Talk:Iranian languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iranian languages article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
language Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
WikiProject Iran Iranian languages is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
Iranian languages is part of WikiProject Caucasia, an attempt to better improve articles related to Caucasia and Caucasians. If you would like to participate you can visit the project page.
WikiProject Kurdistan
Kurdistan Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Kurdistan, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Kurdistan-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate.

Happy editing!
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


WikiProject Tajikistan Iranian languages is part of WikiProject Tajikistan, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Tajikistan-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
Iranian languages is part of the WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Central Asia Iranian languages is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang, Tibet and Central Asian portions of Iran and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Turkey
Turkey Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Iranian languages:

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category
This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] some lacking info

This article is lacking the info about which of these languages listed here are the major ones and number of speakers etc.

I am guessing Farsi to be the major language in Iran, but the article doesn't say that.

In English, the correct term to use is Persian, not Farsi. Farsi is the Persian name for the language, and in English, we use the English name for other languages.

In native Persian and other Iranian tongues the term for Persian is 'Parsi' (the uncorrupted form) and 'Farsi' (the corrupted Arabic form). The first term, Parsi is used less often and both forms are accepted. Farsi is what Arab speakers said due the fact that they could not pronounce "P" and replaced it with "F." Another example of words that have two forms is "Polad" and "Folad," which both mean steel in Persian.

also, List of Iranian languages and its various sub-articles should all be merged here. Information from [1] should be included to add historical depth. dab (ᛏ) 21:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


You forgot to add that "polad" is the corrupted persian form, and "folad" is the uncorrupted Arabic form. 213.42.21.156 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Introduction

I've removed the old introduction, which seemed to erroneously suggest that this article is about languages spoken in Iran. This article is about the Iranian language family, which includes languages spoken outside Iran (such as Pashto), but does not include other languages which are spoken in Iran (such as Azeri). The "Origins" section has been made into the intro. john k 6 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)

[edit] Attention please

How someone claimed that the Pashto is an eastern Irani language or sister/mother/brother of Irani Persian language -- The fact is Pashto is as much older as Persian/Irani language is ! For readers benefit see a book "Pashtun" by Syed Bahadur Shah Zafer Kaka Khel -- Pashtun 202.176.229.5 7 July 2005 10:45 UTC)

My dear, do not mix-up "Persian" and "Iranian". Iranian is a language family, like the Romance Languages or the Germanic Languages. It includes many languages, and Persian is just one of them (which is a Southwestern Iranian Languages). When we say "Iranian Languages" it does not have anything to do with the current borders of Iran. It is a cultural term. Pashto, Kurdish, Waxi, Ashkashami, Yaghnobi, Kumzari, Balochi, etc. are also part of the Iranian Language Family and Pastho indeed is an Eastern Iranian language.

[edit] Out of India

The present article seems to reflect the "Out of India" hypothesis. It's likely gonna get brusquely rewritten to reflect the standard view.--FourthAve 21:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Azeri?

First of all, the discussion on Azeri is irrelevant to the article, then, Prof. Yarshater taught in Columbia, not in UCLA.--Khodadad 09:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. The Turkish language arrived quite late to the region, and AFAIK, Azerbaijan has Iranian etymology.--Wiglaf 09:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Although the Azeri information is interesting, it seems that there is more written about that than the rest of the article put together. User:Imperial78|Imperial78]]
Azeri is a Turkic language with strong Persian and Kurdish elements. Ethnically Azeris are Iranian. To say they are Turks is wrong! Those who claim that Azeris are Turks and not ethnic Iranians are also saying that African populations that speak English as their offical language are ethnic Anglo-Saxons too.
Even Turks in Turkey are not considered ethnic Turks by anthropologists because they are a mixed racial type with Slavic, Iranian, Arabic, Greek, Armenia, and other backgrounds. Ethnic Turks are a Asiatic race of the Uralo-Altaic group who are like Siberians and Mongolians.Other peoples that have languages in Uralo-Altaic family are those of Estonia, FInland, and Hungary, but they are all mixed with European populaations. In fact Hingary is named thus in honour of the original Hun invaders who were Asiatic people who mixed with Europeans. Ethnnic Turks are a Mongoloid race. Evidence of this are the peoples of Eastern Turkistan who are clearly Asiatic in appearance.
Many good arguments have been made here that the Azeri people are ethnically Iranian, while the Azeri language being linguistically Turkic (despite some Pahlavi loans). Great. Agreed. This article is about Iranian languages, not Iranian peoples. How about we put the text in question on the Iranian peoples article, and leave a short 2-3 sentence summary on this page? The argument that Azeris are ethnically Iranian seems to perfectly fit on the Iranian peoples page. Please let's compromise here. --jonsafari 06:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree, or rather I'd say the Azeri information can be cut back even more. I very strongly agree that this page should stay on the topic of the linguistic relationships. Racial/ethnic considerations are completely off-topic; it is trivially obvious that linguistic affiliation do not necessarily go together with either biological or cultural/ethnic relations. Equally off-topic is the geographical/political unit of today's state of Iran. Perhaps we should make an even clearer disambiguation statement near the top of the article that this article is about the linguistic family of Iranian languages. It's not about the languages spoken on the territory of Iran, nor about the languages spoken by ethnically Iranian people. If you take that into account, then the Azeri case is just one among many areas throughout SW central Asia where Iranian languages have been replaced by Turkic ones. The only thing that needs to be mentioned here is just this: that Iranian languages had a wider spread before the expansion of Turkic in medieval times, with maybe a brief enumeration of the territories in question. That's completely uncontroversial and doesn't need much space. Those contributors who care strongly about the Azeri thing, I'd ask to read a few other articles in Wikipedia about language families, to see what this type of article is really all about. Lukas (T.|@) 07:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] II.B.1 Persian vs. II.B.3 Farsi

What exactly is the difference between II.B.1 Persian and II.B.3 Farsi in the classification of the Iranian languages section. I fully understand the nomenclature debate; that's not what I'm asking. What I'm wondering is what's the difference between the Persian mentioned in II.B.1 and the Farsi in II.B.3. If there is a difference in this classification, maybe it could be clearer both in this page and in the Farsi disambig page. The same question applies to the Judeo-Tat mentioned in II.A.11 and II.B.2 (in both Northwestern and Southwestern). --jonsafari 07:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

So the language in II.B.3 was actually Fars. Thanks to Imperial78 for clarifying that. Now the only question remaining is why Judeo-Tat appears twice in the classification. --jonsafari 18:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Jon,
I think the best person to ask that is User:Mani1. Unfortunately, he hangs out more on the "Farsi" WP.
However, I think it is important to know that THE FARHANGESTAN (Persian Language and Literature Academy in Tehran), who is the ultimate authority on the language, in their 34th meeting on 7th of December 1992, unanimously passed the resolution that this language must be called PERSIAN (not "Farsi")in English, and the reasons given were:
1- PERSIAN has been used in a variety of publications including cultural, scientific and diplomatic documents for centuries and, therefore, it connotes a very significant historical and cultural meaning. Hence, changing PERSIAN to FARSI is to negate this established important precedence.
2- Changing PERSIAN to FARSI may give the impression that it is a new language, and this may well be the intention of some Farsi users.
3- It may also give the impression that FARSI is a dialect of some parts of Iran and not the predominant (official) language of this country.
4- Fortunately, FARSI has never been used in any research paper or university document in any Western language and the proposal of its usage will create doubt and ambiguity about the name of the official language of our country.
Even though Iranians themselves commonly say "Farsi" in Farsi, it is not correct in English. Hope that helps. BTW, I'll have to resize the image, and then send it to you. It is simply toooo big with its current resolution to send you.--Zereshk 22:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
My question was never about the Persian/Farsi debate. Like I said before, I understand this issue, and my question was never about that issue. The question centered around why both "Farsi" and "Persian" were both in the categorization. Imperial78 answered my question, by fixing "Farsi" to "Fars", a different language altogether, apparently distinct from the Persian language. But thank you for your input. --jonsafari 16:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The Tat languages are Southwestern, so I removed the duplicate. Persian can either mean Farsi proper or the greater group which includes other closely related languages or dialects such as Dari (the official form spoken in Afghanistan), Tajik, Hazaragi, and several others. Is there a better term for the group which includes Farsi, Dari, Tajik, and the others? Imperial78

