
  2. I get blocked for trying to enforce the poll that we have on images. Then on the other hand, other users just drop by and change pictures left and right. And nobody seems to care. This is stupid.
  3. Some users just cant be unbiased. Aghajoon, like it or not, Iranian culture was influenced by Hellenism at some point in time. Why is that a problem for some? Why do some editors keep trying to inject a "yeah but we kicked Greek/Roman asses too" into the article? That's called Oghdeh. And it reduces the article into a high school report.
  4. The tourist section reads like an advertisement from traveltoiran.com. I suggest we also then give information there about ticket prices to Iran. (ei khoda...)

There must be some sort of strict policing of any changes on this article with some admins involved to semi-protect the article.

If you want me to help as the oldest user involved in this article (since 2004) who is responsible for creating over 50% (if not more) of all Iranian articles, then please first reach an agreement amongst yourselves. Do you want to improve this article? Or does each person want to do his own thing?

I cant help edit this article, and then have people do their own thing. SSZ does his own thing, Cyrus 111 does his own thing, and same for everybody else. And nobody discusses anything about any actual text in the article.

I can only help when I know my time is not wasted.

Good luck.--Zereshk 00:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diligence
given to Zereshk for his continued high quality contribution over the years to Iran and Wikipedia 69.116.234.208 04:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
On the subject of English dictionaries, it is "Azerbaijan" and "Azeri," not "Azarbaijan" and "Azari." Anyway, I think the best way to go is to get rid of promotional and Iran-exaggerating POV projections and peacock wordings and return to the facts. I think it is a shame that many of the editors here panned Sunshock's feedback without much consideration, as the criticism addressed many of the article's flaws. And it is also disappointing that some people are including things specifically to send 'a message' to the world about Iran, as this is a gross violation of the policy of neutrality. Furthermore, it is shame that you are quitting Zereshk, as you have done a lot of good work. The Behnam 01:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Please, stop your non-sense Behman ;-) NOBODY is quiting here. Guys, I have seen this website today and it is fun because it allows to view a summary of the contributions for each Wikipedians with the details. SSZ 06:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is ruined.

Thank you for destroying the article everybody! Everyone goes their own way and adds the most nonsense.I know that we want people that look at the Iran page to learn and think differently about Iran. But now, the article is biased, long, and full of nonsense. This is wikipedia and we are editing an encyclopedia article!! Not a book!!! Wikilo12 06:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia' neutrality policy we shouldn't be trying to send 'a message' about Iran to the readers. This should just be facts. The Behnam 06:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Facts? This article seems to have been written by the Iranian Government themselves. Armyrifle 10:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop being a kid

Baradar Zereshk, It seems the only way you are happy is if this article would have been a one man show! Your show. If you claim that you have done 50% then I will claim the other 50%. When I started contributing to this article (in 2005, a few months after you) there was barely anything written about Iran. The whole layout I can take credit for, but I wont! Because everybody here have contributed and done there best, so everybody should get credit.

About the sassanid issue well the english dictionary is ONE source other sources I have read elsewhere mentions of Sassanian not sassanid. Is this even something to argue about??? And who is arguing about hellen. influences? Sure there were influences by them all, but there is no other article (Italy, greek, arab etc) mentioning the influences they got from Persia which far exceeds the influences recieved, everybody knows this!

And in your arguments dont ever in your life call somebody stupid for their contributions (or in general) this lowers your credibility (just a brotherly advice). You rewrote the parthian, the sassanian (sassanid) and other sections as well and its still there, Good job, nobody is creating a fuss but, when a tourism section is added (like many other country articles have) there just have to be a fuss! I suggested that one could make adjustments to it to improve it you could have just done that, I trust your expertise. Now SSZ have done it and it looks great.

I am not discrediting you in anyway on the contrary I salute your contr. to this article, and know of how importance they have been but remember its not a one mans show. SSZ, Arad, Behnam and everybody else also must have their contributions counted for.

And If you quit I quit :D Cyrus111


The Barnstar of Diligence
given to Cyrus111 for his continued high quality contribution over the years to Iran and Wikipedia 69.116.234.208 12:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
All I will say, is that you cant ride in different directions at the same time. And thats whats happening here. The improvement drive is not coordinated, and so the article is actually getting worse, not better.
Yes, I noticed that you are following Iranica's usage for Sassanian. But we cant have one article say "Sassanid", another say "Sassanian". It will just confuse people. There has to be an agreement on that. I dont prefer one over the other. Im just asking to implement a unified position on things.--Zereshk 15:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you really want to improve the article

Here's some ideas and plan of actions, if involved editors really wish to improve the article, and avoid editorial conflict all the time:

  1. Be careful and make up our minds about what images to use, and once selected, keep them. Example: Is having an image of Karim Khan Zand more important than Shah Ismail Safavi? If so, why or why not? For that matter, did Safavis have more impact on Iran or Zandiyeh? Which image has better significance? Which has better resolution?
  2. If we want to poll and vote on the images, then at least enforce them!!! Or at least have somebody be in charge of enforcing image agreements.
  3. We cant vote on everything. So..... I suggest we appoint specific user(s) that you trust, to edit or even rewrite specific sections. Let him have a free hand. For example, User:Amir85 for before Islam history section (because he is so and so). Then we let him do all the editing. And if we have problems with his edits, or would like to make changes to what he's done, or have something added, or deleted, go through him first, through this talk page.
    1. So for example, I would suggest text for the subsection on the city of Shiraz to SSZ (assuming that he has been appointed in charge of the section on cities) on this talk page, instead of directly messing with his edits.
  4. Alternatively, since voting is proving to be so difficult to carry out, we could apply the former item to images as well. i.e. make one person in charge for picking the best images, and work with him, if we think that the (for example) Mongol map should be replaced by an Ilkhanid building. I have alone uploaded 600 images to Wikipedia, and I have 1000 or so more on my Home PC. So we dont have a shortage of images, and we have a free hand there as well. It's just a matter of working together. But if ONE person is in charge and we interact through him, things can get done much easier around here.
  5. Discuss any major changes you would like to be made, BEFORE making them, here, and to the user who we have nominated to fix that section.

