Talk:Iran/Archive 1

(untitled)
where does the name 'iran' come from?


 * Etymology of Iran is [ir(ayr) + an]. ir/ayr is the root of the word arya/ayria, meaning "noble, high, free-spirited" and the an at the end is suffix of location in Persian, as in Gilan, Isfahan, Tehran, Ardakan, Khorasan, Azarbaijan, Gorgan, .....  and literary hundreds of city and village names in Iran. It means "Land of Aryans".    --K1 20:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I want to add somewhere that Iran was a bitter foe of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. but I don't know where to place the vital tidbit. any suggestions? Kingturtle 01:50 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * Such information is best placed in the article on the Taleban themselves IMO. It's not really all that vital to Iran itself, certainly not now that the Taleban are no longer in power. At any rate, I don't think it's worth a mention on this page, that serves mainly as a summary and link-hub for purely Iranian topics. -Scipius 20:57 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)


 * I think it is important to understand where a nation's government stood and stands in regards to other nations. Kingturtle 05:31 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

You can put that in the foreign relations of Iran page. [[User:Kraften|Kraften

Iranian Calenders
I think it would be useful to put more dates into the Solar calender, dates which are traditionally celebrated in osme form, even if they are not part of a government calender, e.g. shab-e yalda or Sizdah-be-dah, but I do not know the Iranian calender well enough to put them in. Refdoc 13:04, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Sizde-be-dar is already in the list. It's the "Nature Day". About Shab-e-Yalda or other occasions like Mehregaan, I really don't know. Other countries don't have them. For example, see USA. It doesn't have Halloween. Roozbeh 16:41, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Neyshabur
I've expanded an article on Neyshabur (Nishapur); could someone please add the Persian name to the article? -- ChrisO 09:49, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Done. Roozbeh 14:28, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

National Motto
There is a dispute if there exists a national motto of Iran. I could not find any source confirming the existance of a national motto for Iran. Although the motto "Allah-u Akbar" is a part of the official flag according to the Iranian constitution, it is not called the official motto anywhere. I would appreciate if someone could find the original source. Roozbeh 15:22, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Terrorism
One of the marking traits of Iranian foreign policy in the beginnings of the Islamic Republic was support to various terrorist groups targetting Europe and Israel. Yet, somebody reverted this explanation I added WITHOUT GIVING ANY EXPLANATION ON THE TALK PAGE.

If we are to discuss in the preceding paragraph why the Shah was bad, we may as well explain why the outside world largely considered Iran to be a terrorist state. David.Monniaux 16:46, 27 May 2004 (UTC)


 * More details on terrorism and assassinations on History of Iran. David.Monniaux 08:53, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

I removed your obviously hostile and prejudiced injections into the article with a brief explanation. You don't seem to understand that Wikipedia is not set up to promote US Department of State's point of view on world politics. I also took a brief look at some of your other contirbutions and noticed an unmistakable mentality of "Western world vs. Non-Western world". Frankly, that amounts to hatemongering and prejudice. --K1 00:51, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Not at all. It's plain impossible to understand international relations without understanding the opinion that some countries hold on some other countries (without endorsing them or not). That a large section of the world considered Iran a hostile and terrorist state is extremely important to understand the attitude of that part of the world with respect to Iran. Ignoring this is as silly as removing any talk about the Cold War from the US and USSR pages.
 * As for my other contributions, and the "US Department of State", I don't know what you're talking about and allege that this is mere ad hominem attack.
 * I strongly disagree with this revisionist point of view that important facts should be erased from history if they simply reflected the mentalities or opinions of the time, even if they shock us. David.Monniaux 08:01, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Iran is NOT a terrorist state nor a sponsor of terrorism. The only countries who make this claim against Iran are USA and Israel (and whoever they can influence to support their arrogant stance). You keep claiming the "most Western countries" consider Iran to be a terrorist country. Why don't you name these countries that constitute "most Western countires" for us? Even if Iran was what you claim it to be with regards to terrorism, compared to acts of terrorism by Israel+USA it would pale. You are obviously an anti-islam bigot and hatemonger and this is why you support the bullshit about Iran's "terroristic acitivities" which only the USA+Israel alliance pushes, just because Iran now has an Islamic regime. --K1 08:34, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The above is factually inaccurate. Tehran has sponsored terrorist and revolutionary activities, including some which were also backed by the US, for example the PDK had both US and Iranian backing in the 1990's against Saddam. Iran also supplied money and tradecraft to bombings in both Israel and Iraq.

