User talk:Zereshk/Archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] the box template thingy

Greetings,

1. About the Univ. of Tehran template, I was wondering that why is it then OK for other schools to be using their school logos on their user boxes? See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/United_States

2. If they are all wrong as well, then at least can I use this image in the box template? :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UT1.jpg

and btw, I dont know if it is appropriate to put a fairuse tag on this one, since the emblem is over 1000 years old. No one has a copyright on it, even if it is claimed by Tehran University as a logo.--Zereshk 01:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

According to policy, no fair use images are allowed in userboxes. This is violated by quite a few, and ugly things (RFC's, among others) have sprung out of it. The second image should be OK there, as it isn't really copyrighted (old image, reproduction is still PD according to Template:Pd-art). --Wikiacc (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persian arts template

{{Persian arts}} Smack just made this new template.As you can see, it's quite plain. It would be nice if it were widened a bit, a pleasant background color chosen, and perhaps a bit of ornament applied to the top. Is that something you would want to do? Zora 22:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

How about the Faravahar for the top? SouthernComfort 09:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, now it's way too wide (shouldn't be more than 150 px, imho) and picture is too detailed. Just a scrap of arabesque ornament would do ... Zora 01:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Wow great work on the template. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Hi Zeresh, it's lovely, and I'd say it's definitely your own work. That's just my opinion, of course: you've experienced how difficult some people can be over these issues. But I think anyone would be hard-pressed to object to this. Thank you for creating it! ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian languages

Great work on the image. I reduced the size a bit for the aesthetic flow of articles. As for the language issue, I'm going to have some more time on my hands (I've been busy cleaning up the Khomeini article) so I'll see what I can find to add to the article and try to catch up on the discussion there. SouthernComfort 11:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, for the image, you may wish to simply use the plain image (made a bit brighter perhaps) when you have time to do so, if others prefer just an image. I think it looks fine the way it is now, though. SouthernComfort 12:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khomeini and "Living In Hell"

Have you read this book, "Living In Hell" [1] by Ghazal Omid? She makes a lot of controversial claims about Khomeini (including his so-called "Indian" heritage), but I find most of it to be of dubious quality. She also happens to be Abadani. ;) SouthernComfort 12:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:San Antonio downtown.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:San Antonio downtown.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
Not to worry. I will replace it with an equivalent image of my own taking.--Zereshk 22:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primary originator of velayat-e-faqih?

There was a work that came out long before Khomeini that originated the doctrine, which he later expanded on. The title and author escapes me at the moment, however. Do you have any details on this? SouthernComfort 14:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, have you noticed that the Persian WP is severely lacking in information concerning Iranian subject matter when compared to English WP? Very odd. SouthernComfort 21:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

English WP is definitely more important in the long run, especially considering the regime doesn't seem to censor English-language sites as much as they do Persian-language ones. I was hoping though that there would be more information on the Persian WP to transfer here, but I guess not. :)
As for VF, on the Waliyat_al-faqih disambig page (which Striver started), there is someone listed named "Saleh Najaf-Abadi" who is also connected to the doctrine, so perhaps he is the one, but the name doesn't sound familiar and it's currently a red link. I'll make a few queries and see what turns up.
If you want to see something really absurd, check out the edit history of Freddie Mercury. Some anon has been trying to add a link and his own personal opinions, within the article, to a dispute (in his own mind, I guess) concerning Mercury's Iranian ancestry. I cannot believe that there would actually be someone who would dispute that Parsis are actually of Iranian descent. And thus it continues. ;) SouthernComfort 23:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures, anyone?

I visited Iran this past summer and was curious if the article needed any more images (I have Persepolis, Shiraz, tombs of Sa'adi and Hafez). Please let me know if these images are needed. Do you have an email address I could send them to; I don't have an account on Wikipedia.

Opening an account on Wikipedia is very easy. You just need an email address and maybe one or two more questions.
If you took the pictures yourself, and you agree to release the pictures under GFDL (GNU) terms, then please send those pictures to me, and I will upload any that we already dont have onto Wikipedia. Youre doing wikipedia a great help! My email is nima53@yahoo.com
Thanks :) --Zereshk 04:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You got it !

