Talk:Iran/Archive 3

We need help
Also, if there are any newcomers that intend to edit and make contribs on a regular basis, please let me know, leave me a message, or email me. We have a BIG need and deficiency in Iranian editors on WP. I cant edit everything all by myself. We need help.--Zereshk 22:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)'''

Save your images from deletion with proper tagging
Attention all Iran related photo uploaders:

We all know that Wikipedia judges qualification to displaying images based on US copyright law. And the US does not recognize, hold up, honor, or have any copyright relations with Iran, as stipulated here.

However, there are administrators out there (including Iranian ones) that WILL erase the photos that you upload, no matter how nice, important, and safe they seem for uploading, if they dont have the proper tagging.

If you didnt take the photo yourself, and if the photo's source is from Iran, and if you decide to use the Fairuse tag, please use the following tags to ensure that your photo doesnt get erased:

{ { fairusein| the page you are using the image in } }

{ { OCILLA } }

That should keep your images safe.--Zereshk 07:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

'''However, it is advisable to use images that you took or created yourself. It will save everyone lots of trouble.'''--Zereshk 23:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If you are using a "fairusein" tag, it is also advisable to create a fair use rationale, which will make it near impossible for your image to be deleted without notification and a chance for you to respond. --Wikiacc (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

POV Language

 * Under Politics: Iran's makeup has several intricately connected governing bodies, some of which are democratically elected and some of which operate by co-opting people based on their religious inclinations.

Request for editing help with "Baha'i Faith"
Currently the editing of the Baha'i Faith entry (and related entries) is dominated by Baha'is, who take the opportunity to downplay criticisms and in general slant their information in predictable directions. Please consider this a call for non-Baha'i editors to come have a look at the site, and help ensure balance. Thank you. Dawud 10:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Attention Iranian page editors
The page West Azarbaijan is having some POV problems. The text is a bit biased toward Kurdish secessionist views (downplaying the Azaris there). For those interested, please address it as you see fit. Thanx all.--Zereshk 23:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The page West Azarbaijan is having some POV problems. The text is a bit biased toward pro-Turkish views (downplaying the Kurds there). For those interested, please address it as you see fit. There are enough sources referring strong majority of the Kurds in this province of Iran.

Thanx all  D iyako Talk + 22:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Diyako, give it a rest. Everyone here (except you) knows that saying such things as: "70% of West Azarbaijan are Kurdish" is ridiculous.--Zereshk 22:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk We can see it here  D iyako Talk + 22:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It doesnt say 70% are Kurdish.--Zereshk 22:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

But we all sure can calcutae!! can't we?!  D iyako Talk + 22:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The Kurds in West Azerbaijan Province of Iran
Request mediation for article West Azerbaijan. User:Zereshk keeps putting unverified (+ protected) tagg for no acceptable reason regarding the Kurds in Northern part of the province, despite of numerous credible sources. Thank you.  D iyako Talk + 02:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikiacc's unilateral changes to the page
The changes made by user:Wikiacc to the Iran page are wayyyyyy too drastic. The format of the page was something that numerous editors had agreed on.

Wikiacc has taken out sections completely, deleted key internal links (keeping links that do not really matter), and watered down the page significantly. The section on the government (with the sub-sections) needs to be restored definitely. We based the page's design on the United States article.

Compare the page the United States to the new page of Iran and you will see that it compares very little now, with the changes made by Wikiacc.--Zereshk 22:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * See reply at User talk:Zereshk. --Wikiacc (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, why do we have 2 Ethinic Maps?
Why is there two different ethnic maps in the page under demographic? --( Aytakin ) | Talk 22:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Aytakin, one of those maps does not show religious minorities. Thanks.  D iyako Talk + 22:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

- I have removed the first map - reasons for the action are as follows:

While being somewhat less detailed the second map actually mentions more real ethnic groups by name rather than simply describing linguistic relationships. The added distribution of religious information makes it altogether more useful. Ethnicity is not solely a function of language but as much - and sometimes even more (see Serbs/Croats/Bosnians) - more a function of religious affiliation. Quiet apart from this I would suggest to calm down generally. Refdoc 23:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Please restore both maps. One is a "religious map". The other is an "ethnic map". They are different. Me and Diyako reached this solution.