[edit] Iranian Languages redirect to Languages of Iran

I'm removing the redirect from 'Iranian Languages' to 'Languages of Iran'. There's a HUGE difference between the two, and they should be separate articles. Iranian languages is a specific language group, like Germanic languages (eg. Icelandic). Languages of Iran is the languages found in the country of Iran, like the languages of Germany (eg. Upper Sorbian). This article is about Iranian languages (eg. Pashto), not the languages of Iran (eg. Azeri). --jonsafari 03:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Azeri section does not belong here

There is really too much information about Azeri (a Turkic language) here. At one time that region may have been Iranian speaking, but besides a passing note on that, there is too much detail on this matter on a page of Iranian languages. It needs to be moved to the Langauges of Azerbaijan page. Which there is some of the repeated info here which is there. Imperial78

It needs to be here because otherwise everyone is going to start asking for "proof" and "sources" that Azari is an Iranian language. So we are eventually going to have to add it back in. This debate, it seems, keeps going on in cycles.
The reason the Azeri section seems to much is that we dont have more info on the other sections in comparison.--Zereshk 21:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Azeri is a Turkic language. This is not in dispute no matter which sources you want to quote otherwise. As well, this information on the older languages of Azerbaijan belong on the Languages of Azerbaijan page or maybe even the Pahlavi language page, not on the Iranian languages page. The Azeri info is too specific for a page on Iranian languages as a whole. The Iranian languages page is about the Iranian languages, number, phonology, sound changes, distribution, etc. I will keep removing this information as need be and will take appropriate measures to keep the article to a higher standard of quality. Imperial78
Yes. It is better if we call in the sysops. You cannot censor documented sources that say it is Iranian. Wikipedia specifically has made it ILLEGAL for you to judge sources. You can put it on the Azarbaijani languages article as well. I have no problem with that. But it will also stay here. Even the name Azarbaijan is Iranian.--Zereshk 00:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Your argument is ridiculous and a government sponsored source on languages is not the qualified authority. Sources from linguists who are specialists are. OK, what is the info doing on the Iranian languages page. This information is too specific for Iranian languages. It is not appropriate here. Would the history of the languages of Sri Lanka be appropriate for the Indo-Aryan languages page? This page should be about the Iranian languages in general, not the whole history of the linguistic situation of Azerbaijan. Imperial78

I don't want flame anyone in this flamefest, but I'll just share an experience I had at the International Conference on Iranian Linguistics last summer. After the very well-respected keynote speaker Mohammad Bateni finished his talk and the floor opened up for questions, a poor young man asked him whether Dr. Bateni thought the current languages of Central Asia (excluding Tajik, of course) were Iranian languages (in a similar situation to Azeri). Dr. Bateni said that it was well documented that they were not, but rather Turkic languages from the Altaic family. The young man persisted in his question, stating that Persian had been spoken in Central Asia for many centuries, and the land was under the Persian empire for just as long. Dr. Bateni maintained that he had no doubt that, despite much Persian influence on the current languages of Central Asia (and that there is plenty of Iranian genes still in Central Asia), they were not Iranian languages. A kind man sitting next to the young man "gently" suggested that he sit down and cease with his questions. Anyways, while I think maybe a paragraph discussing the Azeri/Pahlavi relation might be informative, I'm not convinced that the full text in question is appropriate for this particular article. Certainly a different Wikipedia article would be better suited for the full text in question. --jonsafari 04:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry. But I strongly disagree with user:Imperial78 and his attempt to mass delete that section, on 2 counts:

  1. Azeri is Turkic? Fine. But that's not what the passage is about. The passage he is deleting is in fact entirely irrelevant to Azeri. Rather, (save for that one sentence about Dehkhoda), the passage is about the pre-Turkic language(s) spoken by the peoples living in pre-Turkic Azarbaijan. i.e. the passage is talking about the usage of Iranian languages such as Pahlavi before the 11th century in the Iranian provinces of Azarbaijan.
  2. User:Imperial78 is judging the content of the numerous sources in the passage (many of which in fact are Turks themselves). And that is ILLEGAL. WP clearly states:
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It's important to note that "verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research."
The link is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
--Zereshk 06:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, first of all, your use of "ILLEGAL" does not make sense. Is English your first language? No one is disputing that Azerbaijan was Iranian speaking before the coming of the Turkic speakers, but again all of this does NOT belong in the Iranian languages page. If I am to read a well written Encyclopedia article on Iranian languages, I would not expect to find such a detailed description such as yours on the linguistic history of Azerbaijan. Your article belongs in its own page or on the page devoted to the languages (past and present) of Azerbaijan. The Iranian languages page should focus on the development of Proto-Iranian to its daughter branches and then to its daughter languages. The term Iranian languages covers many languages over a very wide geographic region. If you read all other Wikipedia language articles, you should realize that your article is out of place here. For now, I will remove the Dehkhoda quote which is not relevant. As well, in English, we say Azerbaijan typically, not *Azarbaijan. Imperial78
I would not object to a shorter more concise explanation on how certain areas today which are Turkic speaking were once Iranian speaking. Imperial78
Wikipedia "policy" has the force and effect of LAW on these pages. You can get banned for disregarding them.--Zereshk 08:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
First of all, do not try to bully other contributors and threaten them with ridiculous comments. This is neither warranted nor acceptable. As well, thankfully you add "even so" to preface your Dehkhoda comment had you not done so I would have deleted it again. This article is still not fully acceptable, although from my instistance it had been corrected. Although still does not meet the high standards of any linguistic article by any means, but I am tired of dealing with a revert war with you and I invite my fellow linguists to offer further advice. Remember, you do not control this page. The community does and so far I have someone who agrees with me. This is why we have a discussion on pages. You are not the final word. Imperial78
Actually, every single bit of information written there is backed up and verified by Encyclopedia Iranica p239, which has a fully detailed extensive article on the language of Azerbaijan. Hmmm. Maybe I should start expanding that section even more. After all, they clearly even call Azeri an "Iranian language".--Zereshk 21:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
On page 245 in the Encyclopedia Iranica and I quote: "Azeri belongs to the Oghuz branch of the Turkic language family". I read page 238 and I quote, "...indicate that the population of Azerbaijan spoke a major Iranian language, termed Ādarī after the name of the region." I see Adari, I don't see it spelled as Azeri. So I think perhaps you should read your source with more care. Imperial78
Many good arguments have been made here that the Azeri people are ethnically Iranian, while the Azeri language being linguistically Turkic (despite some Pahlavi loans) [2] [3] [4] [5]. Great. Agreed. This article is about Iranian languages, not Iranian peoples. How about we put the text in question on the Iranian peoples article, and leave a short 2-3 sentence summary on this page? The argument that Azeris are ethnically Iranian seems to perfectly fit on the Iranian peoples page. Please let's compromise here. --jonsafari 06:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The Azerbaijani section does not belong here. It is blatently expounding POV. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 12:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Azeri info copied here

Etymological studies verify that the extinct dialects spoken from Baku to Khalkhal to Semnan before 11th century, all originated from a common source. In other words, the people of Azerbaijan spoke the same language spoken by the Medes. (See UCLA's distinguished professor Ehsan Yarshater's report in: Majaleh-ye Dâneshkadeh-ye Adabiyât, “مجله دانشكده ادبيات”, year 5, No. 1-2, p 35–37.)