Thats my 2 cents for today. I gotta get back to my lab. Now it's your turn. WHAT DO YOU THINK of all this?--Zereshk 15:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

For starters, I've standardized usage to "Sassanid." The Behnam 17:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Sassanid is the proper term in English. Cyrus, please stop changing it back to Sassanian, the actual article is titled Sassanids as well. --Mardavich 17:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
On that note, should we use the "search" function to find as many references to "Sassanian" as possible and change them to "Sassanid"? I've take a look and it will require some renaming. The Behnam 17:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll do that. --Mardavich 18:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll see what I can do as well. Just make sure all of the old names redirect. The Behnam 18:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a bot to standardize to "Sassanid"? This may take forever if you consider that we must close double redirects. The Behnam 18:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. It's not that hard, just search/replace the text. I already fixed one article. --Mardavich 18:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on tying up Indo-Sassanian right now. It is just tedious because after the move you have to kill double redirects. The Behnam 18:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any big problems with this article. I think it looks fine. Khorshid 18:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

For the history section layout, I think I did what I could. (putting all portraits on 150 pix and others 200px) and adding sections. And about Sassanids, In French It's Sassanide not Sassanien (Ref: Larousse and Petit Robert) But that's in French, so in English it can be different. --Arad 00:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Zartosht painting

I understand that the painting was kept per a recent vote, but some things about it are questionable. For example, the book with the Farovar on it. General scholarly opinion has the scriptures being kept by memory so it seems odd that we include a depiction of Zartosht himself carrying around a neat, bound book. Furthermore, the use of the Faravar seems odd, since the spread-eagle form is a typical symbol of 'kingship', etc, originating in Egypt. It is thought to have passed from Egypt to Hittites (I think) and definitely to Assyrians, and supposedly the Achaemenians borrowed it from them. While I don't recall the previous civilizations putting a guy in the middle, there is nothing suggesting that the Avestan culture used that particular symbol. With this in mind, the use of the painting is misleading and probably should be taken from the article. If we need a picture of Zartosht, perhaps we can use the famous Parsi depiction? I don't really see the need for his picture at all but if we do decide we need one, the standard Parsi picture is definitely more notable than this random painting. The Behnam 20:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you on this. There is a lot of different theories and ideas about the religion that scholars have, for instance there is no consensus that it was only oral tradition and not recorded down. But thats beside the point because the book is not identified as the "Avesta" in the picture. A picture of Zoroaster is definitely important because Zoroastrianism was the most important religion of the Iranian peoples and Persian traditions like the New Year stem from the old religion. I think this picture is more attractive than the common one and fits better with the article. Anyway, I think alot of the concerns on this page are going too far. These things are non-issues and I see no reason to delete what looks to be a good picture and any other pictures or trimming the article down even more. Like I said I think the article looks fine to me. Khorshid 21:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it doesn't say 'Avesta', though you'd hope that it is implied. I mean, otherwise, what the heck is that book? With a farovar on it? It is good to keep improving the article, and that may involve removing or replacing pictures that may be inappropriate. I'm perfectly willing to do it, so you don't have to worry about dealing with non-issues. I'm still leaning towards replace or remove, for if we are going to have a picture of a person of unknown appearance, we may as well use a 'classic' one, like the Parsi one, or none at all. This particular one has some questionable components so that doesn't help. Any other opinions? The Behnam 22:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
If we are gonna be picky, we can question everything about that image not just the book, as you said. But then again, who would expect any drawings or paintings of Zarathushtra to be factual? How would the Parsi one be any more factual just because it doesn't have a book in it? --Rayis 12:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Shia islam section

I read this section and thought it had a few flaws:

  • This one section describes four very important dynasties. I think this section should be devided into:

1. Safavid empire

2. Afshar & Zand Dynasties (We can debate about the name)

3. Qajar dynasty

  • also one picture is not enough for a section describing such an important part of our history.
  • Shah Abbas, (one of the most revered kings ever to rule iran) is not even mentioned! I think the safavid empire deserves more attention in this article.

Plese write your views below.Manu kian maheri 14:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a bit more info on them. But I'm afraid that the section gets too long. --Arad 04:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point but if we slightly shorten the other sections of the history section and get rid of unnecassery information, we might have enough room to improve this section. Although mentioning Shah Abbas would not lengthen the section much.Manu kian maheri 11:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Mongolian invasion

This quote:

آمدند و کشتند و سوختند و بردند

They came & they killed & they burned & they took.

The English translation seems simple and these words are actually greater in meaning than the english translation. Although it was literally translated word by word, it seems to simple as if an immigrant wrote it (no offence) and the words don't seem valued. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Storkian (talk • contribs) 21:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Ok I just read most of this article and it is so incredibly biased it is ridiculous. How many times is Iran promoted as being this almighty great nation in this article? Far too effing many, this is completely unencylopedic, some of it reads like a tourist promotion. 58.170.88.139 06:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)rusty8

I chose that particular quote sbecause it was simple and blunt and discribed all that Gengis khan did. although I do see your point and if you or anyone else could think of a better explanation please let us discuss it below.Manu kian maheri 11:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


Yes but in Wikipedia you are not supposed to be one sided. They killed the persians because I remember seeing a documentary that the persians sent him a head (i dunno what its called) then that provoked ghengis khan --• Storkian • 00:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Whoever wants to add, debate about, or delete a picture please do so here.Manu kian maheri 12:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I will start by propose adding this picture to the Iranian revolution section.
Image:Imam in Mehrabad.jpg
Arrival of Ayatollah Khomeini on Feb 1st.