 * The map RefDoc is showing, is inaccurate ethnically. It shows Urmia as a Kurdish city, for example.--Zereshk 23:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There is large Kurdish population in Urmia and its township, more than Turkish or at least equal.  D iyako Talk + 23:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Kurds are not a majority in Urmia, as your map says. Therefore it is inaccurate.
 * 2) "Religious minorities" is not a demographic profile according to the definitions of the Census Bureau. Therefore we need separate maps.--Zereshk 23:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Turks also are NOT a majority in Urmia. A large population including most of the township is Kurdish.

 D iyako Talk + 00:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk, this is not what I said. What I said is that Ethnicity is not solely defined by language but by a multitude of factors (including religion) This plays in some parts of the world a larger role, in some parts a much smaller role. In Iran the overall importance of religion as a dividing factor 'where there are no linguistic differences is probably minimal - admittedly, nevertheless the ine added religious information is useful in this context. I am no expert on the statistics of individual towns and must leave it here to you and others to hash it out, but clearly it would be useful if you not both start again a revert war. Refdoc 23:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Religious minorities should have its own section, and its own map. And it should be separate from ethnic minorities. Merging the two, should entail merging both corresponding existing articles. Aside from the fact that the religious map is ethnically incorrect.--Zereshk 00:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Zemnan een babaee ke migi bahash "edit war" daaram, Irani ham hattaa neest. Edit haash por az GHARAZ VARZEE hast.--Zereshk 00:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Look Zereshk - use of Farsi on this page is rather uncivil. As I said I can not help with the accuracy of the ethnic distributions. I hold the concept  of Diyako's map for very useful. I trust that inaccuracies can be corrected by someone with some graphical talent - there is a Gimp or photoshop after all. Refdoc 00:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Is it strange that today unlike past the Kurds are in majority in Urmia?

(Zereshk I am not babaee!)  D iyako Talk + 00:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No, it is not "strange". It is simply incorrect and a POV push. Urmia is not a Kurdish city.--Zereshk 00:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a Kurdish-Turkish city calling it otherwise is a POV push. Urmia is not a Turkish city, it is a Kurdish-Turkish city.

 D iyako Talk + 01:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

An event in this article is a April 1 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment).

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:


 * Archive 1 (March 2003 to July 2005):
 * Archive 2 (February 2005 to November 2005):

We need help
Also, if there are any newcomers that intend to edit and make contribs on a regular basis, please let me know, leave me a message, or email me. We have a BIG need and deficiency in Iranian editors on WP. I cant edit everything all by myself. We need help.--Zereshk 22:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)'''

Save your images from deletion with proper tagging
Attention all Iran related photo uploaders:

We all know that Wikipedia judges qualification to displaying images based on US copyright law. And the US does not recognize, hold up, honor, or have any copyright relations with Iran, as stipulated here.

However, there are administrators out there (including Iranian ones) that WILL erase the photos that you upload, no matter how nice, important, and safe they seem for uploading, if they dont have the proper tagging.

If you didnt take the photo yourself, and if the photo's source is from Iran, and if you decide to use the Fairuse tag, please use the following tags to ensure that your photo doesnt get erased:

{ { fairusein| the page you are using the image in } }

{ { OCILLA } }

That should keep your images safe.--Zereshk 07:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

'''However, it is advisable to use images that you took or created yourself. It will save everyone lots of trouble.'''--Zereshk 23:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If you are using a "fairusein" tag, it is also advisable to create a fair use rationale, which will make it near impossible for your image to be deleted without notification and a chance for you to respond. --Wikiacc (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

POV Language

 * Under Politics: Iran's makeup has several intricately connected governing bodies, some of which are democratically elected and some of which operate by co-opting people based on their religious inclinations.