Researcher Ahmad Kasravi Tabrizi also mentions that the medieval historian Yaqut al-Hamawi used the phrase Al-Ajam ol-Azariyah ("The Azeri Iranian") in his books Mo'ajjem ol-Odabaa and Mo'jem ol Baladaan. In other sources such as Surat al-Ard (صورة الأرض) by Ibn Hawqal, Ahsan al-Taqasim by Moqaddasi, and Al-Masalik wa al-Mamalik by Istakhri, the people of Azerbaijan are recorded to be speaking Iranian languages. Obviously, this was of before the Turkic cultural arrival. And Tabari in 235 A.H. also mentions that poets in Maragheh recited Pahlavi poetry. Some Azerbaijani poets however, such as Qatran Tabrizi (d465 A.H.), used the word "Persian" and "Pahlavi" interchangeably to describe their native language.

The historian Hamdollah Mostowfi even goes as far as describing variants of "Pahlavi" spoken in different areas of Azerbaijan (then part of Greater Persia). In his book Tarikh Gozideh, he describes eight poets from Azerbaijan, calling them Ahl-ol She'r Men-al-Ajam (Iranian poets), all Persian by tongue. By now, of course, Dari and Pahlavi had merged into one, as successive dynasties moved from east to west.

Suffice it to say that the number of records and documents from Azerbaijan in the Pahlavi language are so numerous that it has left no doubt that this was indeed the native tongue of Azerbaijan before the arrival of the Turks. Many words in the current Azeri vocabulary in fact are of Pahlavi origin. (See studies in Nashriyeh Adabiyaat of Tabriz University, by Dr. Mahyar Navabi, year 5 and 6. Also see Farhang e Kamaleddin Teflisi, Ajayeb ol-Makhluqat by Najibeddin Hamadani, and also the books: Majmal-ol-Tavarikh, Al-qasas, Iskandar-Nameh e Qadeem, and others for lists of words.)

It is agreed that the current Turkic form of the Azeri language supplanted and replaced Pahlavi in Azerbaijan before the Safavid dynasty, perhaps starting with the arrival of Seljuk Turks, and during a gradual course. But some historians report Pahlavi being spoken in Tabriz as late as the 17th century. (See Rowdhat ul-Jinan by Hafez Hosein Tabrizi [d997 A.H.], and Risaleh ye Anarjani written in 985 AH). Even the Ottoman Turkish explorer Evliya Çelebi (1611–1682) mentions this in his Seyahatname. He also reports that the elite and learned people of Nakhichevan and Maragheh spoke Pahlavi, during his tours of the region. It should be noted that the old Pahlavi based language of Azerbaijan, is now extinct.

[edit] Dehkhoda and Azari

Since I could not find the claim that The current Azari spoken in Azarbaijan is an Iranian language in the Dehkhoda's Dictionary, I have removed it. Heja Helweda 00:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you like me to show you a scan? (I am Azeri by the way).--Zereshk 01:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, nowhere does Dehkhoda make any claims about "the current Azari language". That's why I used those brackets. I'm sure you know what brackets inserted into a quote mean. Therefore your removal of the source is hence unwarranted. You could have just removed the brackets.--Zereshk 17:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe there was a misunderstanding here. You had added in brackets "the [contemporary] language", right? If by "contemporary" you meant "former", as I now gather from your comments, then I'm beginning only now to see what you were trying to say. I think all the rest of us understood "contemporary" as "current, today" - which made the whole sentence sound utterly nonsensical. The word "contemporary" can have both meanings, depending on context, and in this instance I think it was highly misleading. Lukas (T.|@) 19:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zereshk's additions

A couple of points:

  • The Abdullah Ibn al-Muqaffa quote about the branches of the Iranian languages is currently contained twice. This needs to be cleaned up.
  • If we want to include that quote, we need to make sure its five-way classification is not understood to compete with the modern linguistic classification as given at the bottom of the article. Indeed, where al-Muqaffa speaks of "the Iranian languages", he cannot (in the late 8th century!) possibly mean the same thing as modern linguists mean by that term. The whole concept of language families wasn't developed at that time. This quote needs to be put in context somehow.
  • Once more, about the emphasis on Azerbaijan. Zereshk, several of us have said that we find there is an imbalance here, for giving the discussion of Azerbaijan far too much space. Please understand that this is in no way intended to denigrate the Iranian linguistic history of that area, or to hide it from the readers. Quite to the contrary: the more the article appears to be arguing for the Iranianness of pre-Turkic Azerbaijan, the more it will come across to the unprejudiced reader as some kind of suspicious crackpot POV-pushing. As if there was some hugely important dispute to argue about. Which is entirely unnecessary, as there is really no POV to push: as far as I see, nobody has ever doubted the Iranian pre-history of the area, have they? You need to help us other editors understand why you feel it is so important to prove a thing, when we others all seem to feel it is so obvious it doesn't need a proof, being communis opinio of scholarship.
  • Therefore: What do you feel would be lost, in essence, if we just left out those paragraphs and added something simple along the following lines:
    • "Iranian languages were spoken across a much wider part of south-west Asia than today, before Turkic languages replaced them in some areas. For instance, in Azerbaijan, where today the Turkic language Azeri is spoken, there was a variety of Middle Persion, called Azar by contemporaries. It was replaced by Turkic from the 11th century, but is reported to have survived in some areas until the 17th century." - Add a single reference to your favourite history of Persian, and voilà. What else is needed?
      • Clean-up was performed. Ive also been adding to other sections and expanding the article to address claims that "the discussion of Azerbaijan has far too much space". I plan to continue adding so, until the section in question is but a minor one in several sections.
      • For people whove been around long enough, the reason why the pre-Turkic Azari section is so detailed is clear: Some specific people outright rejected Azarbaijan and its culture and language as being Iranian. The section came as a response to these people who were constantly abusing Wikipedia as a political platform for Azari secession. And they still continue. And on multiple fronts: (note: User:KhoiKhoi himself is Kurdish), and I am Azeri.
      • If veracity is to be judged merely by a matter of voting, I can simply call all Iranian editors to this page. All I have been doing is painstakingly collecting sources and info, which sadly you wish to see deleted, so that we will fall back to square one, and people will start asking for "proof" that Azarbayegan and her culture (language included) are indigenously "Iranian". If people now are accusing us of POV, think of what they would say when you replace that section with a mere paragraph.
I hope I dont sound curt.--Zereshk 01:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, and there is a consensus, the paragraphs about pre-Turkic Azerbaijan do not belong here (as they are now). Maybe I need to explain to you what Iranian languages means in a linguistics context. Iranian languages does not mean "the languages of Iran". It means those languages which share Proto-Iranian as its proto-language. There are many Iranian languages spread across a wide geographical area. Therefore, this page needs to focus on the various Iranian languages such as sound changes they share which make them Iranian, cognates, grammatical similarities, and their current and former geographical distribution. The article has to be more general. The previous reader has a great concise summary of what should be on this page. An analogy would be the Jassic language, an Iranian language of Medieval Hungary. Would five or six paragraphs about Jassic be appropriate for the Iranian languages page? No, of course it would not be. This is not the Jassic page. A few sentence would be fine, but not such a detailed description. The Pre-Turkic Azerbaijan section has been greatly improved, so it should go on a more appropriate page. Wikipedia articles need to be clear, concise, and precise. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. I should be able to look at an article and get the basic information that is relevant. For example, PIE *tr- yields Proto-Iranian θr- yields Old Persian ç-; versus Proto-Iranian θr- yields Avestan θr-...etc. Topics like these. Imperial78.

