Talk:Iranian peoples/Archive 8

RfC: Should modern Azeris be described as one of the "Iranian peoples"?
This issue relates to this edit to the Iranian peoples article. There is no dispute that, until the medieval period, the Azeris spoke an Iranian language and the lead of the article lists them as one of the "ancient Iranian peoples". The dispute relates to their subsequent inclusion in the list in the lead that begins "Iranian peoples comprise the present day..." DeCausa (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I repeat here my post of 3 November 2015, which explains that all reliable sources regard modern Azeris as being a "Turkic people" and few (if any) describe them as an Iranian people:


 * your position is not supported by reliable sources who overwhelmingly describe modern Azeris as a Turkic people. I list below reliable sources which describe them as such. The problem with your argument is it is based on original research not sources that state whatmodern Azeris ethnic identity actually is, and, on Wikipedia, WP:OR prohibits you from doing that. You are trying to conclude that they are Iranic because they are descended from Iranian speakers. But that is your own personal definition of what an ethnicity is. In fact, in the modern world that is considered a bogus definition as ethnicity has a wide variety of components, not just ancestry which in any case is unknowable. The other problem with your position is that it fails WP:NPOV as it is only supported by the Iranian government and Iranian oriented writers. As one reliable source puts it: "Authors writing from an Iranian perspective tend to classify Azeris as Persian and stress the similarities between the nation of Azerbaijan and the minority ethnic group in Iran." (Croissart, Azerbaijan, Oil and Geopolitics, 1998, p.15) and source no.8 below says: "The prevailing view is that Azeris are a Turkic people, but there is also a claim that Azeris are Turkicized Caucasians or, as the Iranian official history claims, Turkicized Aryans." Here are the sources below that describe modern Azeris as a Turkic people:



Pahlavan Qahremani has not produced any sources which describe modern Azeris as an "Iranian people". Instead he produces sources that say that the ancient Azeris (prior to the 13th century) spoke an Iranian language and that modern Azeris are therefore an Iranian people. This is WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. DeCausa (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As long as it is well acknowledged that they are descendants of Iranians (as we clarified), that they originally spoke an Iranian language (Old Azeri language), that they began in Iran (Atropatene), and by an Iranian (Atropates), and they remain in the Ancient Iranian peoples section, then you may consider them as Turkic in language only, being the only thing your citations call them as such for (as you have no citations which state otherwise, that any other quality was subject to Turkification). Otherwise, they should remain.
 * It is not so basic as language, unlike your argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 20:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No, all of these sources say that they are a "Turkic people". Every one of the 17 sources I've cited above. None of them just say they speak a Turkic language. DeCausa (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it's original research. The area in question has been the subject of massive amounts of migration and conquering and cultural exchange and interbreeding and whatnot, not unlike central and western Europe. It's much like referring to the modern French as "a Celtic people" because many centuries ago the Gauls lived there and spoke a Celtic language, and some surviving French carry Gaulish bloodlines to one extent or another, when we know full well that they're primarily descended from Germanic Franks, and they speak a Latinate language. It's a futile and counterfactual endeavor to try to treat a region, a genetic population, a culture, and a language as interchangeable or necessarily causally related rather than vaguely correlated concepts.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: As your previous edits in article "Kurds", I can say you agree about classifying ethno-linguistic groups according to their origin plus language. I can say a sentence, like your proposal in the article Kurds , would be of used :" "Azeris ethnic origin is 'Turkised' the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan region .[1] They have a mixed cultural heritage, including Iranian,[2] Turkic[3] and Caucasian elements. Modern Azerbaijanis use a Turkic language and, as a result, are often themselves classified as an Turkic people." ( I can give the sources for numbers, but the sources will go out of paragraph . Just to have the talk first , and then we can add the sources ) . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's not how Wikipedia works. What we say is entirely dependent on what the sources say on a topic not what other articles say per WP:OTHERSTUFF. The wording for the Kurds article reflected the sources. Here, the sources above simply say Azeris are a Turkic people. No further qualifucation is justified by the sources. DeCausa (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wording is selective, because we are not using the exact wording of many sources . I think in understanding a text , we always have a "way of understanding" : how came in Kurds , as an ethnolinguistic group , we can emphasis on diversity of ethnic origin , but we can't do the same about another ethnolinguistic group ( and pay all credit to linguistic concerns ) ? As you did not asked for the text of the sources at all , how could you be sure that was not dependent to the texts . More than that , I think Brenda Shaffer and Svante Cornell are not reliable . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you see the 17 sources I cited above that use the exact words the Azeris are a "Turkic people". There's not the same debate as on the Kurds. It really isn't comparable. DeCausa (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Did I proposed them ( same as your proposal) not to be of "Turkic people"? And can you tell more about how much it is the consensus that the Kurds are of Iranian peoples versus Azeris are of Turkic peoples ? What's the difference between them ? Why can't we use similar sentences ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Because we had specific sources that supported those words. All the sources here just state flat that they are a Tukic people - except one which says that Iranian governmental/nationalists don't describe them as such. To go into that here in the lead would be WP:UNDUE. DeCausa (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can I summarize as you are saying according to the reliable sources Azeris are of Turkic peoples, and RS say it flat , and about the Kurds being of Iranian people , it is not written as flat as Azeri's . Correct ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Whilst that is broadly true, that's a discussion for the Azeris article. That article has as it's second sentence the mixed heritage of the Azeris, in the same way as the Kurds article refers to its mixed origins. However, you can't compare the Kurds article - which obviously the main topic of which is the Kurds - and this article which is about the Iranian peoples in general. The only question is whether they should be listed in the lead in this article. It would be quite disproportionate to have a long sentence as you suggest in the lead of this article just on them. It already includes them as an "ancient" Iranian people and notes controversy over whether modern Azeris are Iranian. Any more would be WP:UNDUE. DeCausa (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If the dialogue is about the lead only, I think you are right . I was arguing about mentioning Azeris as possible Iranic decent in general . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok - that's already in the article and no one's proposing to take it out. DeCausa (talk) 09:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Images in infobox
The number of images in the infobox seems excessive - especially when viewed on a phone, they are just coloured blobs with no detail or "added value" to the article. There are currently 56 images, a year ago there were 42, and in November 2013 there were 32, so the problem is rapidly getting worse. I realize agreeing who should be included/excluded will be difficult, so perhaps we should first decide how many to include? I suggest a maximum of 25 (5 rows each 5 wide) or 24 (6 rows each 4 wide) which will give much bigger pictures so they will be clearer. Perhaps we could choose one person per century, so it gives historical context and is not dominated by recent celebrities? Other opinions please - Arjayay (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest 30/35 images (6/7 rows, 5 columns). Because this ethno-linguistic group is large and I think 30/35 is enough to represent the most famous and notable persons. For example, article Slavs have 30 images and it's very good. It's better to clear the current mess and start a new and revised infobox. Or editors write their suggestions like this:
 * Row1: Person1, Person2, Person3, Person4, Person5
 * Or we can remove them one by one. --Zyma (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I start clean-up. WIP. --Zyma (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