Request for editing help with "Baha'i Faith"
Currently the editing of the Baha'i Faith entry (and related entries) is dominated by Baha'is, who take the opportunity to downplay criticisms and in general slant their information in predictable directions. Please consider this a call for non-Baha'i editors to come have a look at the site, and help ensure balance. Thank you. Dawud 10:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Attention Iranian page editors
The page West Azarbaijan is having some POV problems. The text is a bit biased toward Kurdish secessionist views (downplaying the Azaris there). For those interested, please address it as you see fit. Thanx all.--Zereshk 23:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The page West Azarbaijan is having some POV problems. The text is a bit biased toward pro-Turkish views (downplaying the Kurds there). For those interested, please address it as you see fit. There are enough sources referring strong majority of the Kurds in this province of Iran.

Thanx all  D iyako Talk + 22:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Diyako, give it a rest. Everyone here (except you) knows that saying such things as: "70% of West Azarbaijan are Kurdish" is ridiculous.--Zereshk 22:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk We can see it here  D iyako Talk + 22:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It doesnt say 70% are Kurdish.--Zereshk 22:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

But we all sure can calcutae!! can't we?!  D iyako Talk + 22:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikiacc's unilateral changes to the page
The changes made by user:Wikiacc to the Iran page are wayyyyyy too drastic. The format of the page was something that numerous editors had agreed on.

Wikiacc has taken out sections completely, deleted key internal links (keeping links that do not really matter), and watered down the page significantly. The section on the government (with the sub-sections) needs to be restored definitely. We based the page's design on the United States article.

Compare the page the United States to the new page of Iran and you will see that it compares very little now, with the changes made by Wikiacc.--Zereshk 22:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * See reply at User talk:Zereshk. --Wikiacc (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, why do we have 2 Ethinic Maps?
Why is there two different ethnic maps in the page under demographic? --( Aytakin ) | Talk 22:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Aytakin, one of those maps does not show religious minorities. Thanks.  D iyako Talk + 22:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

- I have removed the first map - reasons for the action are as follows:

While being somewhat less detailed the second map actually mentions more real ethnic groups by name rather than simply describing linguistic relationships. The added distribution of religious information makes it altogether more useful. Ethnicity is not solely a function of language but as much - and sometimes even more (see Serbs/Croats/Bosnians) - more a function of religious affiliation. Quiet apart from this I would suggest to calm down generally. Refdoc 23:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Please restore both maps. One is a "religious map". The other is an "ethnic map". They are different. Me and Diyako reached this solution.


 * The map RefDoc is showing, is inaccurate ethnically. It shows Urmia as a Kurdish city, for example.--Zereshk 23:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There is large Kurdish population in Urmia and its township, more than Turkish or at least equal.  D iyako Talk + 23:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Kurds are not a majority in Urmia, as your map says. Therefore it is inaccurate.
 * 2) "Religious minorities" is not a demographic profile according to the definitions of the Census Bureau. Therefore we need separate maps.--Zereshk 23:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Turks also are NOT a majority in Urmia. A large population including most of the township is Kurdish.

 D iyako Talk + 00:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk, this is not what I said. What I said is that Ethnicity is not solely defined by language but by a multitude of factors (including religion) This plays in some parts of the world a larger role, in some parts a much smaller role. In Iran the overall importance of religion as a dividing factor 'where there are no linguistic differences is probably minimal - admittedly, nevertheless the ine added religious information is useful in this context. I am no expert on the statistics of individual towns and must leave it here to you and others to hash it out, but clearly it would be useful if you not both start again a revert war. Refdoc 23:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Religious minorities should have its own section, and its own map. And it should be separate from ethnic minorities. Merging the two, should entail merging both corresponding existing articles. Aside from the fact that the religious map is ethnically incorrect.--Zereshk 00:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Zemnan een babaee ke migi bahash "edit war" daaram, Irani ham hattaa neest. Edit haash por az GHARAZ VARZEE hast.--Zereshk 00:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Look Zereshk - use of Farsi on this page is rather uncivil. As I said I can not help with the accuracy of the ethnic distributions. I hold the concept  of Diyako's map for very useful. I trust that inaccuracies can be corrected by someone with some graphical talent - there is a Gimp or photoshop after all. Refdoc 00:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Is it strange that today unlike past the Kurds are in majority in Urmia?