Manu kian maheri 12:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • First we need to get rid of the watermark if we decide to put this in the article (it's easy). But in my opinion, we have enough Khomeini on this article, we don't need anymore. Plus, he's not an appreciated character for most Iranians. --Arad 21:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know when you became the spokesperson of Iranians, but in any case his arrival was quite important. However, I think this article needs less now, not more. The Behnam 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • How about we get rid of that dubious and made-up picture of Zartosht for starters? The Behnam 21:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure what is the point you want to prove. Is it that you have a problem with Zartosht and you praise Khomeini? Of course his arrival was hugely important but that doesn't mean he's still loved. Arrival of communism in Russia was also important, but is it still loved? --Arad 01:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • There wasn't a particular 'point', at least nothing like those you just suggested. It happens to be that Khomeini's return was something of a historic moment, but again I don't actually want to add more pictures to this article. We shouldn't determine pictures based on any 'love' factor, so Khomeini pictures oughtn't be kept out simply because the editors don't like Khomeini. This kind of arbitrary selectivity is probably why we have outsiders complaining about propaganda in this article; we include things that we like rather than things that are most appropriate. And I suggest removing the dubious and relatively insignificant 'portrayal' of Zartosht. I have previously advocated the famous/classic Parsi picture but would find it even more appropriate to cut down on the number of pictures. I don't see why should have imaginary pictures anyway; what exactly are we demonstrating about the topic? If we must use a picture of him, at least use the famous Parsi one. The Behnam 01:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
for deleting "imaginary" pix from this important article, you have my support. --Pejman47 01:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We could replace the current picture of Khomeini.Manu kian maheri 12:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

for sure, we do need a picture of Khomeini. And I agree with Behnam, we don't need more. That's what I said too. We need to cut down not to add more. We can replace the current image of Khomeini with this one. But personally, I strongly oppose both. And about Zartosht, all I can say is that he was very important but I agree that the image is not appropriate. Maybe the Parsi version is better, as you mentioned. --Arad 21:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll put the Parsi version in for now, usage requirements permitting. But it is worth to consider whether or not we really need a picture of Zartosht. The Behnam 21:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
It is copyrighted, but it "illustrates the object in question" (Zartosht), and there is no free equivalent that is actually of 'classic' significance, so it should be good. If I misinterpret the image police will show up anyway, so no worries. :) The Behnam 21:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You didn't reply to my concerns regarding your point here about why the "Parsi" version should be used here, so no you will not do that (replace the pic) yet. --Rayis 12:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I replied elsewhere. No issue here. The Behnam 16:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I firmly believe the following series of pictures of Iran should be added to the "Other" section at the bottom of the Iran page:

http://www.pbase.com/k_amj/throughout_iran&page=all

This gallery received a considerable amount of Diggs when someone submitted it:

http://digg.com/world_news/PICTURES_The_Iran_America_Doesn_t_See

As I am new here I cannot add it myself. I am after some opinions as to whether or not you think it is worthy. I realise somebody else discussed this, but I do not see it added.

Adam 16:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

WOW those are some amazing images. Many of his works are feature worthy. I wish he was a contributor to Wikipedia. --Arad 21:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I was just looking at those and they are very good. In fact some of them would be appropriate for our discussion below about desert hills. The Behnam 21:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Does someone wish to add them to the page? I believe they are relevant to the article. Adam 15:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I think he meant adding the link. But I have emailed him to see if he gives permission to use the images here.--Zereshk 18:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Please tell us the results when you got them. I can't wait to see those in Wiki. --Arad 14:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I did get permission. Please cite his name in boldface, and the actual text of the permission when using his images, like I have done here, and use the CCASL 2.5 tag, as I have done.--Zereshk 18:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a BUNCH to you and the author ! --Arad 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why that ubiquitous pic of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand is included here other than to score political points. It or its caption really have little to do with Iran itself. --75.178.92.119 21:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it, that one bothers me too. I'll ask to have it taken out. Thanks for bringing it up. The Behnam 21:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Objection to reference #27 regarding Romanesque Architecture

The statement that Romanesque Architecture was influenced by Ctesiphon, is not only wrong, but ludicrous and clearly shows the propagandist pro-Iran Bias of the article's author. Romanesque Architecture flourished in the middle ages in Europe and was a Medieval interpretation of late Roman Architecture - that's why it's called "ROMAN-esque." Europeans in the Middle ages had NO contact whatsoever with Iran, and would not even have been aware of the existence of Ctesiphon. Therefore they could not possibly have been influenced by it! This article requires immediate review and editing by a historian of Persian history, preferably one who actually has a degree from a respectable major university, outside of Iran. Reading this article was like taking crazy 1 and 2 - next thing you know, the author will be telling us that Iran influenced the building of the Great Wall of China. Oh yes, and maybe the Persians built Big Ben too, and invented the internet thousands of years ago . . . yes, that's it - all hail the Supreme Leader, he will help us to turn off our Brains!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.151.21.99 (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

haha. OK calm down. I don't have much information about this topic, but I can assure you the Europe was very WELL aware of Persia in middle-ages. --Arad 01:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The claim is fuckin sourced. Open your eyes people. Its a straight quote from an American reference. Sheesh. Why does it piss off people soooo much to have had Iran influence some part of western art or science in the past? As if their mother has been insulted or something. Please do some reading before actually making any "crazy" comments.--Zereshk 01:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
for making your point, you don't need to offend other people: "hail the Supreme Leader, he will help us to turn off our Brains!", BE POLITE!--Pejman47 01:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Zereshk, kota biya. I agree with Zereshk. --Arad 21:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