David, first learn that this is not USENET. DO NOT disect people's comments and inject your own answers in the middle. Secondly, by yelling and screaming and emphacising with asterisks, you are not gonna reinforce your weak argument. You keep saying "most Western world" and "most Europepan countries", when I ask you to name these countries, you say it is a *FACT* !!! take a chill-pill, stay with facts, and learn that your mommy is not here, you cannot do anything that you damn well please here. Stay with facts. I am gonna take out your bullshit from the article again. --K1 08:50, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Since when am I supposed to receive orders from you, in all capitals (yelling), even? For the record, there is no official Wikipedia policy on this, and how people respond is largely a matter of style.
 * Second, I think we would gladly do away with ad hominem attacks. My mother has nothing to do with the case at hand, and I'd expect you to leave her out of this.
 * If you want names: France, the United Kingdom, and Germany at least considered Iran to be sponsoring terrorist groups.
 * If I were you, I would get acquainted with Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks. One crucial difference with Usenet is that repeated abuse on Wikipedia may expose you to a ban. David.Monniaux 09:26, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * K1, I understand you have a difference of opinion regarding this particular issue. As a neutral 3rd party, I suggest you follow the following guidelines: Avoid ad hominem attacks, as they tend to just raise peoples hackles. Discuss the issue at hand, don't attack the contributor. Calling their edits "bullshit" really isn't helpful also. Please respect the community. Burgundavia 09:30, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I have been an active part of this community also and a contributor to Wikipedia. This guy, as you can see from his childish attitude, is now even resorting to threats with bans calling my behaviour "abuse", and of course his behaviour is "Western" and civilized!! Examine my past contributions and this guy's so-called contributions. He is clearly of the mindset of "Western world vs. Islamic world" and he is contaminating Wikipedia articles with his venom. Also, the fact that he is changing the main article before even allowing any discussions to reach some sort of conclusion shows stubbornness on his part and a mentality of revert wars. --K1 09:46, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Threats? Where did I make any threat? You started by ordering me around with some alleged rules, I merely responded by pointing out to you the official rules of Wikipedia.
 * I do not see what's wrong with my contributions, nor where they exhibit a "Western World vs Islamic World point of view". Just looking at my last contribution page, I only see one topic vaguely related to Islam, and it's Iran. Most of the stuff I deal with does not have any link with Islam whatsoever.
 * I'm sorry, but saying that somebody is "childish" after making some silly jokes on his mother is the pot calling the kettle black. David.Monniaux 10:02, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

David you are a ____head and an obnoxious nerd. I did not call your mother anything, I just said "your mommy is not here" meaning, stop behaving like a child. Are you really so stupid that you need every simple thing interpreted and explained for you or are you really such a pathetic nerd who enjoys to argue with people just for the sake of argument? Anyway, you don't need to reply, I am done with you. --K1 10:09, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC) K-1 Is clearly an anti semite, using the same ad hoc response placing America and Israel together. this smacks of anti-zionist propaganda speech that is just below the surface. The childish responses to David are clear indications of his/her imbalance and he/she should be ignored.


 * "____head" and "obnoxious nerd" sound to me like first-class abuse and ad hominem attacks. David.Monniaux 10:11, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. There needs to be a truce here. K1 you are out of line. Stirling Newberry


 * Right Stirling. K1, we have esxchanged kind words before, and I very much respect the work you've done.  But you want people to see things from your perspective, so you you need to be willing to do the same for others.  we need a compromise.  David, the phrase "Western world" does sound kind of blanket-statementy.  How about something more neutral like "several Western governments" etc?  --Fishal 00:44, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello Fishal. I do not have any problems with the term "Western world" per se, in fact, I myself use it when appropriate. The problem with this guy (whom I had closed the case on already) was that examining some of his other article modifications, it was evident that he is trying to create an atmosphere of "Western world versus Islamic world" and it was his mentality that I had problem with, not the term itself. When I see people take advantage of Wikipedia to impose their personal, political or ideological agenda, it bugs me. --K1 05:43, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, you seem incapable to back your accusations about "other article modifications", so I say that this point about my alleged attitude is entire invention on your part. And I contend that I do not aim at creating a "West vs Islamic world" attitude, but rather I merely state that this attitude was that of the Iranian government led by Khomeiny, and that this is evident from his declarations. I also state that you are a revisionist who wants to erase unpleasant historical facts because they don't fit with what you wish. David.Monniaux 19:37, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with David.Monniaux, see his talk page--naryathegreat 23:38, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