Awesome !, I made these two check it out

This user is interested in Ancient Iranian Civilization
This user is interested in the Sassanian Dynastic Empire.

Amir85 12:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So?

Okay! So where should I send the pix?

[edit] Classic Rock

Hello. I was wondering if you would like to participate in my classic rock survey. I'm trying to find the most like classic rock song. There is more information on my user page. Hope you participate! RENTAFOR LET? 02:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What the?

I thought we'd reached some level of userstanding that you were not going to violate Iranian copyright on Wikipedia and I was going to not nag you about it. What am I missing about Image:Persian_art_collage.jpg which makes it consistent with my above thoughts? --Gmaxwell 21:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persian Arts image tag

Greetings,

Im not sure if I put the right tag on this image: Image:Persian art collage.jpg

Please advise.--Zereshk 23:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That's tricky. The image seems to be fine GFDL, with the exception of the painting in the background. I'd suggest finding an older (PD) painting with a similar look, and using that instead. Sampling (especially for artistic purposes) is allowed by copyright law, but would probably fall under fair use, invalidating the purpose of the image.
See what you can find. —Wikiacc • 23:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I can do as you say, no problem of course. But I am wondering: considering that we are displaying it inside the Persian Arts Box at a 150px width, what if I re-upload a shrinked down version of the entire image from its current size to 150 px? Will the radically reduced size/resolution validate its use under a GFDL (or any other retainbale) tag?--Zereshk 23:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I'd think if the image was shrunk so that no discernable unique traces of the painting are left, copyright could not be claimed on that part; however, IANAL, so it may in fact still be copyrighted. Ask some of the folks at WikiProject Fair Use, who have more expertise on the topic. —Wikiacc • 20:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent articles

Khasteh nabashi agha. I'll try to find time to help copyedit and add to the articles you've been working on, though I think everything is shaping up very well so far. You might want to check the Iran-Germany article though - new user called "Takbir" (!) deleted an entire intro paragraph (POV?). I've got a problem with a new user/anon as well on the Montazeri article who doesn't seem to like the man. If they're not anti-Khomeini, they're pro-Khomeini. Wonderful. The difficulty is in trying to keep everyone happy, which quite frankly is impossible.

As for the Kurdish issue, I am quite content to uninvolve myself until I can gather Western academic references (of which there are many) that classify the Kurds as an Iranian people but that's going to take me time, and so far I'm the only one who has offered to do so, so there's no rush. ;) The Azari issue is far more complex and contentious, IMHO. In a similar vein, you might want to check out what's been going on at Safavids, which I am also quite content to stay out of for the time being until I can gather references on my own that would hopefully clarify the issue one way or another, though it would appear that most Western sources prefer to leave the issue of their ethnic background ambiguous. I'll also check out that link you gave me. SouthernComfort 15:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Check out the Columbia and Britannica references I provided at Talk:Azerbaijani people. I don't know if that will be helpful at Iranian languages. SouthernComfort 17:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see Azerbaijani people - unfortunately Tajik has chosen to engage in a revert war. I cannot help but assume that there is anti-Azeri bias behind this. SouthernComfort 21:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Azerbaijani people

Could you please take a look at Azerbaijani people and Safavids? Some people do not understand the rules of WP. Could you please tell them that ignoring sources won't make their version right. My opinion: SouthernComfort pushing for pan-turkist propaganda ... Tajik 22:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian languages dispute

Hi Zereshk, I'm sorry if I've given you the impression of stubbornness and of not understanding your position. In fact, I think I understand it quite well now, but I have the strong feeling you weren't understanding mine. But be that as it may - what's gonna happen now? We can of course "agree to disagree". But that will mean I'm going to act on the consensus with all the other editors (Imperial78, Jonsafari, -Ril-, and presumably SouthernComfort), and eventually go ahead deleting that material.

So, the choices are:

  1. I wait while you continue to argue your case on the talk page.
  2. I wait while we go to an Article RfC or Mediation.
  3. I go ahead and you silently accept it.
  4. Outright edit-war.