[edit] Topic of this page (again)

Zereshk, I haven't yet found time to read through all your recent changes, but, I hate to say this, the very first sentence suggests you really haven't understood the topic of this page properly. You write: "Almost every known Iranian language has its roots in a common ancestral Indo-European languages" - Sorry, I don't want to sound rude, but this is nonsense. Every Iranian language has, by definition, its root in Indo-European. You seem still to be thinking in terms of "Iranian language" as meaning "languages historically or culturally associated with Iran". as Imperial78 rightly said, this is not the sense of "Iranian language" that this page is about.

Likewise, in your comments above you talk about "'proof' that Azarbayegan and her culture (language included) are indigenously 'Iranian'". But this page is not about what territories or ethnicities can or should be regarded as culturally associated with Iranianness in whatever sense.

Please please please, when editing this page, just forget about "Iranianness" as a cultural/political/ethnic concept. It just confuses the issues.

This page is about a linguistic sub-family of Indo-European, independently of any cultural/historical/ethnic considerations. The only thing we need to establish is what languages branched off from a certain subset of Indo-European in what order.

If you feel there is an important ethnic/historical dispute about the cultural Iranianness of Azerbaijan, then you should take that to History of Azerbaijan or Languages of Azerbaijan or wherever, but not here.

If, on the other hand, you think there is a linguistic dispute about whether or not Iranian languages (in the linguistic sense of this page!) were once spoken in the area of Azerbaijan, then please point us to the literature where this opposing view is exposed. We can then try to make an NPOV discussion of the dispute, including both your view and the opposing view, the Wikipedia way. If there are no two sides to this, there's no sense in arguing the one side.

We can just state that Iranian languages once covered a large area, including Azerbaijan if you insist, and add one reference to a reputed source explaining this communis opinio. Then, if anybody should really come and challenge that view (which I doubt, because there are really no possible other candidates of languages that could possibly have been spoken in that area before the advent of Turkic!), then it will be their task to bring sources and argue their case.

For the moment, I'd ask you to take a short break from editing the page. Just give the rest of us one or two days time to try and find our way through the chaos of this article. Please understand that I might feel it necessary to remove some of your recent changes. I hope I've made my reasons clear.Lukas (T.|@) 10:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There's actually a not too dissimilar dispute going on at Kurdish people, though going beyond simply language issues. SouthernComfort 18:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

Having had a chance to catch up with this discussion and find out what has been transpiring here, I'd like to make a proposal for a fair compromise. The section in question is important and it is sourced, but as this article fundamentally revolves around a branch of languages and is not intended to cover the history and origins of each language in detail, it should be branched out into its own article - Pre-Turkic Azari language or Pre-Turkic Azari dialect, for instance, or even an article concerning extinct Iranian languages/dialects. The sub-section, as it is here, should be kept, but condensed to a single paragraph with a link to the main article.

It is also important to note that the term "Iranian" in the context used in many WP articles, including this one, does not automatically equal the country of Iran - we are dealing with academic ethnolinguistic definitions, after all, that transcend such political or territorial notions - so the inclusion of the aforementioned information is not at all unwarranted in this article. It just needs to be tightened and branched out into its own article. SouthernComfort 00:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, reviewing this discussion again, it's not exactly clear why the factual accuracy is being disputed since sources have been provided. The dispute appears to revolve around whether or not to include this information in this particular article, rather than anything having to do with accuracy or lack of sources. SouthernComfort 00:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this reasonable approach. I agree that this is not a "factual correctness" dispute. As for moving the material elsewhere, it already is. Most has more or less identically been on Languages of Azerbaijan all along. Somebody could easily merge Zereshk's expanded version we have here now into that article. I agree that it would also be a good possibility to give it its own language page, complete with a nice {{language}} template etc., in accordance with the statement cited here that "the language of Azarbaijan is a branch of the Iranian languages known as Azari". I'd suggest Ancient Azeri language. In that page, this material could occupy a section called "Sources and attestation" or whatever. That page would have to be made accessible through disambiguation notices and links from Azerbaijani people, Azerbaijani language and others. (See Macedonian, Macedonian language and Ancient Macedonian language for ideas on how this can be done technically in terms of dab features, in an ideologically even more hotly debated topic area.) Once we have this page, we can mention and link to it here under the section "Middle Iranian languages", and integrate it under the name of "Ancient Azeri" or "Azar" or whatever into our language tree on this page.
If we want an extra text section on this page, it should be called "Extinct Iranian languages" or something like that. It should briefly sketch the historical process of how Iranian languages were pushed back by Arabic and Turkic, maybe briefly raising the question to what degree that was done through demic diffusion or language shift etc. This section could then simply enumerate a couple of the cases in question.
As I said, there's no need for the whole argumentative material, as the facts of pre-Turkic Iranian Azeri haven't been questioned by anybody (neither by editors here, nor by anybody else as far as I can see.)
Lukas (T.|@) 08:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, Languages of Azerbaijan does cover this area and depending on the amount of information (from the section here) to be included there, it may or may not warrant a separate article. I guess there really wasn't much of a dispute then, as far as validity of content or anything in that vein - I kept wondering about that tag. ;) At any rate, I agree that a section called "Extinct languages" would be a good name since that would provide us with a broader range. Everything sounds fine to me, so we will wait for Zereshk's input and then proceed from there. SouthernComfort 16:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. I got overwhelmed with some deadlines at work.

I think it would be best to let Lukas condense the material on that section of this article, and instead move the entire present section as it is (with any needed modifications) to make it into its own independent article. The name Lukas suggested sounds fine. This way, me and others can easily add to the article, without having to worry about it overshadowing the more general topic of the article. Especially that I focused the discussion on older sources, and have yet to include the more recent ones regarding this topic.

In addition, we can have a non-extended version of this topic be included on the languages of Azarbaijan page with a "See main article: Ancient Azari language" link at the top or end of the section. We can leave Lukas to take care of that as well however he sees fit.

The accuracy tag was perhaps the main reason I came in with such strong opposition. As long as there is an independent article that harbors this information and provides further room for expanding the topic, I think all will be well.--Zereshk 22:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Zereshk. I'm glad we now have a decent consensus to work on. I'll try and work on it tomorrow evening. See you around, Lukas (T.|@) 10:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Family trees

While plodding my way through this article, I noticed that the family tree in many ways duplicates that under List of Iranian languages and its subpages. At the same time, the two trees differ from each other in quite a few respects, which is somewhat confusing for the reader. This is partly due to the fact that the tree here also includes the extinct languages, while those on the other pages don't. Other differences are probably due to more or less fine-grained distinctions under certain sub-branches, and the other pages including more collective names for sub-branches. But there are also some substantial differences.