I would recommend re-reading the project pages Avoid "Terrorist" and NPOV tutorial. Roozbeh 23:30, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you missed my point. My point is not to call Iran or the Iranian government a "terrorist" (which, indeed, would call for NPOV). My point is that the international relations of the Iranian government during the early-1980s were largely defined, on the one hand, by Khomeini's displayed and overt hatred of the "West" and the "Great Satan", on the other side by many countries alleging that many "terrorist" (in their words) groups had close ties with Iran.
 * I repeat, it's not Wikipedia saying "Iran was terrorist", it's Wikipedia saying "Many Western countries considered Iran a backer of terrorism, and the relations of Iran with those countries were thus understandably tense at moments". David.Monniaux 10:56, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * OK then, we need an exact list of those countries and some reference somewhere for each of them. If you can't find references for some of them, fine, just list them, so other could search and see if they can find references. The number should be enough to be called "many", or otherwise we should just mention "some". Anyway, giving an exact list in the article would be the best, even if the list contains countries like "Palau" (which were counted among the "coalition of the willing". Another important is that, possibly, not only western but probably some eastern countries (Israel?) also considered Iran a terrorist state. Roozbeh 09:52, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok. Well, I can affirm that in the French media, in the 1980s, it was an obvious, acknowledged fact that Iran supported terrorists, including terrorists operating on European soil.   It was, for instance, generally acknowledge that Iran was behind the kidnapping of French journalists in Lebanon, who were freed in 1988. The same is true, as far as I know, of the media of the United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland...
 * This has nothing to do with the "coalition of the willing". David.Monniaux 13:44, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think the term "terrorist state" is unfortunate and was probably only ever used by Americans and American sockpuppets. It somehow implies you lot, Roozbeh and friends, all running around with balaklavas and AK47, the ring of a handgrenade between the teeth and sporting an evil grin... ;-) If we look at "accusing the Iranian government supporting terrorist organisations", or "relationsships disturbed dt accusation of government supporting terrorist activities on own soil" the list becomes a lot longer and suddenly includes long time faithful friends. The two most important countries in this last category are then - I think - France and Germany. Both were very upset about various political murders happening on their soil - Myconos, Bakhtiari etc, this despite being in general very tolerant and cooperative even with some of the more lunatic rethoric coming from time to time out of Tehran University friday sermons... (Sorry, these are the talk pages, I am allowed to be POV) Refdoc 10:09, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

David you're very ignorant to believe that whatever America says is worth mentioning here! "Lunatic rhetoric", very true!


 * So you suggest that the attitudes of a number of influent countries with respect to Iran are irrelevant, even if they largely dictated limitations on the foreign policy of Iran?
 * Please, give me a break. (Besides, the word you wanted to use is probably not "ignorant", since ignorance is a different concept from lack of good judgment, which is apparently what you're alleging here.)

Protected
Why is this page protected, who did it, and why didn't you mention it here? Are you afraid to let us know who you are? (although you might just be some benign sysop, i've no idea)--naryathegreat 22:19, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not mentioning it here. I protected the page to stop the massive and biased editing by the anonymous editors (see the history of the article). I guess they would either stop that or take their case here on the discussion page. This has nothing to do with the debate on Iran's government being terrorist, etc. Roozbeh 01:17, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"va" vs "and"
An anonymous user keeps changing the "and" form double named provinces to "va". I believe the former is preferable for following reason: At least one of the provinces is fairly well known among English readers ('Sistan and Baluchistan' is unfortunately infamous for heroin smuggling) so a change of that particular province's name would make the list less useful. The other "double names" should then fall into line to have a consistent picture. Refdoc 12:43, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"va" vs "and"
Hi. Translating pieces of the name of a foreign province into English does not seem logical. Other languages do not translate pieces of the name Newfoundland into their own language in their books. Or when talking about Karakorum you don't say Black-Korum! Translating some pieces in the names of the Iranian provinces such as "va" does not seem correct to me.