WIP
Well, I've started clean-up and a new infobox (max:35 images). Please write your opinions. --Zyma (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Karim Khan is clearly not in date order, whilst horizontal pictures, such as Yılmaz Güney interrupt the pattern and are too small to see clearly - Arjayay (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC) I think we need a brief pause, to see if other editors wish to contibute - Arjayay (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Zyma, that is a good start, although IMNO 35 is still too many. I have reduced the array to 5 pictures wide, to improve appearance on phones etc. but it seems rather random.
 * What do you suggest? 30 images is enough? Let's decide which persons should be in the infobox and remove the others. IMO, the first 14 images are most notable ones. Zoroaster, Cyrus, Rumi, Ferdowsi, Khwarizmi, Biruni, Avicenna, Khayyam, Tusi and Saladin. However I'm not sure about Rhazes, Ganjavi, Hafez and Saadi. Plus, I want the new infobox represents all Iranian ethnic groups. And we need notable women too. So I want other editors participate and write their suggestions. Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with the idea of including all major ethnic groups and women, let's see if the really notable people decide the number, rather than the other way round.
 * Okay. For now, the infobox has 30 images (and 35 may be max). I tried to include the most notable ones, but it still needs more works, perhaps some replacements. I just wait for other editors' opinions. --Zyma (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is being mentioned as an example of what not to do with the info box as in  image spam....you guys may want to comment at   Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups -- Moxy (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Its surprising that a talk to place here and we still have such an image spam problem.  Sure its best that people see 30 plus images before even reading a word on mobile devises?   Poor educational experience for readers who use mobile devices.... leads to people navigating away from the article. You guys sure all these random  images with links will lead people to more info on the topic at hand?  -- Moxy (talk)
 * Infoboxes are collapsed by default on mobile devices. This behavior is in the Wikipedia app, not the mobile website, so never mind. clpo13(talk) 19:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd say we just remove the whole gallery. Seriously. Total POV. Seriously, What does a Baloch or a Pashtun, on a sane level, share with Ossetians, Talysh, Kurds, or Zazas? With this gallery, were presenting a fake "group" identity between various ethnic groups that couldn't be more distinct from each other as a meta-ethnicity nowadays, simply based on a spoken language. It's not like with Germanics or Slavics that diverged/differentiated relatively short time ago in history, and therefore are relatively very similar to esch other in terms of basic culture, language, etc, and have high degrees of mutual intelligibility for each others' languages. Also, that "related section" definetely needs to get removed. What on EARTH does a Kurd, Persian, Ossetian, etc share with Bengalis, Sinhalese, and what-not Indo-Aryan speakers, except for a supposed same origin of spoken language (which is one of the most fluid concepts on earth anyway), just some 4,000 years ago. They're on a relative scale from two different worlds when compared to each other. Again, totally non-academic generalisations based on PoV and simple-made conclusions. As a further example, I guess by that same PoV reasoning, the Maltese are first and foremost related to the Arabs, because of language, which is nonsense as well. I hope I managed to bring my points clearly across. I don't think I need to further elaborate how most of these groups are very different from each other. - LouisAragon (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Iranian peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080820175834/http://58.1911encyclopedia.org/I/IR/IRAN.htm to http://58.1911encyclopedia.org/I/IR/IRAN.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060517091025/http://www.bartleby.com/65/az/Azerbaij.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/az/Azerbaij.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Iranian peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060617211537/http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~siamakr/Kurdish/iran-lang.html to http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~siamakr/Kurdish/iran-lang.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?
If you're interested, participate and write your comment here: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups? --Zyma (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , where is the discussion? I don't see it in that link.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * NadirAli It is archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Archive 15 The discussion ran from 26 April to 15 June and the proposal for removal failed - Arjayay (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright thank you and regards.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Iranian peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060207180922/http://www.ieed.nl/lubotsky/pdf/avestan%20xvarnah.pdf to http://www.ieed.nl/lubotsky/pdf/avestan%20xvarnah.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060425175006/http://iranologie.com/history/history2.html to http://www.iranologie.com/history/history2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901223254/http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?program=CSP&ctype=event_reports&item_id=50 to http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?program=CSP&ctype=event_reports&item_id=50
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312053813/http://www.isna.ir/Main/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-727489&Lang=P to http://www.isna.ir/Main/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-727489&Lang=P