I've made a sketch of a comparison between both approaches at User:LukasPietsch/Iranian for the moment, and I'd ask anybody with more knowledge of the topic to have a look and see how these can be brought into line with each other.

As a suggestion, I've also sketched a new approach for a tree presentation for here, using a table with separate columns for the Old, Middle and Modern stages of Iranian. I'd suggest to leave out the details of those long lists of modern dialects, and leave that to the List of Iranian languages article, to which we could link as a "main article" from here. Lukas (T.|@) 20:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The language table on the Iranian languages page is accurate and mostly complete although Parthian could as well be placed its own subranch of the NW group. Parsi-Dari = Dari (Yazdi...not Dari of Afghanistan). The Ethnologue's Parsi is a mystery to me. There is a Parsi dialect of Gujarat, but a Central Iranian languages called Parsi which has 320K speakers is a mystery to me. There is not a consensus where Bashkardi falls. Hawrami = Gorani. OK, not sure why you haven't heard of Kirmanjki (one of the Zaza languages...the other being Dimli). Imperial78
Thanks for your comments. I have really no knowledge of all these languages, just take this as a sign of the confusion the average reader will feel on encountering these two versions of the tree. Could anybody take it on themselves to bring them into line? Lukas (T.|@) 09:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The main problem with the List of Iranian languages page is that is doesn't list all of them, just links to other sub-branches. I think a list of Iranian languages should well list them...lol Those pages use a few additional languages from the Ethnologue which I can include here. I am not sure why the Ethnologue uses the term Parsi-Dari. I thought that Parsi was only a term that Zoroastrians used for themselves in India and they speak a Gujarati dialect. Imperial78

[edit] New page

As agreed,

I transferred the material in question to the new page suggested by Lukas: "Ancient Azari language"

I put a link to that page on this article. Lukas can write the "one paragraph" he proposed to accompany the link in that section.

In case the old transferred material is needed (for the Azarbaijani languages article), Lukas can find it by going back to the "page history" section. (so it hasnt really been deleted).

Im happy to see the dispute is solved as well.--Zereshk 06:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luri and Feyli

Feyli is considered a Luri related language, yet the Ethnologue now has it with southern Kurdish. I am not sure where the Ethnologue is getting this information... Imperial78

Feyli isnot equivalent to Luri. It is spoken in Ilam province in Iran and Khanaqin in Iraq.Heja Helweda 05:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Kurdish

Please change the REDIRECT of Southern Kurdish to Sorani, since according to Ethnologue it is wrong. Kurdish has three main dialects: Northern (Kurmanji), Central(Sorani) and Southern(Kolyai, Kermanshahi (Kermanshani), Kalhori, Garrusi (Bijari) Sanjabi, Malekshahi (Maleksh ay), Bayray, Kordali, Feyli, Luri.) Also the page Kermanshahi should be corrected accordingly. Actually Feyli page is correct on this issue, where it is categorized as a southern Kurdish dialect. Heja Helweda 05:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Luri is not a Kurdish dialect. It's more close to modern Persian than Kurdish.

[edit] [No Title]

"pashto" was created from Persian...Persian is much more ancient than Pashto. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dariush4444 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 23 February 2006.

This page should NOT be merged into the Iranian langauges section. This page must remain seperate!!

[edit] Changes

Ok, some people who make changes really do not know or understand naming conventions. There is an Iranian language called Fars spoken in the Fars province which is not Farsi. Please stop confusing this language with Farsi. It is not called Farsi or Pars. In English, we label it as Fars. Also, please use conventional English names for the dialects. They are Persian or Farsi for the Persian of Iran, Dari for Afghanistan, and Tajik for the language of Tajikistan. Having Tajik labeled Tajik (Cyrillic) is ridiculous. Imperial78

[edit] Don't make Edits which are in error

Houshyar, your edits are in error. Please do some research on Iranian languages before you edit this page. Just because you do not know of the existance of the Fars language, do not delete it. Please read up on sources like Compendium linguarum Iranicarum or the Ethnologue. Such edits without justification are little more than vandalism. Imperial78

[edit] New Map Needed

The map is not very accurate and uses spellings which are not the most common ones used for the English language. I will leave it up for the time being, but I will try to make a better one. Imperial78

Ok, sounds good! —Khoikhoi 17:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I added the new map. It could probably have more of the minor languages, but it is an improvement over the old map. Imperial78

Thanks! It looks great. —Khoikhoi 01:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The map is not accurate and has mistakes. For example, there is no need to use different colours for dialectzs of the same language (in case of Persian), while not deviding the Kurdish or Pashtun dialects (the difference between northern-Pashto and southern-Pashto is as big as between Afghanistan's "Dari" and Iran's "Farsi"). "Dari", "Farsi", "Aimaq", "Hazaragi", "Tajiki" ... these are all dialects of the SAME language.
  • The Kurdish area in Turkey is larger.
  • Persian is the predominant language of Afghanistan in the north, in the west, and in all larger cities, except for Qandahar. Claiming that there is no Persian-speaker in Mazar (which, btw, is a Persian-speaking city), is wrong --> map taken from a news-magazine
These mistakes need to be corrected.
Tajik 15:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I will correct some areas, but do not revert to the other map which is riddled with errors. Farsi, Dari, and Tajik are established dialects which the governments of Iran, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan use as designations. Also, the Ethnologue lists them as distinct entries...the line between a dialect and a language is a blurry one. I will make the colors the same, but keep the names. Also, Mazar and some linguistic pockets in the north are Dari speaking, Turkmen is the predominant language in the north in the countryside as this map shows: http://www.gl.iit.edu/govdocs/maps/Ethnolinguistic%20Groups%20in%20Afghanistan.gif Imperial78
Etnolinguistic maps of Afghanistan vary. Here is another one: [6] As you can see, (by area) Turkmen is NOT the predominant language spoken in the north, but Uzbek. By population, Persian is the predominant language spoken in the north, while Pashto dominates the south. Persian-speaking Hazaras and Aimaqs dominate central Afghanistan. And this is probably the most accurate map (published by the Afghan government in 1985): [7]
As for "Tajik", "Farsi", and "Dari", these are different names of the same question. This is not my opinion, but that of Persian scholars and experts. Here is a BBC article about this issue. Scholars from Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, India, Lebanon, and Bahrain agree that the name of the language is "Persian" (="Farsi"), while terms such as "Dari" and "Tajik" are modern political designations. Tajik 22:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you should also edit the Uzbekistan part. Bukhara and Samarqand are both Tajik cities, and the southern parts are also dominated by Tajik-speaking "Sarts" (not necessairily "Tajik" by ethnicity).
I think we should do it based off of this map, as it's a National Geographic map that's fairly recent and reliable. —Khoikhoi 23:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we should use both maps. The one published by the Afghan government is 20 years old, the one of "National Geographic" is not official, but a simple guess. Besides that, Afghanistan's population is usually centered in the larger cities: Kabul or Qandahar may look like "small spots" on the map, but they have larger populations that wide areas in Central- or North-Afghanistan. Kabul's population is 2-4m ... that means ca. 1/6 of Afghanistan's total population. Tajik 23:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Then I agree. :) —Khoikhoi 23:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
It is hard to make a very detailed map. This map is getting to be much better and is about as accurate as it needs to be. For Afghanistan, there are so many languages spoken in various communities that it is very complex and hard to show it on this map since this map shows a larger geographical area than Afghanistan. In any event, non-Iranian languages are shown as white and are not listed on the map, so we need only to concern ourselves with Iranian languages. I will also try to find where more of the Central Iranian languages are spoken. I used Ethnologue maps for Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_map.asp?name=UZ&seq=10 I will make some changes though. Imperial78
You are making a mistake by thinking that the north is dominated by Turkic languages. I am from Afghanistan myself, one part of my family being from the North. The entire north is dominated by Persian, whereelse Uzbek and Turkmen only dominate small pockets in that area. The large cities, such as Balkh, Mazar, Kunduz, etc are dominated by Persian. All in one, Persian is the "lingua franca" of Afghanistan, spoken by at least 40-50% of the nation as mother-tongue.
Ethnologue is not really a "reliable" source, because it is totally based on guesses, sometimes even politically motivated. For example, the numbers for Iran are being changed every year, due to new political events. Right now, Ethnologue claims that there are more Turkish-speakers in Iran than Persian-speakers ... with this, Ethnologue is contradicting ALL other sources. The same goes to Uzbekistan. Ethnologue totally denies the existance of the Tajik people and language in Uzbekistan [8] and thus contradicts all other sources. The map, as it is right now, is not correct and needs to be corrected based on the official data once published by the Afghan government [9] ... BTW: have you ever been at the Iran-Afghanistan border?! You'll hardly find any native Pashto-speaker in that area ... Tajik 00:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
You may or may not be correct, but Wikipedia is based on scholary sources and published work. I just can't go on what people think or what they "know". Unless you have a map published by a good source, I have to use what is published. I have added more central Iranian languages...coming soon. The Ethnologue lists 934,000 Tajik speakers in Uzbekistan, although I do find it odd that it isn't listed under the main ethnic group listings...Government sources are not the most reliable for language maps. That map lists Pashayi, but where is Parachi? Is Farah in Afghanistan a Pashto or Dari speaking city, or mixed. The problem is I see several maps each with much variation in western Afghanistan, the truth is probably somewhere between the National Geographic and Government map, although both maps lack greater detail when it comes to minor languages. Let me work on the map some more. Imperial78
The current map looks good. Thank you. Tajik 16:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Official status