 * 'Other languages...' - actually many do - look at the German Wiki and you will have many surprises. Wrt to Newfoundland specifically - it is Neufundland. You are right with regard to Karakorum and it is of importance to be pragmatic. Wrt to the "va" - I think my argument stands - Sistan and Baluchistan is well known in this form and teh other provinces should follow suit to make it look consistent - apart from this - The whole Iran complex of pages is now a very much interwoven web of entries and any name changes on pages/links need to be well planned and thought through - it is easy to break links and leave things unconnected. You would also have to change the template for Iranian provinces. Also look now at your Luri page a fair number of your red links are now in existence - simply because I changed the links to names of pages we already have. BTW - why do you not get a username - you have made many contribution already - it would be easier for you to edit and easier for others to interact with you. Refdoc 13:05, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact, Newfoundland is Terre-Neuve (New Land) in French. Granted, this is a bit special since France used to colonize Canada, but... Whether or not to translate depends on the context and tradition. David.Monniaux 14:20, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

_____
 * Thanks for the responce.

Actually there are more problems with the name of those provinces than "va". Like In Chahar Mahaal "and" Bakhtiari, the long Persian aa is used in one instance and forgoten in other places. If we want to show the long aa in transcription we should write "Chahaar Mahaal "va/and" Bakhtyaari". Also the form Bakhtyari is much more common than Bakhtiari. And Kohgiluye (the Mount of the histircal ruler of the region name Giluyeh) is more correct than Kohkiluyeh. But I understand your arguments about the Wikipedia being interwoven and will be more carefull in changing stuff. I think I become a member soon. Thanks for the suggestion. Take care.

I think there are actually "official" transcription rules which sort of cover mcuh of our difficulties. trouble is they are not always well applied adn sometimes there are naming conventions which can not be altered anymore - e.g. German for Tehran is Teheran. Wrt the "aa" - it looks clumsy and should be rather generally out than in - and I do think the relevant rules are here on my side - but i am not too sure. The other common inconsistency is the use of "q" vs "gh" - we do here both and without much rhyme or reason. Refdoc 18:07, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The "q" vs "gh" thing is rather hard to address properly. The problem is mainly the common English spelling. For example, both "Mossadegh" and "Qom" use the same Persian letter Qaf, which is pronounced the same in both the cases, while one is commonly spelled with a "gh" and the other with a "q". roozbeh 14:00, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe we should devise some Farsi guidelines somewhere, or at least decide for the purpose of consistency to adhere to one system within one article and let disambiguation/redirect pages patch up the gaps? It's my personal opinion on the qaf/ghayn issue that in scholarly writing one should use q for qaf and gh for ghayn (that is, to transliterate the alphabet rather than transcribe the pronunciation), because it allows interested parties, who may be beginning scholars unfamiliar with the Farsi spelling, to find them in Farsi-language materials more readily.  In any case, I think that this is a situation where there's a benefit to be had from sticking to a consistent system (either consistently transliterating or consistently transcribing) and I don't imagine that anybody is so attached to one option that they'd object to the other if the majority preferred it.  On a cosmic scale, they're both the same to me.  Not confusing the unfamiliar with "Mossadegh" and "Mossadeq" or "Gurgan" and "Gorgan" should be the goal.  How about the people who feel strongly about the renderings propose their systems to be voted on, and the winner puts everything into the standard?--KASchmidt 20:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unclear Wording
" Non-Muslim religious minorities include Bahá'ís and Zoroastrians, both being religions that originated in Iran, as well as Jews and Christians. Only the latter three are officially recognised minority religions." Three religions? Four are described. I guess it means christians are recognised? Seems odd to me. CJWilly
 * The three offically recognized relgions are Zoroastrians, Jews and Christians. Baha'is have been persecuted and discriminated against in iran ever since the creation of the faith in Iran.  Although nowadays it is much better than it was 100 years ago, or after the revolution, it still exists.
 * It's not recognized because it's officially considered a heretical branch of Islam rather than a religion in its own right.--KASchmidt 05:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Incomprehensible lead-in
"Since the revolution of 1979 the Supreme Leader is the rahbar, or in absence of a single leader a council of religious leaders." - What does this sentence mean? It sounds like they are saying that the Supreme Leader is a person with the title "rahbar", and that title literally means "in the absense of a single leader a council of religious leaders". However, that last phrase "in the absense of a single leader a council of religious leaders" doesn't make sense? Jogback 15:55, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Religious demographics
It would be nifty to estimate the religious demographics ("Twelvers", Ishmaelis, etc). Jogback 15:55, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Demographics glitch
The article on Iran gives one number on the percentage of persians in the population, the article on Iranian demographics gives another. So, what is right? // Rudolf 1922 18:24, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Someone keeps vandalizing the Demographics of Iran page. They might be vandalizing this one too; I don't know. The 51% stat comes from the CIA World Factbook, and somebody keeps saying that this is incorrect. It's all written up in Talk:Demographics of Iran. Fishal 15:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * CIA "statistics" is based on the guesses made 40 years ago. Much has changed ever since and millions have been Persinised in most of the Iranian cities. Scholarly research shows that the figure for Persians in Iran is today more than 70%.