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iranian peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041009124244/http://www.iranologie.com/history/ilf.html to http://www.iranologie.com/history/ilf.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Petty nationalists edit warring over Pakistani population figures
This is really pathetic

User LouisAragon removes all the sourced figures because he believes they are "incorrect": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iranian_peoples&type=revision&diff=783560848&oldid=783339327

User TheIntellectualMind only removes Pakistani figures, but trusting the same source for Iranian and Afghan figures https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iranian_peoples&type=revision&diff=785392128&oldid=785242800

Another user 46.129.63.127 removes all reference to Pakistani figures, which were lowered from 71 million to 40 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iranian_peoples&type=revision&diff=785474804&oldid=785464307

--Xinjao (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Removing Pakistani figures because Tajikistan is missing is illogical and idiotic. Add the other countries if you are triggered by this. Stop removing data that you have an issue with. The source has been used on this page forever, but it was only recently presented with country flags and all the edit warriors come out of the wood works. --Xinjao (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Not a single part of your edit was covered by the given sources. For a start, where does it state that 71 million Pashtuns/Baluch etc. live in Pakistan? Even if it all was verifiable (which it is not), it's pure edit-war material, and it should all be kept out of the article. Readers can see by one click where these Iranic/Iranian peoples are located, and what their numbers are. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I did not add this information to this article. IT WAS ALWAYS THERE. You are Edit Warring by selectively removing sourced information. It seems you dont like the way its presented. Pathetic really. --Xinjao (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed with LouisAragon. You're clearly edit-warring. Personal attack, aggressive edit summaries, and the Caps Lock button do not help you with the promotion of your argumentation. Please do AGF, and keep the conversation civil. That's an incomplete and self-formulated list, and does not belong to this article. —Rye-96 (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Backup clearly arrived. You just removed information backed with an actual source, that is quoted several times on this page. Once again, thanks for contributing absolutely nothing to Wikipedia and good luck in your future edit warring endeavours. --Xinjao (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Let me ask you two nicely.

'''* What are your ideas on adding population figures to this page?
 * Why do country flags offend you so much?
 * Which sources can I use so that you two stop removing information from this page?
 * Do you have any future plans on expanding this article, because so far I have only seen you furiously reverting actual contributions.'''

--Xinjao (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * , either you misunderstood me, or I didn't manage to bring the point across; I checked every single source that is "mentioned" in the "reference"; not a single one of these sources actually back up the numbers that are mentioned within the ref tags. In other words, the whole story fails verification. Furthermore, even  if  the numbers would be backed up the sources mentioned, which they don't, it is still simply pure WP:OR and should be excluded from the article. The creator of it tried to come up with some kind of "total number". A total number by counting up digits mentioned by many separate and distinct sources, which is ridiculous.