More image concerns

Someone else brought this up, but I am also concerned that it is misleading to use this picture [5] in the article. If you look at the discussion and related pages, the image has been modified significantly, and it is rather embarrassing that a 'fake' image has stuck around on this page for so long. Furthermore, I don't understand the image selection very well. Where are the deserts? I know that it is stressed that Iran isn't a big sand desert like Saudi Arabia, but much of it is desert of the New Mexico type. We have picture of shomal, which is good, but it seems misleading to not picture any of the deserts, especially since some of the major and historically important sites are within the desert part of Iran. I think that we ought to get an unmanipulated picture of Iranian desert and replace the Sanandaj picture with it. The Behnam 01:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

yes, It is not a good idea to have a Pic which is doctored on this article, I will delete that. Substitute is welcome!--Pejman47 01:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice if someone had a good desert picture on hand. I may able to get one from my trip, as I believe that we took desert pictures. The Behnam 01:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I wish you a good trip! :) --Pejman47 02:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks but it already happened. I mean I could ask for the photos from a family member. The Behnam 02:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
So then: "I wish you had a good trip!", and I think in the lead, there must be one sentence about the current political system of Iran. I will add it now--Pejman47 02:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it was good, thanks. And yes, the lead should summarize the article per WP:LEAD so any addition to that end is appropriate. The Behnam 02:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
And someone pointed out that there similar pictures on USA, and this is not a big issue. I object to the deletion of the picture. --Mardavich 02:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Something being done on a different article doesn't really justify it being done here. Do you have any concrete arguments in support of a doctored/misleading picture? The Behnam 02:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not "doctored", all pictures get color-adjustment and a final touch from photo-shop to make them more clear and photogenic. Anyways, I added a new picture for now, but I think the Kurdistan picture should not have been removed, I'll wait and see what others have to say about. --Mardavich 02:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
If you read its delisting discussion, you will find that many of the users found the level of doctoring 'too much', hence leading to the delisting. The Behnam 02:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

About the new picture, it looks alright but do you know of a picture of just the landscape? There is irrigated farmland in that picture, which isn't quite as relevant to the 'geography' as a picture of pure landscape would be. You know, something like those hills in the background but with no farmland. The Behnam 02:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No idea, feel free to edit the caption/description with more precise info. --Mardavich 03:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to add Fars Province landscape. Also I might support a desert picture with a Mohammadi Rose in it (As you know, Rose (or at least some sorts of it, originates from Iranian deserts) --Arad 21:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, I don't like a picture of a desert alone. I think Arg-e Bam picture represents desert too. --Arad 21:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I am just saying that I think pure geography/wilderness should be depicted rather than modified land. Aren't there any important natural landmarks in the desert? I too agree that a picture of 'a patch of desert' would be bland, but if there were some of those rock-hills in the picture it would be much cooler, IMO. The Behnam 21:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you can use something like this. I took the photo myself. It wasnt modified, and it is a true depiction of the Iranian landscape: mountainous, oasified, highly contrasted, with a high sun.--Zereshk 22:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you can use something like this. I took the photo myself. It wasnt modified, and it is a true depiction of the Iranian landscape: mountainous, oasified, highly contrasted, with a high sun.--Zereshk 22:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Any other opinions? The Behnam 22:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not, that's one ugly picture. --Mardavich 23:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any 'pretty' non-manipulated pictures that are true depictions of the Iranian landscape? The Behnam 00:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The current pictures are fine. --Mardavich 00:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I guess you aren't actually up to addressing the issues here. I'll wait for some more opinions, hopefully a little more constructive. The Behnam 00:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
There are non-issues to me. There is nothing wrong with current picture, that's my opinion and I consider it constructive. --Mardavich 17:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your opinion. The Behnam 19:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This one obviously shows the mountainous part of Iran. But this is no desert. All the pictures we currently have do have mountains, we don't need another one. But I still love to see a landmark in a real desert in Iran. --Arad 11:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I was really thinking of something like the Fars picture but without the farmland. This isn't Darjeeling so the excessive green (from the farming) is kind of misleading. If a similar one could be found without the farm I think that would be good. I call it a New Mexico-type desert, but I don't know the technical term for that. Do you know of any geographic landmarks? The Behnam 11:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Model of tolerance and respect

This appears to be a POV projection, and for that matter a projection from opinion pieces of no significance whatsoever. I will remove it as people have complained about the pamphlet/propaganda character of the article, and projections such as these are part of the problem. The Behnam 02:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's sourced, that's all that matter. "Opinion pieces" you're referring to are written by academics. --Mardavich 02:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
No plenty more than 'being sourced' matters. I don't know where you establish Shapour Suren-Pahlav as an RS or even an 'academic' of any repute, or the other guy, but in any case the incredibly severe opinions from those 'works' aren't going to be projected onto this page, especially views that can easily be contested. Unless, that is, we'd rather keep this article as a POV 'propaganda'. The Behnam 03:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Bah! I see Khorshid mindlessly restored the POV like he does elsewhere. This is silly. The Behnam 03:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Some Issues Found In This Wiki

The section on the major cities is poorly written, with grammar and spelling problems. It is also very disorganized. If someone can please order it from the largest city to the smallest and maybe place the populations in brackets next to the name of the city. Also the section for isfahan says that it is he third largest city while the karaj section has a population that is bigger making it the third largest city.

The section on the government and politics also looks messy with small chunks under subheadings. I think it will be better to write the information in summed up, bigger paragraphs instead.

The military section also needs expansion such as the industry, major advances, build ups (if any), current fleet (not to detailed) and other stuff.