Hello, I added this map [10] to the section which discusses Iranian languages in modern times. I know that probably it is not still accurate, for example because I couldnot show Ossetian on the map. Wirya 17:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Ossetian has official status in North and South Ossetia. Imperial78
I fix it. Wirya 21:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Population

After many searching I could only find these reliable sources: 80 million [11] and 95 million [12]. It looks very low to me. This must be the number of those who speak these languages as mother tongue not those who can speak them. but still it looks very low to me since only Persians, Pashtuns and Kurds (40 +40 +30 = 110) are more than 100 million. Those who can speak Iranic languages (Iranians, Afghanis, Tajiks, Kurds outside Iran and Pashtuns of Pakistan => 70 + 30 + 7 + 20 + 28 = 150 reach at least 150 million. The exact number in my opinion 200 million. Wirya 21:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian or nevertheless Eranish?

I ask myself why the term Eranish (of the middle-persian Word "Eran", it is the same meaning has as "Iran") not succeed could not, otherwise there would not be today this confusingnesses. --200.130.15.10 12:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map is original research

All,

The Map Image:Moderniranianlanguagesmap21.PNG which has been presented in this article as fact, is an original research work by User:Imperial78. It needs to be specified that the map is not sourced, and is instead a user-created illustration.--Zereshk 02:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Khorshid 02:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It is not original research. It comes from various maps that were posted in discussion and the Ethnologue. I have never been to that part of the world, so it is not original research. I had to collect many academic sources to create the image: Ethnologue, National Geographic, Encylopedia Iranica, Linguarum Iranicarum, the Government of Afghanistan maps. The sources are all listed in discussion. So, this is not original research. We are allowed to to create images for wikipedia; we cannot use maps which are others'. If we were to follow your lead to the word Zereshk, we could not include any image on Wikipedia since all would be user-created and therefore original ion that sense. Every map on Wikipedia is user created, but not from original research. There is none of my research in the map. I have never been to Yazd, Natanz, or the Pamir. I go by the sources. Imperial78
But we have your word only. especially with some regions there are big mistakes that others talked about like with Khuzestan where it wouldnt be easy to provide accurate picture since there are more than one or two dialects/languages. I think it is better to use reliable map from source or no map. Khorshid 06:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, i know that Imperial actually asked the advice of various people including Tajik and tried to get it right. Perhaps people could explain what's wrong with the map so that it can be changed with references. I think that might allay some worries if the map has its sources listed as well. Otherwise, it'd be a shame to see the map go as it is more comprehensive than the previous map. Tombseye 06:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I also used this map for Iran: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iran_peoples_82.jpg Again, I am not using original research, where you claim errors as in Khuzestan, I find a map made by linguists that show the opposite. I am actually quoting and using academic sources. Please include a map and resources that support your claims. Imperial78
I think that is an old map from 1982? when the war was going on. I dont know what source they used but must have been from before revolution and whats strange is that it shows the whole province as being arab when north of ahvaz is non-arab and there were (are) persian (farsi) speakers in south (ahvaz, abadan, khorramshahr) as well. i cant say who was majority in those places back then because shahs government did not do such a count back then. when war started everyone left except for some arab peoples. less than 3% of iran is arab and from this map it shows that almost all of khuzestan, which is a big province is arab. there are even kurdish dialects in khuzestan and the map doesnt show it there. if you check Arabs of Khuzestan ethnologue shows only 1,200,000 arabs in khuzestan and another one says only 500,000 and amir taheri reports that less than 40% of khuzestan is arab.
my opinion is that this is a problem and political issue and because we cant choose which one is certain it is better not to have this kind of map unless you can provide more than one version. Khorshid 09:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
My suggestion is that according to their respective groups choose similar colors for closer languages; e.g. according to being among northwestern or southwestern groups etc. (Look at colors and languages in this map)
BTW imperial the same mistake which first was with Persian group and its dialects now is with Kurdish group, for example Laki IS a Kurdish dialect (See ethnologue) but it is shown in different. Also some other smaller groups which are at least in the northwestern group and are believed by many scholars to be among the Kurdish group (see Britannica, entry for Kurdish language) have very different corlors.Wirya 09:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I have made some edits as per discussion. I have also included all of my sources for the map. Khorshid, again you are making claims about the map of Iran, yet you do not provide any counter sources or another academic map to counter it. This academic map shows most of Khuzestan as Arabic speaking. I have included Khuzestani Persian spoken in the major cities (Abadan, etc.) Wikipedia is not about personal research as you say and my map is based only on the sources available which are all of an academic nature. Only improvements can be made by discussion here and the map can only be improved with further input from users. Imperial78

We can go on and on discussing how thruthful is one claim in one region by a particular source or another. I'm not saying lets not use Imperial's map. Im saying that at least it should be labeled in the caption that the map is a creation of a Wikipedia user.