 * Oh, and please stop making these ridiculous assertions and allegations ("Why do country flags offend you so much"). Especially considering that you've already built up a pretty decent disruptive repertoire (caps lock/aggresive tone, edit-warring), in every sense of the word, just recently. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I think the entire figure (200 million) and its fake reference should be removed. It has failed to be verified, has been disputed over time and would attract more edit-wars, and is undue weight. Even if "IT WAS ALWAYS THERE"—which is incorrect, since somebody has put it there anyway—we're dealing with it right now, because we just noticed it. Also compare it with the Germanic peoples article. I do agree with LouisAragon. People can view the number and location of each Iranic people by just one click. It is quite unnecessary to put it here like that. —Rye-96 (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See Turkic peoples There is a template that should be followed. Yours is not a valid comparison. --Xinjao (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Get off your high horse Louis. At the end of the day you are acting like part of a cabal, prancing around wikipedia with an objective of removing information and without contributing much in terms of content. I have no respect for people like you. Call me aggressive as much as you like, it doesn't really change the nature of your "contributions" to wikipedia. You are in no positions to complain about my bleeding caps. Also you fail to understand the gist of an edit war. You were called upon by another member, where both of you acted together to edit the same information, hoping the your numbers will give you an advantage. What on earth do you call that? I will contribute to this page as per the guidelines of the template that is in use. I will use different sources to keep the snowflakes happy. --Xinjao (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Western (in geographic not linguistic sense) Iranian Bias?
The icon box is completely biased towards Iranians in the western part of the Iranian Plateau like Persians and Kurds, as well as disputed peoples like Azeris (who are Turkics of Iranian and Caucasian descent). Aside from the Ossetians (who are Christian and reside in the Caucasus and Europe), there are few to no eastern Iranians that I can see on this list. No Balochis, no Sogdians, no Sakas, no Bactrians and few Pashtuns. The only Pashtun pictures on here are of relatively non-representative ones. Before, there were better pics like that of Malala Yousafzai or Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan. We should add some more famous Pashtuns like Ahmed Shah Durrani, the poet Khushal Khan Khattak, etc. We need famous Baloch personalities, as well as famous ancient east Iranic personalities like Roxana the Bactrian princess, etc. We could include a famous Sogdian like An Lushan. Just my two cents. No more of this pointless bitching over Azeris.


 * This bias in favour of Western Iranians of present-day Iran has been increasingly noted throughout all related pages of the Iranian peoples. Future editors, please double check your biases regarding this and proactively ensure that we are not incorporating any personal POV. I have personally witnessed even misquotes on the Rumi page (that benefits Western Iranians) that was curiously used correctly to disprove Rumi's Turkic background beforehand. Please make sure that we are not editing quotes when directly including them into the text, and double check if the quote sounds off (the one I noticed definitely did). This page appears less biased than some other pages, but it should be noted so that future editions do not become biased for any reason. Thanks and kind regards. -B. Khurasani
 * --Jamaas9 (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"Iranian" is wrong terminology
"Iranian" is not an ethnolinguistical group but the denonym of a country. The "Indo-Aryan" article uses the proper scientific terminology. Why not here? The only thing using "Iranian" in this context does is create confusion for external readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farraf123 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We use whatever terminology contemporary reliable sources use. We shouldn't make up our own. – Uanfala 08:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

How is "Aryan" made up terminology? The article for "Aryan" themselves states that the term was used to designate the combination of what you call "Iranian" and "Indian" peoples. Other articles specifically state that "Aryan" is a designation for the combination of "Irano-Aryan" and "Indo-Aryan". It is the exact opposite of "scientific" if one article uses "Iranian" while the other uses "Indo-Aryan". This is either pure racism or simple laziness. If multiple people in multiple articles point this out multiple times you should actually try to usefully discuss with those persons instead of saying "50 years ago people used "Iranian" due to laziness they use it now as well so we use it as well although it is terribly wrong for a scientifc article to do".