I'm open to all four options, just let me know which it's going to be. Lukas (T.|@) 09:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hadith about Mahdi

By any chance do you know the specific hadith (if it even exists - I'm assuming this is valid) which states that every believer will meet the Mahdi at least once in their lives, but will not know it is him (i.e. he will appear as a person of humble or modest background)? SouthernComfort 20:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Have uploaded a more suitable IMAGE for General Zahedi!

Hi Zereshk, kindly help putting the very informative and expressive Image of Fazlollah Zahedi, which I uploaded as a replacement for the small one you had provided, in place, i could not manage. THANK YOU!!Pantherarosa 01:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Khuzestan

Check out Talk:History of Khuzestan. Same old story. SouthernComfort 08:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afghanistan

-Zereshk, this is Afghan Historian from the Music of Iran discussion page. I've been doing a lot of reading on Afghanistan, and I'm trying to decide whether it is an area of mixed Iranian/Indo-Aryan (Indian) culture and influence or a predominantly Iranian are with Indian influence through Buddhism. Most books mention its ties to South Asian Hindu kingdoms as well as to Iranian peoples. I want to know your view, as you said you were interested in Iran and its sattelite nations of Kurdistan, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan. I would appreciate it very much. -[[Afghan Historian 20:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)]]

[edit] Montazeri

If you could take a look at the Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri article - "Harrysldn" keeps removing the man's title and honorific, as well as inserting misinformation. Maybe he'll listen to you. ;) SouthernComfort 21:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Provided?

On Image:Nadershahtomb.jpg, it was noted that the image was provided by you. As "provided" can be an ambiguous term (proved by your past conflicts over such terminology with Roozbeh), I was wondering if you would clarify: did you take the picture? If so, get a Commons account (if you don't already have one) and edit the description page at commons:Image:Nadershahtomb.jpg to note that you took the picture. If not, give the source; if the image is not free, it will have to be re-uploaded here and deleted there (as Commons does not accept fair use). Thanks. Wikiacc ( | ∞) 23:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

I couldn't find any pics for our lady noble prize winner but I think someone else did. Anyway If there is any need for me to get involved with the edit wars, you can always let me know. Ba sepaas, --Kash 00:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Free Iran --Kash 12:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey! I want to put this box on my page, but was wondering if there is a possibility that it might be offensive to some people. What do you think? Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, it's amusing that on this talk page, an anonymous editor first declares "Arash!!! is that an Indian name...let me guess.. I think its is." and then continues with his indophobic rant. Maybe you can drop in a line or two to enlighten him on Iranian names. deeptrivia (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ok

The photo is from 1954, so pretty much pre 1970! GhorbanatPantherarosa 03:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cool Box!!

Sorry it took so long to reply, but I've been kind of busy. I saw the User Box on Iranian Rock that you created, its awesome!! --(Aytakin) | Talk 19:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Montazeri again

Do you think this sentence is accurate: Following a decision illegally made by the Assembly of Experts (Majles-e-Khobregan), Montazeri was designated to be Khomeini's successor as supreme leader, while there was no successorship in the constitution. I'm not too sure about this. How could Montazeri's appointment to the successorship actually be "illegal" when the Khobregan is part of the regime itself? SouthernComfort 23:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

And wasn't Montazeri appointed to be the next Faqih by Khomeini himself, and then confirmed by Khobregan? Hope you can help clarify this. Khayli mamnoon. SouthernComfort 23:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

As a curious sidenote, I can't quite figure whether this editor ("Harry"!) is pro or anti-Montazeri, or pro or anti-Khomeini. Or perhaps neither. Always interesting. SouthernComfort 23:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turan

Can you look up "Turan" in the Dehkhoda dictionary? In Turkic peoples, it is defined as meaning "dark" but I believe it has the opposite meaning of "Iran." And if I am not mistaken, it was the ancient Iranian term for the Turkic peoples of Central Asia, yes? SouthernComfort 01:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] VFD

Misconceptions about the Shi'a is in a AFD, see the Shi'a Guild:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam:The_Shia_Guild#Academic_Bias_against_The_Shia