The geography and climate section also needs more information such as Irans wetlands or more importantly the Ramsar Convention. It is also lacking information on major lakes such as Lake Urmia. Additionaly it needs information on the animals, plants and forests unique in some way to Iran like the Hara forests and trees.

There should also be more detail for the provinces, look at Turkey for an example. While you are looking at the Wiki for turkey look at the foreign relations section. I think this Wiki can use that section as well. Other Wiki's, special ones for the countries, can help us develope this one much better since we can see the goods and bads in the other articles.

pedram-e 02:05, 13 April 2007

I looked at the Turkey page and saw that Pedram was right. We should use good ideas from other pages (especially Featured Articles) and combine them with our own. For instance in the Turkey article there was no Major Cities section and all the infomation about turkish cities were in the Administrative divisions section. I think this makes the article more tidy and focused. Even if no-one agrees with me at least we could put the Major Cities section after the Administrative divisions section. We can learn alot from others. Manu kian maheri 15:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Although I like having as much information about a subject as possible, but really, this page takes, what seems forever, to load and I'm on cable! Can't some of the sections be broken up into different articles so the page is not so big? I don't know the exact size right now, but do know that wiki suggests a certain size so it isn't so big for people on slower connections, or moble devices, etc. that it takes forever to load, or makes the page barely readable. I do know this page exceeds the recommented size limit quite a bit just by loading the page. Just a consideration please. Thanks for everybody's hard work. Jeeny 00:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I do agree with you. I think section like and specially like the history section are way prolonged ad need to be shortened. With that we will have more room for other sections that this article is missing or sections that need improving. pedram-e 21:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Earthquake

I think the earthquake list is way too long for this article. Please put that in it's main article and mention a few important ones. --Arad 15:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747

Hello everyone,

I have made some major edits to the above article over the past 2 days, which refers to Iran's nuclear programme.

Could you please tell me:

1. If it is NPOV enough?

2. If You think I have omitted any material fact.

Thanks in advance for your time and feedback.

SSZ 02:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: Please leave your comments on its talk page if any. Thank you.

changes

Since people cant even agree whether or not the article needs changes (Cyrus111 and SSZ think it doesnt), the issue of improving the article is moot for now.

However, I will make some changes to some images. I have been given access to some new images to upload. The images of course are almost entirely non-political/historical. Mostly geographic and architectural. I think you will all (or mostly all) approve of them.

The changes will come in the next few days.--Zereshk 21:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


While your addng pictures why not put one of the persian currency/money in the economy section. What happened to the old one? pedram-e 21:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I uploaded 50 tomani, 2000 tomani, and 1000 tomani pictures before. I even remember a 10 tomani pic with Modarres' pic on it a long time ago. The images should still be around. People just cant agree when it comes to anything in this article.--Zereshk 21:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I just removed the picture of Darius under etymology since it wasn't directly related. It was related to a small part of the aticle but it did not add any significanse to the etymology section. What do you think? Pedram-e 22:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
OK with me. It is related to the history section, but not directly to the etymology section.--Zereshk 23:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, While on the topic of changes I think the aricles flow would be enhanced if we move the major cities section to under the provinces. Then we should move the demographics section to under the major cities. I'm shore that other changes like that will improve this article as well, not just the usual changes people here like to talk about. Pedram-e 22:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I think SSZ will get upset if you touch the city section. But I agree, the way they are written and presented isnt very appealing. Perhaps they should gho under the administrative divisions section.--Zereshk 23:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was looking at the images I mentioned above, and I have redecided: The images I have are actually so perfect and nice that Im sure some people here are going to start citing that as a drawback of the article: The pics I have are all green valleys, lakes, lucious forests and the like. So forget it. Unless people agree that green valleys and baghs are also part of Iran's landscape.--Zereshk 23:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I liked that picture you put above but Mardavich didn't. Anyway, about Darius, I believe he was under etymology because he is the strongest source for the use of "Arya" in a ethnic sense of the Achaemenians. Of course, his picture doesn't add to this and it would be more appropriate to show the OP inscription, but there is no need for more pictures here so I second removal. The Behnam 16:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Zereshk,

I will not "get upset" if you improve the article. Go ahead. In fact, everyday people make changes to the article without any problem, but thanks for caring about other people's views before acting. In fact, if you look at my edits on the Iran page over the past months, you will see that I'm mostly making minor changes because I have been busy contributing to other main articles relating to Iran. I invite others to do the same (i.e. become a specialist in one subject like "geography of Iran" or "demographics", etc. and contribute to relating articles) and I know some of you already do, but we need more people.

For the record, I proposed a month ago approx. to consider the featured WP French article (or another encyclopedia altogether), as a possible model for further improvement of the article. I would also like to take this opportunity to make the following constructive remarks:

Iran has a magnificent history but the best is yet to come! I mention this because this article emphasizes the history of Iran but somehow neglects other points like welfare in Iran, Iran's foreign policy, etc. It is also indicative to a lesser extend of the fact that we need more overview sections in this article; something to be done systematically and comprehensively.

SSZ 18:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

History!

Can we please get something straight. What is going on with the History section. Does anyone else agree that this section is seriously long? Everyday it keeps getting longer and longer. I think we should get our thoughts together on this topic. I really don't see any major significanses in such parts as the mongol invasion. I too would like to show Iran's huge history but this is just redicilous. We should shorten this to the point and if people would like, we can instead improve the actual section dedicated to the History of Iran. Any thoughts? Pedram-e 22:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There are parts that are in worse shape than the history section. For example, "Tourism". Should that be a subsection of Economy or Culture?
One thing that I think needs to go in the history is the Mongol invasion map. That just doesnt belong here. The Mongols invaded today's Kazakhstan as well. But it's not related to this article.--Zereshk 23:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with all of you.