(Zereshk I am not babaee!)  D iyako Talk + 00:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No, it is not "strange". It is simply incorrect and a POV push. Urmia is not a Kurdish city.--Zereshk 00:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a Kurdish-Turkish city calling it otherwise is a POV push. Urmia is not a Turkish city, it is a Kurdish-Turkish city.

 D iyako Talk + 01:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are the images for this article obviously biased?
Clearly this isn't a "factbook" type of article; it includes current events relevant to Iran, and topics of debate. So, the question is...

Why are there no pictures showing the smog that causes Tehran to shut down?

Why are there no pictures of the radicals burning American and Israeli flags?

Why are there no pictures of the millions of impoverished?

Why are there no pictures of the public executions?

Why does the article make Iran look like an acceptable society?

Haizum 20:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk's answer
Clearly this isn't a "factbook" type of article; it includes current events relevant to Iran, and topics of debate. So, the question is...

Why are there no pictures showing the smog that causes Tehran to shut down?
 * Because the smog isnt there all the time. Do we see smog pics on Los Angeles?--Zereshk 22:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are there no pictures of the radicals burning American and Israeli flags?
 * Why dont we see pictures of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson?--Zereshk 22:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are there no pictures of the millions of impoverished?
 * Because there are millions others who are not impovershied.--Zereshk 22:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are there no pictures of the public executions?
 * Same for the United States.--Zereshk 22:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Why does the article make Iran look like an acceptable society?
 * Because this is not propaganda page.--Zereshk 22:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Haizum 20:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Zereshk
1. You have no business making alterations to my posts. If you have a point you want to make, do it in your own space.

2. If you can't see how your previous comments are "tu quoque" fallacies, then you have no business contributing.

(just because there is smog in LA, doesn't mean there isn't smog in Tehran.)

(btw, LA has never had to shut down completely due to smog, Tehran has)

Haizum 03:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

1. I fixed that

2. I agree with Zereshk.

3. No, but LA had to shut down due to riots. '''Riots in LA are not a chronic problem, whereas the air quality in the capital city of Iran is. Nice try though.''' Haizum 03:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

--Striver 03:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Zereshk's comments
'''Because the smog isnt there all the time. Do we see smog pics on Los Angeles?--Zereshk 22:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)'''

Even though your point is fallacious anyways, if you look at the article on LA, there is a picture that shows the smog very clearly. Oh, and take a look at this... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4502406.stm


 * Good for you. You found a page on BBC. This here is Wikipedia.--Zereshk 08:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Why dont we see pictures of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson?--Zereshk 22:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

...because we don't see them saying that Israel should be "wiped off the map," and we don't see them denying the holocaust. Who says such things? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran. Oh and guess what, Falwell and Robertson are not government officials.


 * Good. We have a page called President of Iran and Ahmadinejad. Take your wrath and spill it there. This article here does not represent Ahmadinejad. And I dont like him either.--Zereshk 08:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Because there are millions others who are not impovershied.--Zereshk 22:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

A blatant fallacy, but for the sake of argument, and because it is clear that you hate the United States, why don't you compare Per Capita GDP, Standard of Living, and Unemployment figures of Iran with those of the United States and the European Union. Also take into account the vast amounts of natural resources found in Iran.


 * Ad hominems are banned on Wikipedia.--Zereshk 08:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Same for the United States.--Zereshk 22:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

In addition to this comment being a fallacy, only a propagandist would say that executions in the United States are public. Only the family members of those involved, legal witnesses, and selected representatives from the press are allowed to view the execution. Executions in Iran often consist of a crane, a rope, and throngs of people...in addition to the victims that did nothing even remotely deserving of a death sentence.