--Mani1 11:06, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Please give an exact and reliable source. Academic or scientific, preferably in English or Persian. There are also people who claim that there are more than 50% of Azerbaijanis in Iran. Should we listen to them or to you? CIA is at least more neutral. roozbeh 21:26, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Is it that important to know exact percentages of this or that ethnic groups ?

Why don't we simply consider the inhabitants of Iran as Iranians ? This type of discussions can generate frustrations and misunderstandings. I don't think we really need them. Iran is going through a very difficult period and we (Iranians) must forget about this "second world war type" of discussions. We are all Iranians and proud about it. Cheers, Babak.


 * Also in demographics, the article identifies most Iranians as Aryan. According to the Wikis for Aryan and Aryan_race, the term itself is not appropriate for this type of use.  Acknowledged, it has a place in the name Iran itself, but for demographics it should be removed/fixed or the Aryan and Aryan_race articles revised.  crash77mike 19:36, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

yay or nay...?
i suppose everybody knows that iran is developing nuclear weapons (or at least those are the allegations) and have been busy with the project (iran maintains that the nuclear facility is for civillian purposes only) for some time now. and while america does not accept the project europe is more leniant. china has economic interest to be on irans side too. but im curious to know what other people think...?


 * These allegations come from exactly the same individuals that sold the Iraq invasion to the U.N. with claims that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, which he obviously did not have, and that he had direct ties to Al-Qaeda and 9/11, which we now know he did not have. The IAEA has publicly announced that it has reviewed all of its information and intelligence and that it does not see any evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons technology. I suggest that we take whatever we hear with a grain of salt, and question the motivations of those making claims. Furthermore, even if Iran were secretly pursuing nuclear weapons, I believe that it is any nation's sovereign right to equip itself with whatever is necessary for its own defense, and the United States does not have the right to keep any nation from doing that, including Iran. Israel has repeatedly expressed the desire to see Iran annihilated, and Iran has no reason to believe they are bluffing. Just my thoughts...


 * "Iran is developing nuclear weapons" should definately not be stated as a given fact, as it is a matter of more than a little contention. Personally I'd like to see the whole issue just steered clear of in the article until something historically significant actually happens.


 * The various back and forth with the IAE(?) should probably been noted in the current affairs column. Given how Iran has been making a big issue over this, I think there's something going on; whether it's nuclear weapons being built, Iran wanting people to think nucelar weapons are being built, or [i]possibly[/i] just general grumpiness over being forced to follow rules much of the rest of the world doesn't remains to be seen. It certainly might be worth a note that the USA and other countries strongly suspect that Iran's goals is weaponary, not power. --Prosfilaes 09:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Minor points
I removed some stuff from the Demographics section. Demographics isn't about what is taught in schools, or roots of a language. Also, "disputed majority" is nonsensical; a big chunk of the paragraph already explains various other claims. Don't go overboard with the whole NPOV doodad. Kaveh 11:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ETYMOLOGY OF THE NAME OF "IRAN"
Pls as I am not familiar with computers and internet I did not know how to enter a relevant page or create a new page for this question or put forward my request properly,that is why that I am using this page.My quest is: I am searching for a meaningful etymology of the name IRAN and also some palce names like OURA (or as written in Persian: alef, vav, re, he) and also Natanz and there are some other names.I invite people who are well versed on this subject to forward their comments or if they wish they can communicate with me through my e-mail "makalmu@yahoo.com" with many thanks,Ellie.
 * It is apparently derived from the Indo-Iranian Arya word via something like Middle Iranian *Erani. Do you need more precision? Evertype 12:05, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)