Firstly, I think we should put the mongol invasion in the from the fall of... and put the teimur-e-lang part of the mongol invasion section with the shi'a islam section.

secondly, tourism is not part of our culture; It's prt of our economy.

Thirdly, that map belongs in the mongolian empire article, not this one.Manu kian maheri 06:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

IF ANYONE DISAGREES WITH ME PLEASE WRITE BELOW BEFORE APRIL 20TH BEFORE I EDIT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!Manu kian maheri 15:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The tourism part should be part of the economy section.
The article should also go in this order (To enhance flow). Etymology, History, Government and politics (should include foreign relations), Provinces and divisions (which should include major cities), Geography and climates, Demographics, Economy (including tourism), Culture, Science in Iran, and finally military.
This order makes alot of sense since each section that follows is somehow related to the previous section, it is also more compact and readable. Ofcourse it is only my opinion
pedram-e 16:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree about the Mongol invasion map, animated photos don't belong on an encyclopedia entry, the photo makes the page heavy too. --Mardavich 13:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, since everybody agrees that the Mongol section needs a facelift, I went ahead and edited starting the post Sassanid section (after 7th century), and merged the Mongol section back into it. So it now spans the Islamic Conquest up to the Safavis, basically the Middle Ages. All I did was rewrite the section by adding lots of references. I think most of you would be pleased, Im hoping.--Zereshk 15:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I like what you did. Now we should shorten the history section blonging to the Revolution and the Iran Iraq war since it is very long.pedram-e 19:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Qajar history?

I also just finished editing the Safavid/Afsharid/Zand/Qajar era. I think the text reads much more smoothly now. However, looking at the section, the Qajar events are largely missing. Should I add a sentence or two about the Qajar legacy and main events, or are things good as they are now?--Zereshk 00:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The sections of history of Iran has undue weight, it failed to show that current state of Iran is just a continue episode of "shia state" of Ismail and safavids. Safavids and Qajars must be expanded. --Pejman47 19:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Im fine with that. But we're already under pressure to reduce the size of that section. I'm just hoping that the 2 paragraphs I just added to the Safavi--Qajar section doesnt get erased. If people agree that it's OK, then we can addmore sentences to that section. Please all give your opinions: Is what we have enough, or is there more needed, and if so, what topic should be mentioned?--Zereshk 20:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Its current size is OK, I think if there is a need to summarize other parts of History sections must be summarized and sorry for my errornous edit!--Pejman47 21:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
But I dont agree with the merging of the pre-Safavi and post-Safavi period into one section as you (Pejman47) are now doing. Historically, the Safavi empire is considered by many historians as the dawn of a new era in Iran's history. It is the rennaissance post-middle age equivalent of Iran's history. Modernity in Iran was literally conceived in the Safavid era. So it needs its own section. Otherwise we should likewise merge the Parthian and Sassanid eras as well.--Zereshk 21:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I know!, as I said that edit was errornous. and I was disconnected to revert it quickly, ... and that page is so heavy!, but I propose to merge Parthian with Sassanids--Pejman47 21:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
OK then, I separated back the post and pre Safavid eras. I think the history section is as small as it can get. The "cities" and "tourism" sections are currently occupying too much space.--Zereshk 21:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
yes, Cities section must be eliminated entirely (reverting back the User:Manu edits), and Tourism section needs a serious cleanup.--Pejman47 21:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I also think that we can merge all those little political subsections into one section without losing any content. But Im hesitant to do that until we get some agreement.--Zereshk 21:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Government and Politics

The section belonging to Government and Poitics is a clear mess. First of all is there a reason why some sub-headings are bolded and some aren't?

This section needs to lose all those sub-headings and instead it should be formed by paragraphs much like the same section for some other countries such as Pakistan or Turkey, which by the way are both featured aticles. Right now this section looks like blobs and chunks of premature and sometimes useless information. Were is, for example, the foreign relations section which could be placed under Government and Politics.

I will not touch this section without other people's opinion so please give commonts.

Pedram-e 22:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We should put a foreign relations section at the end of Gov. & Politics section.Manu kian maheri 07:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Culture

I suggest adding a foriegn influence section (Or some thing along those lines) to the culture section; Briefly describing the influence of foriegn cultures had on Iran and Vice versa; and also a Persian languge section which would include Poems and also a brief history of the Persian language; plus a short part describing prose (Nasr, نثر).

Also, some information in the very long beginning of the culture section should be put in the appropriate sub-sections.Manu kian maheri 18:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the language section as long as it merges with the poems section since this article is already overly divided into chunks.pedram-e 19:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A foreign influence section could be a good idea, could talk about how Arab and other invaders impacted Persian culture.

more images

We could use some images from this website (On all iran related subjects)(Shahrdariye shiraz): [6]

The website is in Farsi (Persian), so our Farsi-speaking contributers should get permission and use those images on wikipedia (or whatever you have to do to get them on wikipedia).Manu kian maheri 16:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

major cities pics

I think some of the pictures in the Major Cities sub-section could be replaced, such as the isfahan, tabriz, and shiraz pictures. I suggest for the shiraz pic. go to site mentioned above.Manu kian maheri 17:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts i think we should delete the gallery. It only offers us some pictures of the cities.Manu kian maheri 17:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The entire city section needs to be merged with the administrative divisions. It's way too big. The article is now 103kB long, thanks to this section, which has taken massive amounts of space. With this kind of editing, we will never reach featured status. I recommend looking at Japan which is a featured article.--Zereshk 21:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already merged it and i don't think anyone has un-merged it.and also I wrote (In the wrong place!) that i think the whole gallery should be deleted. so i put it where it should be (below my first comment).