 * Ad hominems deserve no answer.--Zereshk 08:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Because this is not propaganda page.--Zereshk 22:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, it's not a propaganda page. Therefore it should accurately portray what a sad state the country is in. And even though it is apparent that you hate the United States, any individual that is free from neuroses or pathological tendencies can see that your attempts to equate the United States with Iran are absolutely absurd.

Haizum 03:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Therefore it should accurately portray what a sad state the country is in.
 * I'm sorry, but that's not NPOV. The article must present both arguments (with well-documented, referenced sources for each) without giving preference to any one over another. Additionally, you have been making a number of personal attacks against Zereshk. --Wikiacc (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

re: images
Short snappy answer:
 * Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes&mdash;they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome.

Longer answer:

Why are there no pictures showing the smog that causes Tehran to shut down?


 * Because this is the overview article for the country. There's an article for Tehran, with a section devoted to transportation, where such images could be added&mdash;assuming freely-licensed images can be found. There's also a section on environmental issues in Geography of Iran, where such a picture would no doubt be a welcome addition. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 04:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are there no pictures of the radicals burning American and Israeli flags?


 * Because there are no freely-licensed images available? Because Culture of Iran is a better place for them? Remember that the cultural history of Iran runs back around 1400 years (farther if you don't assume a significant cultural break after the Islamic conquest), and the last few decades, while in the forefront of many people's minds, are not exactly representative. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 04:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are there no pictures of the millions of impoverished?


 * Maybe there are no freely-licensed images available? Maybe such photos belong on Economy of Iran? Maybe for the same reason that there are no pictures of trailer parks or Detroit slums on United States? What do you think? &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 04:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are there no pictures of the public executions?


 * Possibly there are no freely-licensed images available. If you can find one I'm sure a place can be found for it. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 04:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Why does the article make Iran look like an acceptable society?


 * Why should the article make Iran look like an unacceptable society? We're supposed to be aiming for a neutral point of view, remember? &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 04:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, I recommend reading Main article fixation. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 04:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Charles P.

 * Why should the article make Iran look like an unacceptable society? We're supposed to be aiming for a neutral point of view, remember?

The article shouldn't make Iran look like anything; it should be up to the reader to decide, which is why I call the featured pictures into question: they do not accurately portray the country by any stretch.

Haizum 05:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, but presenting that level of information on a country of 68 million people and 1.6 million km&sup2; would take far more photographs than we can fit in an article of this size, or indeed any article. Eventually editorial judgement will come into it. Loading this overview article with photos of choking smog, burning flags, millions of impoverished, and public executions&mdash;that's hardly an accurate portrayal of the country either. I'd say the same if (for example) someone were to decide that the United States article really needed photographs of the Chesapeake Bay dead zone, the 1968 Democratic National Convention, the slums of Detroit or Baltimore, and Abu Ghraib. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 05:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanx Charles. You nailed it. Back to contributing. :) --Zereshk 08:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * . . . though this photo just seems so appropriate to the section on foreign relations of the United States :). but I'm not going to add it. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 15:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Rofl!--Striver 01:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the Economy Section
Sorry I'm somewhat new to editing. Anyway, I was the one who has been deleting the drug information from the economy section. I just don't see why it should be covered in a "economy" section. I mean Iranians eat rice and bread alot. Yet such information is never covered on any basis with respect to particular products. Anyway, that's it. Thank you for your time.

CyrusIII 23:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

economy
The economy section is all good until you get to DRUGS! This has nothing to DO to the economy. It's not like the government is selling and making money. It's the smugglers and so once again the Economy section needs to be cleaned up not just because of the drugs, the jumping too. People who write encyclopedia's dont jump on info that fast-- Wikilo12

I think that wikilo12 is right and that that this part of the article should not be there. What if some American reads that and thinks that the whole economy of iran is bad. We need to clean that section up.--Wikiwo123