Remember at the time this ethno-linguistical group was called "Iranian" the country was called Persia. Not Iran. At that point it was a very valid term. Now the term has stagnated and it is just racist (for natives) and confusing (for outsiders) to continue that even if it is just out of laziness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farraf123 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It may be confusing, but it's also the most used term among scholars to refer to Iranic peoples. Aryan isn't used as much. Iran means Aryan, it's just a different pronunciation of the same word. But I understand your frustration, especially with how "Indo-Aryan" still retains the original word in its English name. DA1 (talk) 08:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Regions with significant populations
By removing Caucasus and Mesopotamia, your edit does not include Azerbaijan (Talysh people, Tat people (Caucasus)) and Iraq (Kurds in Iraq, Ajam of Iraq). --Wario-Man (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Doesn't Iranian Plateau include Azerbaijan and northern and northeast Iraq? Caucasus is overly broad; outside of Ossetia, the North Caucasus doesn't have a significant Iranian population. DA1 (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think, Plus does it fit in a category of terms like West Asia, Central Asia, Caucasus, and etc? Another point is most similar articles (ethno-linguistic group) do not have a ethnicity infobox like this article. Maybe it's better to remove it. --Wario-Man (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Indo-Aryan peoples seem to include the infobox, albeit the "Regions with significant populations" is listed by country and populace. I think that might be a little harder to list for Iranian peoples but I'm not sure. Plus, once you introduce numbers suddenly you're going to have IPs/users trying to change it on a daily basis too. The "Iranian Plateau" region was already here before I edited it, I just removed the parts I thought were redundant in relation to it. DA1 (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I just replaced Iranian Plateau with 'Western Asia', that should include the South Caucasus and Iraq. DA1 (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * West Asia was in my mind too and it's OK. I think using infobox for meta-ethnicity is more problematic than useful. An example is this one (not only the infobox but the whole article is a mess). Based on my previous encounters, infobox attracts nationalistic/chauvinist POV-pushers and they always try to manipulate stats without providing reliable sources. e.g. increasing the value of total population. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I know. But with the articles on Turkic peoples, specifically Eastern Turkic articles, there is an awful POV/undueweight campaign by basically one user and his many sockpuppets. He has some serious issue with Uyghurs, Kara-Khanids and the various historical empires and figures from that region, and constantly trying to push a narrative. He's the one who flooded the article you linked with Arabic text, all of which are redundant as well, and they're not really RS because they're just Primary sources (and off-topic hadith) not something discussed in length in reliable sources. and  Can you imagine if someone just went ahead and edited the articles for Romans, Germans, Jews or Indians with random text from a Hadith or another religious source? I don't see any anti-Jewish decrees from medieval Christian clergy on the 'Jews' article. His "Muslim vs Non-Muslim Turk" section he added seems to be Undueweight. People in history, or from opposing sides spoke ill of each other, unless that's something that's been extensively discussed or dissected in reliable sources, it shouldn't be in the article. DA1 (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I know that sockmaster. His original account name was "Rajmaan" and he was well-known for inserting outdated stuff, links to blog posts, Islamic primary sources, quotes, and hadiths. And he was not the only one. For instance, see this long-term abuse case. His leftovers and Rajmaan's edits has damaged many articles (one of them is Turkic peoples). Unfortunately, Balkan, Middle East, Caucasus, Central Asia, and South Asia related articles are very prone to non-stop vandalism, disruptive edits, and POV due to several reason. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I think I recall seeing that username as well. I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed his disruption. Once he had his sockpuppet banned, he technically shouldn't have been allowed to edit again be it good or bad. BTW, I think you should contribute to the Talk on the Turkic peoples article. So others may see it. DA1 (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Plos One link
Please don't remove the Plos One link. I know there is a section in the article on genetics, but this report contains details on mutation as well as migration specifically about these collective ethnic groups so please don't remove it.--Persian Lad (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Iranic People
The name of that page should be changed into "Iranic" people. The misperception that this page refers to the people of the modern day Islamic republic of Iran is already pending around the internet for too long. This issue is handled very well with Turkic people and turkish people from Turkey yet we haven't found any solution for this problem even though we could just change it to Iranic people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerxes931 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * No - there's no misperception. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Of course there is, there is a HUGE misperception. Many people think that this article refers to people from the Islamic republic of Iran which it does not. By that article even Pamiris which also live in the modern day country of China are meant even though they have nothing to do with the Islamic republic of Iran (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2019(GMT)


 * But, no. And if that's the case, then people need to educate themselves, hence why we have this fantastic site named Wikipedia. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Xerxes931 It's a term that both classifies a nationality and an ethnic family. The excuse of Turkic and Turkish is not even comparable to the case of Iran, Turkic peoples have been around for centuries before the Turko-Mongols came to Anatolia, Turkified the population and adopted the name Turkey. They became Turkish. Turkey wasn't built to be "the land of the Turkics" but rather a nationality known as the Turkish. The nation of Iran was named after the name of the family of Iranian ethnicity. In fact, the Pamiris are related to the Islamic Republic of Iran far more than you may think, by the fact that the Iranian peoples are bound by a very similar cultures, a common history and origin. Although this may apply to Iranian peoples near the borders of modern-day Iran in countries which have been heavily influenced by Iran, e.g. Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Even though the Pamiris have been isolated from the other Iranian peoples for a long time and have most likely been influenced by non-Iranians in their surroundings, a lot of their culture, history and their origin is related to the people of the Islamic Republic of Iran and have influenced a lot on the current nations they live in today, China was influenced a lot by Iranian culture during the times of the silk road, this might've been because of the Pamiris. Another example would be the Parsis of India, their influence on Indian culture and them retaining their culture and identity is a perfect example that even in isolation from other Iranian peoples, the Iranian peoples are still related to Iran. KhakePakeVatan (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