The cities section is still compartmentalized. Phrases like "Ta-e-Vrezh, which meant "This is revenge"" dont have any value on an article that is introducing the country of Iran. Why are there geographical coordinates, number of Bakshs, number of townships, etc? That's info one finds in an almanac, or at least on Geography of Iran or Provinces of Iran. These issues are all reflecting poorly on the article. With or without the gallery, the section needs to be reduced to something comparable to Japan's similar section.--Zereshk 02:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Propose

How about if we merge all those little subsection on politics, and merge them, without any loss of content into one unified section on govt and politics, like the featured article Japan? I mean, why does the city councils need to have a special separate section? We can just cut and paste it into the unified section without deleting any content.

Do we agree on that?--Zereshk 21:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

When i looked at the Japan article I didn't see any subsections. I think we should cut down on them.Manu kian maheri 02:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

nukes

I can't see any where mentioning Iran's blatand impertinence in it's childlike behaviour towards the un. Is there anymention of internation concern that iran will attempt to build nukes?


The nuclear iran issue is equivalent to 1 minute in Iran's 7000 year history, its not exactly going to get its own section.


Also, what kind of a comment is that? Iran is not violating any UN sanctions or international laws. Every country has a right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Even if not so, I don't see why Iran should be condemned for trying to have nuclear weapons while it is perfectly OK for other countries.

I dont see anywher on the USA about their childlike reaction toward the UN with regards to Iraq and WMDs....so why wont u go and fix that!!!!!!!!! or tquit frankly about genocide of he natives, slavery of blacks and how americas economy wouldnt be as good as it is w/o it, exploitation of Africa and Asia.....so like i said go fix that.

History

It seems that some history subsections such as the Achaemenids and safavid-qajar era. Please stop adding any more information until the desired size of the section has been reached!

We should also set a goal for the size of the history section(example:5KB)

PS: We should shorten the Pahlavi and post revolution section!Manu kian maheri 15:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If you looked at yhe history sections of featured country articles you would see that only 4 of them have subsections in their history section; two ofn them having two parts and the other two having history sections of 3 and 7 subsections. so:

I PROPOSE WE RE-WRITE THE WHOLE HISTORY SECTION in a way that it is one flowing easy-to-follow and most importantly subsectionless section; although we could also have a pre islam and a post islam sub-section. Manu kian maheri 15:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC) ---NO Islam is only a small part of its history not half!

Iran does have a lot more history than most other countries. --Leroy65X 20:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
well look at the size of the Japanese history section. as it says in the first sentence: The first signs of civilization on the Japanese Archipelago appeared around 10,000 BCE. Plus, if you lok at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries (and i advise everybody editing this page to look at it) it is written that an average history section should be 4four to six parragraphs, so Iran's history section should be under ten paragraphs. But there are Thity nine paragraphs' on the iran article!Manu kian maheri 20:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Many of the paragraphs you are talking about are very short! The history section is fine.Azerbaijani 20:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
You might think it is fine but it isn't fine to people who want this article to be a featured article! That's our main goal andwe will do whatever needed to reach it. Also there are more subsections than the number of paragraphs needed to make it featured!

Manu kian maheri 07:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  • What is more important than FP is that the article is informative. 10 Paragraph is way too short. There is 35 paragraphs right now man of them are very very small. If we put those into bigger paragraphs we currently have abut 17 which is OK. Of course we can still make it a bit shorter but not by much. The Iran-Iraq part is a bit long. --Arad 20:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If people want further information about a period in iran's history they can go to the main article! But on this page there has to be a Short and brief description of that time.

I think most people here agree that if there is to be any further shortening in the history section, it should be done on the post 1979 section. It is dispropotionately detailed.--Zereshk 14:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree wqith you! I just want to point out that the subsection shouldn't get any longer. The Achaemenid section was good as it was, so we must delete the added information. The sections must be in proportion, so if one subsection is brief, the others should be too.

Manu kian maheri 15:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought here - the history section is fascinating, and it needs to be expanded. Why not split the history of Iran onto another page, and link to that page with a brief description on this main page? docboat 09:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Political section revised

As part of the efforts to improve the article as per 2nd item on "To-do list" specified at top of this page, I merged all political subsections into one section. In doing so:

  • I did not delete any contents. This section is written well enough and needs no editing.
  • I assembled all "see main article" links at the top of the section.
  • I bold faced the names of the main institutions of govt in the paragraphs, for easing navigation, and to highlight the paragraph's significance.
  • Shuffled the images: I put the diagram image at the top (instead of Khamenei's pic), because it is the most important figure in terms of conveying information about the topic of this section.
  • Added a sentence or two about foreign relations, as per discussion.

Hope that helps solidify this section's quality.--Zereshk 17:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Excelent! especially the bold facing!Manu kian maheri 20:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What we should all remember when editing is that if the reader wants to have a more speciffic history of something they can read about it on it's main page; but people just want to put everything on it.

Manu kian maheri 06:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Culture

I have edited the culture section a bit, but there are some things i would not edit before knowing everyones opinion. so:

  • Do we need a sports sub-section in the culture section?
  • I think that one fedowsi line is enough.Manu kian maheri 12:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The couplet from Ferdowsi (basi ranj bordam) is good as it is. We dont need to add another. And if you ask me, that Rumi poetry sample should be erased. We already have an image of Rumi. That gives him enough of a spotlight.--Zereshk 14:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I also moved around the subsections of the culture section so it is now Persian language/archetecture/art/cuisine.

Manu kian maheri 16:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Science

I posted this earlier, but apparently not only it fell to deaf ears. Here again: In regards to IMOD, the herbal "medication" discovered by Iranian scientists using "nanotechnology" for treatment of HIV, it is rather careless to make mention of this "medication" in the article without any hint of skepticism and mistrust. The suspicion surrounding this medication is very well described under IMOD. There has been no scientific documentation as to the discovery and efficacy of this medication on any scientific journal, and the limited sample size of the supposed conducted trial only adds to the dubiety surrounding this "herbal medication." With the failure to make note of this uncertainity and skepticism, the statement currently made on wikipedia could very well be disseminating an Iranian government propaganda.