--Striver 11:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khuzi, Azeri, Abdullah Ibn al-Muqaffa, and Ibn al-Nadim

Hi Zereshk, I'm preparing some of the rewriting we talked about the other day on Talk:Iranian languages, and I stumbled across the quotes from Abdullah Ibn al-Muqaffa and Ibn al-Nadim you included. I have a few questions for clarification before I proceed. Posting this here instead of on Talk:Iranian languages because my questions span different topics:

  • You quote Ibn al-Muqaffa's classification of the "Iranian languages". However, the exact same quote is also used on several pages dealing with Khuzestan and Elamite (I assume it was also you who introduced it there?) There, it is used to argue for a late survival of the Elamite language, implying that by "Khuzi" Ibn al-Muqaffa actually meant Elamite (which obviously is not an "Iranian" language in our sense). Now, this strikes me as self-contradictory. Either Ibn al-Muqaffa was using the term "Iranian languages" in the sense of "languages used within the Iranian cultural/political area", in which case he might have subsumed a language like Elamite under that term; but in that case the quote only confuses and doesn't belong on Iranian languages. Or he was using the term "Iranian languages" in a (pre-)linguistic sense as "languages similar to Persian", in which case he cannot possibly have been thinking of Elamite (which was linguistically so radically different that nobody could have mistaken it as a form of Iranian); rather, he would have been thinking of the regional Iranian dialects spoken in that area at his time. So, I don't see how that quote could possibly be relevant to both topics.
  • Therefore, could you please check your literature whether there is in fact anybody in the secondary, modern linguistic literature who believes that Elamite could have survived into Ibn al-Muqaffa's time, and that by "Khuzi" he was referring to that langage rather than to a form of Persian/Iranian? (Incidentally, I think these kinds of interpretatory difficulties are just the reason why Wikipedia policy warns against the use of primary sources and says we should base our texts on secondary sources in order to avoid OR!) - Please note that this question is not answered by stating that the name "Khuzi" is believed to come from an Elamite source. (The name "French" comes from a Germanic source, but that doesn't make French a Germanic language!)
  • About the other statement, Ibn al-Nadim claiming that all the Median and Persian lands of "antiquity" spoke "one language": Same problem with primary vs. secondary sources. And I wonder how Ibn al-Nadim could be reliable. What knowledge could he possibly have had about antiquity, a thousand years or more before his own time? And what period of antiquity was he thinking of? In hindsight, given the results of modern scholarship, it seems to me that he was simply mistaken: We know (and you yourself have been stressing this fact) that during significant portions of antiquity at least languages as different as Persian and Elamite were spoken side by side in that area. Were Islamic scholars in Ibn al-Nadim's time aware of languages like Elamite, did they have access to the inscriptions, could they read them? - Under these circumstances, using this quote strikes me a bit as if we were to say, in an article about the Solar System: "Pluto was discovered in 1930 and is computed as being at a distance of about 5 billion kilometers from the sun. Besides, Pythagoras notes that all planets are mounted on chrystal spheres revolving around Earth." ;-)
  • Finally, about the quote from Dehkhoda's dictionary that "the language of Azarbaijan is a branch of the Iranian languages known as Azari". I understand this is from a general-purpose dictionary of Persian, not from a linguistic encyclopedia, right? That's normally not the best type of source. Can I ask you if you have some other, more presentable source that we could use as a basis for treating Ancient Azari as a language or dialect of its own, thus deserving its own article, as opposed to there being just one homogeneous Middle Persian language that was also spoken in Azerbaijan? BTW, I'm still a bit worried about the present tense "is" in that quote. Is Dehkhoda really speaking of Ancient (Pre-Turkic) Azari (in which case the present tense is rather misleading, at least out of context); or is he speaking of present-day Azeri, in which case his statement would be simply ridiculously wrong?