add Template Aryanic peoples
This reference defeat of Indo Aryans by Iranians is rubbish. GIve me some proof. There is an earlier reference to Iranian peoples in literature well before any Iranian records. Unfortunately its in the Rig Veda and It menontions that battle of the 10 kings on the River Ravi. It records the defeat of the Iranian allies of on of the Vedic tribes, the Purus by their knsmen the Bhartas. The Iranian tribes include Dasyu (Dahae), Parsu, Parthas basically most of the major Iranian tribes that came to the Iranian plateau in 1000 BCE. There is also a record of a subsequent battle in Southern Afghanistan after several generations between the Iranian king Istasva and the Vedic King Rajasva. They come in Iranian records as Vishtaspa and Arjasp respectively. Plus the Mitanni effectively is more closer to middle Vedic rather than the early Vedic age. So they are not older than the Vedic peoples in India. ALl this talk of defeat of Indio Aryans by Iranians is hogwash


 * Change all the -ic endings to their name. Aryanic→Aryan Iranic→Iranian Indic→Indian KhakePakeVatan (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

add Template Aryanic peoples diaspora

 * What purpose would this be for? KhakePakeVatan (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hazara people
They are Persian speaking of the hazaragi dialect. Would add to table but don't know how to lol Foxhound03 (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hazaras are related to Iranian peoples but you need to find a reliable source which classifies Hazaras as "Iranian". --Wario-Man (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, they speak hazaragi which is a dialect of Dari which itself is a dialect of Farsi. Foxhound03 (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hazara's are Iranian-speaking Turks, they have a linguistic link with the Iranian peoples but not cultural or genetic links. It is like how Azerbaijanis are Turkic-speaking Iranians but they have the common culture and genetics of the Iranian peoples. I know this isn't the place to say this but I live in an area where there are many hazaras, they have told me they prefer to be considered "Iranian speakers" or in farsi "Irani zaban". KhakePakeVatan (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:NOR (no original research, no pov, and no personal analysis) --Wario-Man (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm aware, I just wanted to put that out there. KhakePakeVatan (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * (The Iranian peoples, or the Iranic peoples, are a diverse Indo-European ethno-linguistic group that comprise the speakers of the Iranian languages.):Hazaragi (Persian: هزارگی‎, Hazaragi: آزرگی‎, Azaragi) is an eastern variety of Persian. In addition: History of the Hazara People

Researchers cannot fully reconstruct the origin of the Hazaras, but due to their physical appearance, it is believed that they might have a close relationship with the Turkic and Mongols. Their facial bone, culture, language similarities, and general appearance closely resemble those exhibited by Central Asian Turks and Mongolians. Genetic analysis of the Hazara DNA has shown partial Mongolian ancestry, and it is believed that invading Mongols interacted with the local Iranians and formed the separate group. Source:


 * Note:
 * On 12 June 2019, Foxhound03 created a sockpuppet in order to add the same information which he tried to add on his main account.
 * Foxhound03 has still not provided a source which states that Hazaras are Iranian/Iranic.
 * Foxhound03 has therefore not only violated WP:VER, WP:RS and WP:CON, but also WP:SOCK.
 * - LouisAragon (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Official statement on the matter: Yes, I understand the allegations against me but they are false. I strongly believe that I've not done anything illegitimate. While I do realize now that I should've declared my second account, I had no idea of the rulings and I thought I was permanently logged out of my account as I had forgotten my password but hadn't realized it was saved by google and I only had to click and press the dotted line of a password but I ,In no way, have used this account for any reason rather than to reinstate something with different citations which I could've done with this account. The assumption that I created it as a sockpuppet is complete nonsense. It makes no sense for me to be accused of this as the notion that id make a second account with my personal name attached to it is absurd. In addition, it was possible for me ,using this account to edit it so there wouldn't have been much sense for me to create a second account to reinstate what I had previously added.

Furthermore, a user had mistakenly and wrongfully accused disruption due to me not reaching a consensus. This is a baseless assertion and I had added my response to the talk page which the other individuals had not responded to. In regards to the 'truth', the second edit I made is cited twice with reliable sources which appear on the 'Hazaragi' wikipedia: I do not suppose that the page is unreliably cited so I am utterly confused why mine is considered 'unreliable'. In regards to the accusation of using 'original research', I ,in no way, have cited research conducted by myself and the second edit I made is sound with the same citations on the official Hazaragi Wikipedia page. There was no original research (unless you regard a mere discussion on the talk page as 'original research'), there was no puppetmastery, there was an accidental unreliable citation which I had not used in the second edit. The fact that one of the citations links to the 'The Encyclopedia Americana' and is considered correct and mine is 'http://www.iranicaonline.org/' which is referred to as 'Encyclopædia Iranica' is ridiculous.