If you're going to make any changes to this article, at least make a case for it here before. --Houman 05:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree. I think it's even better to remove it until there is a result out of it (which i doubt). It'd obvious that such medication is currently not possible with Iranian technology. Sorry to disappoint but we first need to make our own gasoline instead of selling our oil for cheap and buying it back for much more because we don't have refineries and then search for HIV treatment. --Arad 03:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • well, if individuals insist on keeping this frivolous claim in the wikipedia entry for Iran, this article can by no means can stay objective. I am Iranian, and I will be thrilled by any scientific breakthrough that might come from Iran, but at least keep this section limited to "objective science" only. This is absolutely rediculous! --Houman 17:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't see why the claim wouldn't be true necessarily.United90 22:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There are two images in this section both related to astronomy. Shouldn't we delete or replace one of them?(Arash the Archer 18:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC))

good idea!Manu kian maheri 14:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Link to Iran-Contra

Under the Iran-Iraq war section, I think there should be a link to the Iran-Contra scandal page in which US and Israel provided arms to Iran in 1985 and onward.

Archive index

Now we have an archive index. I hope you use it to reduce repeated discussions. Khoda negahdar--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC) great work! SSZ 01:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Jiroft civilization

I have edited the Jiroft civilization page alot adding two sections and am planning to do more in future. But it is curantly unrated, so I ask of you to look at it and give your opinion.Manu kian maheri 07:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Various Potests

Somebody needs to change Potests to Protests 24.201.253.252 19:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Iran/Persia

Whilst reading the article on the Persian Empire, I noted that Iran can still be officially referred to as Persia. Is this true? If so, I would use this name to avoid the negative media and political connotations so frequently associated with "Iran" in today's political climate. Gamer Junkie 00:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can use the name. After all it's the same country. --Arad 16:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for answering that. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a defunct name like Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia. Gamer Junkie 17:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Iran International Exhibitions Company on List of Major Iranian Companies

Hi, I have created an article for the company mentionned in the title above and with whom I have NO relationship WHATSOEVER. This article, I realize, has existed before and is a VERY LEGITIMATE Iranian Company. In fact, it is a reputed organization relating to trade with Iran (they are in charge of organizing and facilitating exhibitions with other companies and countries) and it is linked to the Ministry of Commerce of Iran. I have just put basic factual stuff in it, like what they do and where they are located. NO ADVERTISMENT. NONE.

Please note that articles about many many companies exist on Wikipedia and it is ALLLOWED and very admissible, if they keep to the fact. People can also EDIT whenever necessary of course. It is evident here someone is seeking to supress this information which is a symbol of free trade between Iran and the rest of the world and also a very useful article for anyone who wants to commerce with Iran. Also I am wondering HOW COME someone has noticed it was a previously deleted and what the true AGENDA is:

Indeed, I see today, just hours after its creation, that someone with the name Pejman47 has deleted this article and given me a warning by saying it is a "blatant adverstising" (which obviously is NOT the case) and that if I do something like that again I will be blocked. I would like to know if you agree that this Central Iranian International Exhibition Company must be deleted. Thanks for giving your opinion on the article's log page, here. SSZ 00:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Check User tools for Wikipedians

This is a usefull tool to check editors on Wikipedia and their edit history, along with some usefull statistics. This should also improve communication between editors. Simply input the editor's username in the box. See Wikimedia tools website69.116.234.208 03:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

More Demographic Details?

I'm curious about more ethinic/religious demographic details in Iran, especially these questions: Are most non-Muslims in Iran Persians? Are most Sunni Muslims in Iran Persians? Are most Arabs in Iran Shia Muslims? What about the percentages of the Akhbari and the Shaykhi minority Shia subsects compared to the Usooli? --KMF 07:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this Tehran?!

Lamborghinis on Vali Asr ave. and Chamran Highway?[7][8][9]

Sweet. Now Ive seen everything.--Zereshk 08:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Republic

Didn't it become a republic in 1948-1979? If so, we should say that becuase it doesn't mention the year it became a republic.

History of Iranian Revolution

Most of the subsection on the Iranian Revolution in the History section is taken verbatim from the lead of the Iranian Revolution article. I wrote most of that lead and think it is a good introduction to an article on the revolution, in fact I'm a bit proud of it, but is it really what you want for a brief description of the revolution in the context of Iran's history? It doesn't really fit at well as the old subsection and is a bit long considering some editor's here want to keep the subsections short. --Leroy65X 14:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


Notable Iranians

Hi! I added the Notable Iranians section at the very end of the article. I think it's good to have to encourage/inspire Iranians that the sky is the limit for their goals; and as a way of connecting naive people to real Iranians, people that they heard of that they didn't know were Iranians; also that Iranians are not "evil" or belong to this so called "axis-of-evil" crap as spewed from the devil-incarnate. ...Check it out. Tell me what you think. I will be back in a few days to read your responses. Please don't delete it; if you want to delete it then plz let me know ahead of time so I can copy it and make a new page of "Notable Iranians" or whatev. BTW, plz add to the list if you remember another cool, notable Iranian Calypsos 21:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Calypsos

Thanks! Please note that this is Iran`s main page. Nazanin Boniadi and alike are no one to be included next to Rumi, Avecina and Kiarostami! Sangak Talk 19:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

AD vs. CE

I noticed use of both here, I changed what AD:s I could find to CE since that seemde to be prevalent, is there a consesus as to which one should be used on Wikipedia? VMajander 06:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And a few BC:s to BCE... VMajander 06:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)