Lukas (T.|@) 11:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

(Re. your reply to me on Talk:LukasPietsch: Zereshk, I'm dispairing, I thought we were getting to a consensus, and here we're back to square one. :-( You're still asking what my definition of Iranian is?? Okay, I'll spell it out once more, though I really think it should have been clear for a long time.
There are two different concepts of "Iranian language" at issue here, as far as I can see:
(1) Languages descended from ancient Indo-European through Proto-Iranian,
(2) Languages spoken by people who today regard themselves as part of the Iranian nation, or by historical peoples who are counted as part of the cultural/ethnic heritage of the Iranian nation.
It should have been very clear that wherever I have been using the term "Iranian language", it has been exclusively in sense (1). I have never made any statement about whether Azeri or Elamite or anything else are Iranian in sense (2). (I have no opinion about that, and frankly I don't care.) What I do care strongly about is that only sense (1) is the topic of the Iranian languages page. Now, as for Elamite and modern Azeri: both may or may not be Iranian in sense (2); both of them are obviously not Iranian in sense (1), while Ancient Azeri is, just as obviously.
As for Khuzi=Elamite, you have only provided an argument that the terms "Khuzi" and "Elamite" refer to the same geographical area, not that they refer to the same language.
As for Azeri, yes, I did see the Henning paper, but since he in effect argues that nothing much can be known about Ancient Azeri, it didn't seem to answer my specific question (about the separateness of an Ancient Azeri dialect within the continuum of NW Iranian). I am completely stunned at how you can interpret the following statement: "All these languages which may be said to surround Azerbaijan belong solidly to the northwestern group of Iranian, and that was probably true of the lost Azerbaijani tongue." as saying that "both the present and past Azari were 'Iranian'". In this sentence, Henning is unambiguously speaking of (1) what we've been calling "Ancient Azeri" and (2) the Iranian dialects surrounding Azerbaijan, but not about (3) Modern Azerbaijani (which he absolutely leaves no doubt about as being Turkic)!
Thanks for the scan of the Enc.Ir. article. Finally, that is a serious source. This is the first time I see the claim that continuations of Ancient Azeri have actually survived, in the form of those Tati dialects. Nobody mentioned these up to now, as far as I can see, and Henning specifically argues against their being a continuation of Ancient Azeri. Okay, fine, if we have a serious source saying that modern continuations of Ancient Azeri exist as linguistic enclaves within Azerbaijan, fine, let's include that (noting the difference of opinions between Henning and the Enc.Ir. authors). Of course, that still doesn't make "modern Azerbaijani" as such an Iranian language, since that term still refers to the Turkic.
BTW, you may have noticed, and I'll readily admit, that I don't really know anything much about Iran. While I was trying to draft something for the rewrite yesterday, I realized that my knowledge is probably not sufficient to make any substantial contribution in terms of new text. What I do know and care about is the science of linguistics, and that's what brought me into this debate in the first place, and the only thing I do feel competent to contribute here: To insist on conceptual clarity and proper linguistic orientation of the topic.
All that said, I'd still suggest you re-read WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. The article passages you write have a tendency of sounding argumentative. That's a bad thing. Either there is a dispute about a topic, in which case an article mustn't be seen to argue the one side; or there is no dispute about a topic, in which case an article needn't try to argue anything. And as for the ancient sources and interpretation: if a source is so ambiguous that a reader needs to take recourse to making some interpretative speculation as to its meaning (as in these cases), then it's dangerous and shouldn't be quoted literally and uncommented. Rather, we should simply summarize the opinions in the secondary literature right away, noting (where appropriate) on what primary sources these interpretations are based.
Lukas (T.|@) 09:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with Farsi

Hey Zereshk. Could you translate the Rumi quote I have on my userpage into Farsi. It reads:

I have lived on the lip of insanity, wanting to know reasons, knocking on a door. It opens. I've been knocking from the inside!