Indeed some of the info on that map is outdated, and belongs to reports from the early 20th century. For example, Quchan actually has a Turkish majority, not Kurdish as his map shows. And the Arabs of central Iran have all long been Persianized.--Zereshk 15:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk, the argument is not over what is truthful, but what is accurate. If anyone does not think the maps or its sources are accurate, you must have other academic maps or sources to counter them. Using arguments, like "well during the Shah's time", or "well, the data over 100 years old" do not any way help if you not have any sources to back up your claims. I made more changes in colors and added a few fixes. Imperial78
You tell me you want source and I gave it to you. Ethnologue says only 1,200,000 arabic-speakers in Khuzestan out of over 4 million people in province. CIA reports only 3% of Arabs in Iran and not all of them in khuzestan! See links on Arabs of Khuzestan. your map is wrong. i vote that it should be removed since he wants to use outdated map (from 1982!!!! it still shows soviet union!!!). Khorshid 16:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
also not everyone in khuzestan speaks persian! what about lori (lors and bakhtiars), kurdish (laki)?! whole north of khuzestan is majority non-arab! and major cities in south (abadan, ahvaz) are majority persian-speaker. all modern source reveal this. so what are you talking about?! you say wikipedia is not about personal research but your map IS personal research not based on facts. Khorshid 16:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Farsi speakers live in he major cities of Khuzestan, such as Abadan, Abadan itself has nearly 1,300,000 people, yet Abadan is just one city, so even though Arabic speakers are not the majority of Khuzestan, they may geographically be more wide spread. Also, just because the map is from 1982, it does not mean it so outdated to be used as a source. From the many sources, the linguistic situation in Iran has not drastically changed from 1982. Speakers of some of the smaller languages have diminished, and there are a few shifts, but overall from every source I have read, the map is accurate. Also, you should avoid the "!!!!", screaming is not productive. Also, you quote a wikipedia article, yet again you do not use any academic sources for your claims which you cannot do on wikipedia. Also, the maps shows northern Khuzestan as Luri speaking, etc.Imperial78
The article has links to sources! You say you used ethnologue and ethnologue says only 1,200,000 arabic speakers in khuzestan. i am adding pov tag. Khorshid 16:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
and cia is not academic???? your POV! Khorshid 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I have listed various academic sources which state what is spoken where and populations. Until you come up with other academic sources with actual maps. We can take this to others in Wikipedia and see what they think. Again, list some sources before you start flaming others here. Your own source for Khuzestan Arabs on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iran_ethnoreligious_distribution_2004.jpg This map even conforms to the map I have created from sources. You also create arguments which do not make sense. Yes, Arabs are 1,200,000 of Khuzestan, yet the Khuzestan article on wikipedia states that Farsi speakers tend to only in the major cities, those major cities do not geographically consist of the majority of the territory of Khuzestan. The map does not show population numbers, it shows geographic distribution. Can you show me a CIA map of the ethnic and linguistic distribution of Iran? As of yet, you still have not quoted any sources to support whatever claims you are making. Again, wikipedia is about quoting sources and using sources for articles. I have followed the guidelines. The map I created is simply based on those sources and not from an agenda or trying to have it what I think it should be. So please keep the ad homimens and straw men away from the discussion. Imperial78

Nonsense (meaning the original accusation of OR). The map is not very good (with apologies, to Imperial, I find it ugly), but it is directly based on reliable sources. So it could be more detailed? -- {{sofixit}}. I invite Zereshk to draw a better (nicer, more detailed) map, based on [13], Jost Gippert's map (Gippert is professor at Freiburg University and his map certainly qualifies as an academic source; it is, in fact, just a copy of similar maps found in the Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum and other publications). Drawing a map is work. Slapping templates on articles is not. I will remove the template pending serious collaboration (such as the upload of a nicer counter-map). dab (ᛏ) 13:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have drawn Image:Iranian_languages_distribution.png now, entirely based on Gippert's map; it is less detailed, but I daresay nicer, and preferable as a thumbnail for use in the infobox. I will gladly send the layered version to anyone who likes to improve it, viz., include greater detail according to Gippert. dab (ᛏ) 16:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
contra - the map contains mistakes and short-commings (i.e. certain smaller languages are left out; the map differenciates between "Dari" and "Farsi", but not between "Pakhto" and "Pashtu" or between the Kurdish dialects; the areas in Uzbekistan are marked as "Eastern Iranian" while in fact Persian - a Western Iranian language - is the main Iranian language in Uzbekistan; etc) Tājik 17:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
not the case. see User_talk:Tajik#Iranian_languages_map. The map has a source, and I don't see any "E Iranian" areas in Usbekistan: the darker yellow (Dari/Tajiki) marks the close relation to the brighter yellow Farsi. If you insist, we can make the two yellows even more similar to imply extremely close relationship. As for minor languages: it's a thumbnail. Add more labels yourself if you want a larger map displayed in the article body. dab (ᛏ) 17:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

instead of engaging in an edit-war with Tajik (talk · contribs), let me pose the question to the other editors: which map at 300px thumbnail size (for the infobox, not precluding a larger map in the body) is (a) more informative, (b) conveys E/W subgroupings at a glance and is (c) aesthetically superior (leaving aside matters of WP:CITE, and my offer to Tajik that he can have the layered version to assimilate the tones of yellow to his liking):


exhibit A


exhibit B

Add to this that for many entries in (A), I am unable to find a reference to in any of the sources linked from its image page. dab (ᛏ) 17:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the detailed map in a "Distribution" section at a width of 800px so that the labels are legible. However, even apart from issues of citing sources, it is impossible to argue about the accuracy of the areas indicated because no geographical features are visible. I tried to underlay a map, but the drawing seems oddly sheared, at least I couldn't figure out what map projection it is supposed to be. It should really be redrawn. dab (ᛏ) 21:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If this map is supposed to be only a thumbnail, then maybe you should take out the colors and use only one for all Iranian languages spoken in the area (the map still contains mistakes, especially in Central Asia and Pashtun areas) or maybe two (Eastern/Western Iranian languages). The other map is better, more detailed, and more accurate ... it should be used in the article. Tājik 21:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
That's a strongpoint that the map differentiates between the languages through their respective branch, i.e. with different colours, like northwestern being in green or southwestern being in yellow. But unfortunately there are some small mistakes in the map. The Kurdish area totally embraces the Gurani region which actually remains as a small enclave surrounded by Kurdish-speaking area. The other problem is with the parts of East/West Azerbaijan, and Kurdistan provinces which are shown as Persian-speaking area, this is in no way accurate. A very updated and accurate map of languages spoken in Iran can be seen here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/06/iran_maps/html/default.stm
I hope it helps. Thank you.Wirya 22:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caption for Iranianlangofficial.png‎

Should the Iranianlangofficial image be removed? One would think many more countries should be red since Iranian languges lack official status in almost all of the world's nations. Perhaps the red is really only where they are banned? I don't know, the caption is confusing.

I agree, it is a little bizarre. The banning of Iranian languages is not mentioned anywhere else in the text. In fact, I do not know of any country where Iranian languages are the subject of an official ban. Can someone please alter the caption accordingly?
87.6.113.151 09:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map

Dbachmann's map is better and more accurate. It also surprisingly includes clear label of "Pamir"! That is incredible because I could not even see that on the previous map. Pamir is extremely obscure so it is important that we see this. Khorshid 22:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Dbachmann's map is based on an older version which was deleted because it was wrong. It misses improtant details while - on the other hand - it totally exeggerates the geographical distributions of Persian and/or Pashto in Afghanistan, even contradicting the official data of the Afghan government. Tājik 01:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I would rather have Dbachmann's map than Imperial78 which is also inaccurate. I am removing until the problems I have described before are corrected and not ignored. Khorshid 07:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
My map is based on academic books, academic online sources, and academic maps. The other map has no such sources. Imperial78
Your map is not academic at all and is grossly inaccurate. And as Dbachmann has stated, it is unreadable. Khorshid 02:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I have listed all of the academic sources and these comply with wikipedia. Yet none of you have ever given an academic source for support of whatever map you want to use. Until you give a map with academic sources, you cannot really have an argument, especially on wikipedia. Imperial78

The other map is not accurate either. Pakistan, for example, does recognize Persian as an "official language", although it is spoken by a tiny minority. In fact, Pakistan's national anthem (Qaumi Tarana) is in Persian and not in Urdu. See image:

Qaumi Tarana lyrics
Qaumi Tarana lyrics

Tājik 13:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exaggerating

Please stop exaggerating claims! There is no way there are 150-200 million native Iranian speakers in the world, so I changed that number to 71 million (as stated in the source). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.155.245.181 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 21 August 2006.

You misread the source. It says that there are 71 million native speakers of Persian (aka Fārsi). As you can see, Persian is one out of the 84 Iranian languages today. —Khoikhoi 03:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map of Iranian Languages

Some consider the south-east region (Khuzestan) as a non-Iranian language region. Actually, on 8'000'000 people in Khuzestan, only 1'000'000 are arabs (and arabs of Iran that means they speak persian, they only speak arab at home), the rest is Persian with a little bandari accent (there is an accent in each region of Iran so we can't consider it as a language).

So, I replaced the map of the Iranian Languages.

I put http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iranian_Languages_%2C%2C.jpg


in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_languages —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bozorg (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 January 2007.

There are several problems with your map. For example, it makes the claim that Iranian Azerbaijan is mostly inhabited by Persians. The majority population there are actually Azeris, who speak a Turkic language. For a good reference you might want to see this map of ethnolinguistic groups in Iran. The map in this article seems to mostly correlate to it. Khoikhoi 02:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table of Iranian languages Errors

Hmmm not seeing how to edit this. There are some errors, as Old Persian three is not θe, but çi, as *θr- yields ç- in Old Persian *-s- yields -θ- in Old Persian, etc. Also, the language is called Parthian, not Parthian Pahlavi. Azalea_pomp

[edit] Identification of Iranian Language in linguistics

Does anyone know how an Indo-european language is considered as an Iranian language sub-group? Suppose a new Indo-european script/language has been found somewhere, so what are the criteria that make that language Slavic, Iranic or Hittite (for example). I know this could be very technical issue,but just few common tips if anyone knows. Sohanaki 13:20, 2 Feb 2006

Several shared innovations (sound changes especially but also lexicon and grammar) are what is used in determining subgroups of language families. If a new Indo-European language is discovered, then it would be compared to the other language family subgroups to determine which branch it is closest to or in fact if it is a new branch of Indo-European. There would have to be a lot of data to determine this though. azalea_pomp

Thank you azalea_pomp. Sohanaki 20:10, 3 Feb 2006

[edit] Some linguist use and used also "eranian"

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:80AhvYEkBgAJ:www.lingue.univr.it/documenti/OccorrenzaIns/matdid/matdid308857.pdf+eranisch&hl=de&gl=de&ct=clnk&cd=3&lr=lang_de&client=ie

Of a german book of the 19. Century:

"Die Darwinsche Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft. Offenes Sendschreiben an Herrn Dr. Ernst Häckel, a. o. Professor der Zoologie und Director des zoologischen Museums an der Universität Jena von Aug. Schleicher Weimar: Hermann Böhlau 1863"

Es zweifelt Niemand mehr daran, dass die ganze Sippe der indogermanischen Sprachen, indisch, eranisch (persisch, armenisch u.s.w.), griechisch, italisch (lateinisch, oskisch, umbrisch sammt den Tochtersprachen des ersteren), keltisch, slawisch, litauisch, germanisch oder deutsch, also eine Sippe, die aus zahlreichen Arten, Unterarten und Varietäten besteht, von einer einzigen Grundform, der indogermanischen Ursprache, ihren Ausgang genommen hat; dasselbe gilt von den Sprachen --Meyman 21:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some facts (though not necessarily linguistics)

Yes according to a popular theory Croats belive that they stem from ancient Iranian tribes (Sramathians most probably), the same theory says more or less that also Serbs and Bosnians are from this tribe. see this http://www.magma.ca/~rendic/chapter1.htm there dozens of srticles and books about this. A Romanian friend also once told me that there is a theory that the ancient Dacians of Romania were Iranians. I have not read it anywere but it makes sense, because as Ukraine (Scythia) was an Iranian land and they were also found in the Balkans so Romania most probably has been too. Also remember when Darius went to fight with the Scythians (Iranians) he crossed Danube (the border between the contemporary Bulgaria and Romania), while if there were no Scythians (Iranians) in Romania, then he could attack the scythians Via Central Asia or the Caucasus! He also pointed to some artifacts of Dacians which resembled those of Scythians. Anyway. Another people who you should not forget are the Jaszy of Hungary. As the name suggests they are releated to the Ossetians. In fact they are Alans who entered this region (Central Hungary). They have already forgotten their language but are still or (were for a long time) aware of their ethnicity. It is debated whether or not Armenians are Iranians. The Armenian language is very close to the Iranian languages. Things are similar which could not be said that they are taken over from (other) Iranian languages. Most probably Armenian is a separate branch of the Iranian languages (next to the west eg. persian, Kurdish etc... and East eg. Ossetian, Pamir etc...). Addinf to that the Armenian aristocracy and kings have been of parthian origins. So You can consider them as Iranian peoples or not. Most Armenians however do not like to be related to Iranians and a lot I have encountered are very hostile to Iranians. The main reason is the religiosu difference, not knowing that Ossetians (who do not deny their Iranianness)are also Orthodox Christians. Having said this Georgians who are a Kartvelian people have assimilated many ossetians (Alans) in them. Moreover the georgian ancient kings and aristocracy have been of Parthian origins too. So maybe you can only mention this without listing it. Babakexorramdin 12:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the map

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iranian_Language_Status.png

Kurdish is an official language in Iraq now. The map should be corrected. Also the page oon Iraq needs correction.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grouping Iranian and Indic together is based on solid grounds.

Grouping Iranian and Indic together is based on solid grounds. The affiliation between Iranian and Indic is not a solid one. It is as strong as each are with Slavic and Baltic. (All are Satem languages, and honestly Baltic shows strong resemblance with Sanskrit). The only fact which led the linguist to construct the Indo-Iranian (hypo)thesis was the fact that vestan and Sanskrit were similar, but that was not surprising because we did not have as ancient languages in either Baltic or Slavic. Moreover It is funny to speak of Indo-Aryan for Indic, when one avoids the usage of Aryan (proper) for Iranian --Babakexorramdin (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

See relevant discussion at Talk:Indo-Iranian languages. –jonsafari (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] The New Map

Well, the new map looks a lot nicer, but it needs to be fixed. It needs to include the Central languages somehow. How does one edit a map like this? Azalea pomp (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wtf is semnani? Frst of all semnanis speak a Persian dialect and the Mazandaranis and gilakis can be considered subgroups, the same goes with the lors, am tired of this anti Iranian/Persian bullsh1t from you facist idiots that have no lives.

Get that stupid map out of here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.142.110 (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)