It would be great if you could provide me the original couplet in Farsi and it's Roman transliteration. Thanks a ton! deeptrivia (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I got it from The Essential Rumi by Coleman Barks. If you have that book, it's on page 281. The chapter is titled "The Turn: Dance in Your Blood." It is referenced as quatrain number 1249 in Furuzanfar's edition of Kulliyat-e-Shams. Does that help? Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot :) deeptrivia (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another reply

Hi Zereshk, thanks for your quick reply, I'm glad the discussion is again getting somewhere. Just a few points:

  • As for disambiguation between "sense (1)" and "sense (2)", yes, we should have an even stronger disambiguation statement somewhere, if that helps avoiding misunderstandings.
  • As for Henning, I insist on my reading of that article. He states quite clearly (p. 176): "The dialects that were presumed to be the last remnants of the ancient language of Azerbaijan have proved to be recent imports from another province [...] of the language once spoken in Azerbaijan itself we know nothing." No room for doubt here. - If Enc.Ir. contradicts him about this, fine.
  • As for Khuzi=Elamite, I don't know anything about the literature, but I take it that the communis opinio (reflected e.g. on the Elamite language page) is that the Elamite language proper died out a long time before the Islamic era. I can imagine that the name "Khuzi" was also used for Elamite at some earlier time, but when the Islamic scholars were using it, and explicitly including it in a list of contemporary "Iranian" languages (which for me implies "sense (1)"!), I find it prima facie difficult to believe that they could have been referring to Elamite. If you have sources to the contrary, fine. But the quote as it now stands (and it doesn't just stand there neutrally, it is clearly intended as an argument for something!) is still dangerous.
  • As for argumentative tone and ideological POV debates. Let's keep the matters separate. Let me break down what I believe your argument about Azerbaijan to be into its component parts, in the format of a classical syllogism:
(1) Major premise: If a population speaks language X, it and its descendents will bear the marks of X-ness as an indelible, essential part of their cultural/ethnic identity.
(2) Minor premise: The ancient inhabitants of Azerbaijan spoke Iranian.
(3) Conclusion: All descendants of the ancient inhabitants of Azerbaijan have an essentially Iranian cultural/ethnic identity.
(4) Major premise: All descendants of ancient Azerbaijanis have an essentially Iranian cultural/ethnic identity (=3 above).
(5) Minor premise: Modern Azerbaijanis are descendants of ancient Azerbaijanis.
(6) Conclusion: Modern Azerbaijanis have an essentially Iranian cultural/ethnic identity.
(7) Major premise: A population that has a cultural/ethnic identity X should be politically loyal to the nation state associated with X.
(8) Minor premise: Modern Azerbaijanis have an Iranian cultural/ethnic identity. (= 6 above)
(9) Conclusion: Modern Azerbaijanis should be politically loyal to the Iranian nation state.

Now, of all the premises in this logical chain, every single one could be challenged or has been challenged - except (2), which seems absolutely undisputed. At the same time, (2) is the only element in this argument that falls within the scope of Iranian languages (or, for that matter, any of the other pages that have "language(s)" in their title, including your new page on Ancient Azari!).

So, I think you are committing several mistakes when you feel you need to argue about (2):

  • You are committing an error of logic if you think that by heaping more and more evidence on (2) you could possibly help to buttress (9).
  • You are making a mistake of editorial common sense if you think that pages dealing with (2) ought to be burdened with material that is only relevant with respect to a dispute about (9).
  • You are making a mistake with respect to Wikipedia policy if you think you are allowed to argue for or against anything anyway. If there is a dispute about (9), or (6), make sure both sides get a proper NPOV presentation where that belongs. Arguing on the sidelines of (2) is a straw-man tactic.

BTW, another thing about terminology: I have generally tried to be very careful to word my statements as statements about languages, not about people (I talk about "Elamite", not "the Elamites", etc.) When summing up my statements, please be careful not to misattribute views to me that I didn't express! Lukas (T.|@) 11:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


(9) should read: "Modern Azerbaijanis are politically loyal to the Iranian nation state." Lets call this (9B). It's not that they "should be loyal". They are loyal. The reason Im trying to "heap up" evidence in support of (2) is that some deliberate users and editors go around spreading misinformation based on an assumed (C9B) premise (i.e. the Contrary of 9B), throwing around phrases like "Persian occupied Azerbaijan", as if to imply that Azeris were never Iranian to begin with (i.e. questioning the validity of (2)). So I repeat, these (my) edits are only in reaction. Thus, the people who are trying to change the fact of (9B), based on their implied claim of a (C2), are the ones making "an argument". That's why there is so much fighting going on on the Safavid page, for e.g.. Take a look and see what Im talking about. I am not the only editor with this pro-9B position trying to justify 9B based on (2). Those sources Ive been using are factual, and that's why I am using them.
It seems that you seem to be oblivious that a campaign to spread around the notion of (C9B) exists at all. It's a good thing I showed you an example for crying out loud: (C9B example).
Looking at Talk:Safavids, I can still see nobody questioning (2). I can see people questioning (5). I can also see people implicitly operating with (1)(2a)->(3a):
(1) Major premise: If a population speaks language X, it and its descendents will bear the marks of X-ness as an indelible, essential part of their cultural/ethnic identity.
(2a) Minor premise: The inhabitants of Azerbaijan speak Turkic.
(3a) Conclusion: All inhabitants of Azerbaijan have an essentially Turkic cultural/ethnic identity.
You see, that's the trouble about (1): once you accept (1)(2)->(3), then somebody else is going to find (1)(2a)->(3a) just as compelling. (My own view, of course, is that (1) is wrong, as it implies the fallacy of ethnic essentialism). - Anyway, the place to argue (6), or (3a), is Azerbaijani people or Iranian people or whatever.
From what I understand, you seem to be so much preoccupied by (1)(2)...->(9) that you project back any opposition to (9) or (6) onto the earlier members of the chain, as if it logically entailed an attack on (2). Which is still a logical fallacy. Lukas (T.|@) 13:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, "Elamite" could be a cultural attribute as well, and is not reserved for just a linguistic one. Elamite can also be used as in "that which pertains to the people of Elam". Their culture, history, customs,... and language amongst them as well.
Sure, "Elamite" can be both an adjective and a noun, but when used as a noun it unambiguously denotes the language, doesn't it? Lukas (T.|@) 13:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] After the restructuring

Thanks for making those restructuring moves about Iranian languages and Ancient Azari language. I've tried my hand at wikifying and "linguistifying" the intro section to the new page a bit. I think the rest will still need a bit of cleanup, as it now contains a few things that are more relevant to Persian at large, and some of the facts mentioned further down are now also in the introduction. I've also tried a few clarifications in the main Iranian languages article - I hope I didn't make too many factual mistakes there. Lukas (T.|@) 21:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopaedia Iranica and Iranian peoples

Could you please tell Khoikhoi that in case of Iranian studies, the Encyclopaedia Iranica is authoritive?! Please check Talk:Iranian peoples. Tajik 14:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Please help to solidify and improve the Persian Empire article, its currently on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Amir85 19:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] areh :)

I think he wants it in Excel. Mathematica's out of their range if you havent noticed ;)--Nightryder84 00:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Using Image:Anime by nima.jpg

May I? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Misconceptions about the Shi'a

Even though the afd did not show any consencus for merge, the admin has decided that the arguments for merge where better, and has decided that the article should be merged in the already to big Shi'a Islam article, something that make no sense at all. I protested and he answered See it and make your voice heard here: Talk:Misconceptions about the Shi'a

--Striver 04:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KURDS ARE ARYANS AND IRANIANS

TELL THIS TO THAT KURDISH EXTRMEST AND SEPERATIST WHO IS A LIAR WHO WANTS TO ERASE AND RE-WRITE KURDISH HISTORY FOR POLITICAL REASONS.

Heja Helweda can you get an more lamer? You are using Greek sources when their Elamite, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Summerian sources that talk about Aryans. European scholars use to rely on Greek sources for the Mid-East in the 1800s until they started readin, understanding, and finding Middle Eastern sources that are better and more detailed so stop trying to use Xenophone and other Greek historians who wrote a lot of their infomration from mistranslated sources or hear say or what they saw during travel. All Middle Eastern sources depect the Aryan peoples and their arrival into Kuridsan and the Iranian Plateau. The accurate sources are the ones form Mesoptamia which also verify that Kurds are ethnic Iranians.


[edit] Dorod

Hi. Do you think we have any chance to promote an Iran-related article to Wikipedia:Featured articles ? if so do you have any article in mind that we could work on it for promotion ? Amir85 13:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

User:Mesopotamia started destroying all articles related to Persian and Iranian. I don't see why. You know that there are very very few active Iranian wikipedians and also very very few persians. I think the number of persians are even less than kurds, let alone arabs. I feel Mesopotamia just hate persians. And also some kurds just love to call Persians as fars and farsis !I do not understand why. I am very unhappy with this. Because we spend so much time to write an artcile and people come and destroy it in a few minutes just to have fun and take revenge. -- Joe Dynue21:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

  1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
  2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
  3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day. BD2412 T 02:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IN PERSIAN (FINGILISH)

Salam. be jan e to man khaste shodam az daste in mellat, in wikipedia va barkhi az dast andar karane mohtaramesh. axhaye khodemuno ke migan moshkele copy right dare, chand ta kurd ham oftadan be jane maghalehaye azerbaijan va edde'a mikonan kolle azerbaijan kurdan, dige be maku ham ke chand ta korde mohajer bishtar tush nist migan shahre KURD ha?!!! hala man chikar konam?!!! nemidunam ... mituni komakam koni?

bye bye--Dr.Hamed 22:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject - Iran

Hi Nima,

I've added myself to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Iran and currently disambiguating links to Persian (Wikipedia:Disambiguation_pages_with_links). Please let me know what can I do in this project. Mahanchian 20:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.gilanmiras.ir/zaban/zaban.htm

http://www.iranchamber.com/provinces/05_gilan/05_gilan.php

Image:Iranian people.jpg

Salam and thanks for your comprehensive response. I think the best way for me to contribute is housekeeping, maintenance and protecting pages from vandalism. As I mentioned I'm already doing some stuff in line of disambig project. However, I will pick up articles as I go through them and contribute where I can add value. Unfortunatley I do not have in depth knowledge about litriture, history or geography which limits my ability to contribute to content, but I'm willing to provide technical support if there is a need for it.

[edit] Zionist terrorism

They are trying to rename Zionist terrorism to some non-sense name. keep an eye. --Striver 13:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

They want to delet ALL kind of list of Muslims, your vote is needed. Dont forget to motivate, a plain keep/delet does not count!

More info: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild#ALL_list_of_Muslims.21

--Striver 04:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] UT Picture

Sorry about that! The last I saw there the picture was removed due to copyright violation with no response from the copyright owner or anyone else. Thanks for taking the picture and letting us use it!

--ElKevbo 13:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictues tell more than 1000 words

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6424922834551057136

--Striver 22:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Safavids

Please take a look at the article "Safavids" ... Pan-Turkists and some other hillarious people have once again started to mess up the article. Tajik 23:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Personal Attacks Please

No personal attacks please. I am referring specifically to your comments made at 09:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC) on the Kurdish people Talk page. Thanks.Heja Helweda 01:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please kindly stop personal attacks

Referring to your comments on my Talk page. This is very unfortunate. Heja Helweda 02:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Please kindly retract your hatred of Iranians.--Zereshk 03:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Good Job brother. You should not have used the 'f' word though, but you are defending the truth and the Kurdish peoples identy. For to long have foreigners played Iranians against each other and even made those Kurds that have been divided from Iran think that they are not Iranians, when in reality many Kurds in and outside Iran say they are the truest Aryans and the founders of Iran through their 'traditional' ancestors the Mede. Good job. Those people who abuse you are Israelis and Kurdish seperatists who want to harm Iran. I am sure you know the political footsies being played between Iraqi Kurdistan and ISrael that is why you have Israeli claims that Kurds and Jews are the same race and that Persians and Kurds have no relations. This is the rape of the truth and I have been fighting it for a long time now as the user who does not sign his conversations.

[edit] Thanks

Thanks Nima! It's great you rememebered. Cheers :) deeptrivia (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persians

The user Aucaman has been vandalizing Persian people, as well as several other Iran-related articles, claiming that "modern Persians are mix of Arabs and Mongols" editing the article, or adding a dispute tag, based on his own personal assumptions and conclusions without any valid source to support such outrageous revisionist theory. If you have an opinion on this topic, please join the Talk:Persian_people, so we can reach a consensus for the removal of the "dispute tag". --ManiF 18:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)