In addition, the responder of my initial request to unblock me stated that "before the dispute achieved consensus, you set up another account to reinstate your edit" however, there wasn't a discussion or dispute as such, as one of the users had only requested that I "find a reliable source which classifies Hazaras as "Iranian"" which was proven through citations which Wikipedia used itself on their 'Hazaragi' page, the requester appeared to simply want evidence of citations and I edited the page showing their partial Iranian origin, though without adding a signature, in which I received no reply nor any acknowledgement by any other members who have already expressed agreement at a degree, so consensus was not needed as both members appeared to have agreed of their Iranian linguistics. This is clearly shown (eg): "Hazaras are related to Iranian peoples..." and "Hazara's are Iranian-speaking Turks, they have a linguistic link with the Iranian peoples..." so there is absolutely no reason for me to make a 'sockpuppet' when I fulfilled what I needed to do. I would like whoever reads this to investigate over such baseless accusations such as 'conducting original research' in which no evidence was provided that I had done that. Foxhound03 (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: I reverted something in which an editor made an error in which he said: "Rv, it's said "ethno-linguistic" group not just "linguistic" group, take your concerns to the talk page." In reality, the table only says "List of peoples that speak Iranian languages". I replied: "Hi there! Sorry, but the table's title itself does not mention ethno-linguistics rather it mentions language as is says: "List of peoples that speak Iranian languages". Besides, ethno-linguistics doesn't necesarily mean ethnic origin but rather "the relationship between language and culture and how different ethnic groups perceive the world" "see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnolinguistics. Cheers!". A;so, as far as I know reinstating something with evidence doesn't violate anything' Foxhound03 (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Won't read your long post, but saying that Hazaras are one of the Iranian peoples is like saying that Namibians are a Germanic people just because they speak German, seriously ? ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  08:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Uhh, no and how dare you accuse me of vandalism. If we are going by genetics, Hazaras to have partial Iranian genetics (which is irrelevant by the way), of course they will be different, do you think an Ossetian will have similar DNA with a Pashtun or Baloch person? No, they are Iranian according to their linguistics. The table had clearly stated "List of peoples that speak Iranian languages", since Hazaras speak Hazaragi and that is their native language then they will be considered 'Iranian speakers'. This is not a POV issue at all it is a well cited fact and I am getting frustrated over the fact that I have to constantly repeat myself to people who can not be bothered to read the title of the table. Your edit doesn't address anything and it merely calls it a 'POV' which it clearly is not as a language's family is not an opinion. Foxhound03 (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

This issue seems to be getting ridiculous as everyone is unanimously agreeing of their Iranian linguistics and Hazaragi being an Iranian Language is an established fact, I've provided my citations proving that it is in fact an Iranian language. Foxhound03 (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I have constantly provided reliable sources but if people want to see the citation, feel free:

User:Rye-96 Sources seemed reliable in showing that Hazaras have Iranian linguistics so putting underneath the Persian speaking people. Can you share your issues with us please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxhound03 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hazara people: Classification and Reliable Sources
Okay, we need to start looking forward with this and resolve the issue this, doing so with calmness and civility. You both have voiced your concerns on me finding reliable sources in which classifies Hazaras are Iranian people. I will give you the citations and walkthrough.

An ethnolinguistic group (or ethno-linguistic group) is a group that is unified by both a common ethnicity and language.

I will be providing evidence of them having a common ethnicity and language with fellow Iranian speakers, starting with language then ethnicity

a) Language: Hazaragi is a dialect of Persian

Citation: Theses:

Other notable works include: Dulling, G. (1973). The Hazaragi Dialect of Afghan Persian: A Preliminary Study. London: Central Asian Monograph. Farhadi, A. R. (1975). The Spoken Dari of Afghanistan: A Grammar of Kāboli Dari (Persian), Compared to the Literary Language. Kabul.

Hazaragi: A Language of Afghanistan. (2009). Retrieved from Ethnologue: Languages of the World: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=hazlude:

b) Ethnicity: An ethnic group, a people group, a people, or an ethnicity, is a category of people who identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry or on similarities such as common language, history, society, culture or nation.

bi) common language: see above bii) History, society, culture and Nation is related to that of neighbouring ethnicities such as the pashtuns and tajiks as well as the neighboring Turkic speaking peoples of Central Asia as well Mongols who ruled over Afghanistan in the 13th century: Hazara's origin have still not been fully reconstructed however there are theories of them being native from Khorasan. Hazaras even used to make up the bulk of Afghanistan biii) Similar to what LouisAragon had stated before Hazaras are indeed of mixed origin but that does not mean they can not be considered Iranian as Iranic peoples are diverse in their ethnicity. For example, an Ossetian will be quite different than a Balochi person. Not only thic, but the Y-DNA are diverse meaning different paternal origins, but this ,like I said, does not mean they are not Iranic:

J1-M267; typical of Semitic-speaking people, was rarely over 10% in Iranian groups. J2-M172: is the most common Hg in Iran (~23%); almost exclusively represented by J2a-M410 subclade (93%), the other major sub-clade being J2b-M12. Apart from Iranians, J2 is common in Arabs, Mediterranean and Balkan peoples (Croats, Serbs, Greeks, Bosniaks, Albanians, Italians, Bulgarians, Turks), in the Caucasus (Armenians, Georgia, northeastern Turkey, north/northwestern Iran, Kurds, Persians); whilst its frequency drops suddenly beyond Afghanistan, Pakistan and northern India.[127] In Europe, J2a is more common in the southern Greece and southern Italy; whilst J2b (J2-M12) is more common in Thessaly, Macedonia and central – northern Italy. Thus J2a and its subgroups within it have a wide distribution from Italy to India, whilst J2b is mostly confined to the Balkans and Italy,[128] being rare even in Turkey. Whilst closely linked with Anatolia and the Levant; and putative agricultural expansions, the distribution of the various sub-clades of J2 likely represents a number of migrational histories which require further elucidation.[127][129] R1a-M198: is common in Iran, more so in the east and south rather than the west and north; suggesting a migration toward the south to India then a secondary westward spread across Iran.[130] Whilst the Grongi and Regueiro studies did not define exactly which sub-clades Iranian R1a haplogrouops belong to, private genealogy tests suggest that they virtually all belong to "Eurasian" R1a-Z93.[131] Indeed, population studies of neighbouring Indian groups found that they all were in R1a-Z93.[132] This implies that R1a in Iran did not descend from "European" R1a, or vice versa. Rather, both groups are collateral, sister branches which descend from a parental group hypothesized to have initially lived somewhere between central Asia and Eastern Europe.[133] R1b – M269: is widespread from Ireland to Iran, and is common in highland West Asian populations such as Armenians, Turks and Iranians – with an average frequency of 8.5%. Iranian R1b belongs to the L-23 subclade,[134] which is an older than the derivative subclade (R1b-M412) which is most common in western Europe.[135] Haplogroup G and subclades: most concentrated in the southern Caucasus,[136] it is present in 10% of Iranians.[137] Haplogroup E and various subclades are markers of various northern and eastern African populations. They are present in less than 10% of Iranians (see Afro-Iranians).

^Taken from the Wikipedia page.

Citation for ethnic identity: Theses:

Inclusdes: "Mousavi asserted this conclusion in his analysis of the theories of origin. He traces the Hazara roots back to the early inhabitants of Bayiman, which was the centre of Hazara inhabited Khorosan. Mousavi thus contends, “The Hazaras: a) are one of the oldest inhabitants of the region; b) are a mixture of races and ethnic groups, of which Changiz Khan and Amir Timur’s Monghol soilders are but one and relatively recent, and that c) Hazara tribal linguistics structure has been influenced by all these different people.” 81 (Mousavi, (1998), page 43) and "nothing can be concluded definitely about the Hazara origins"

'''There is also an ethnographic map on page 75 in which Hazaras fall under the 'Iranic group' category. As well as one of Afghanistan on page 74 where they fall under the category 'Iranian

As iranica online said (and me bolding important information): In the following discussion of “Iranian peoples,” the term “Iranian” may be understood in two ways. It is, first of all, a linguistic classification, intended to designate any society which inherited or adopted, and transmitted, an Iranian language. The set of Iranian-speaking peoples is thus considered a kind of unity, in spite of their distinct lineage identities plus all the factors which may havefurther differentiated any one group’s sense of self.

Thank you, Foxhound03 (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Not a single one of your sources state that the Hazaras are Iranian/Iranic. Users within the double digits are well aware by now that you are here on a single purpose mission to add WP:OR information to this page. You really need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This indicate there may be RS, but I am not sure these are them. I would have thought if this was "real" academic books or peer reviewed articles would talk about it, this is after all an actual science.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a pure example of WP:OR. —Rye-96 (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Iranian =/= Iranic
The term Iranian peoples is referring to the inhabitants of the Islamic Republic of Iran, so obviously we have to distinguish here because the article is not solely referring to those people but includes Iranic People living in the modern day republics of Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, and even in the Xinjiang province of China thus the title needs to be changed to Iranic people. Most of the scholars also refer to those people as "Iranic" people rather than "Iranian" people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerxes931 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Iranian = Iranic in academic sources, and Iranian is more common than Iranic. We use common terms on WP articles. The first part of your comment is your personal opinion and interpretation. For 2nd part "Most of the scholars...", you must prove it. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: What exactly is opinion? Your acting is childish by just condemning my statement as opinion. You want to tell me that Tajiks, Pamiris, Yaghnobis and Pashtuns being Iranic/Iranian people is my opinion ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerxes931 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Xerxes. We have to use WP:COMMONNAME here and not necessarily strict academic terms. Even in a simple dictionary, like this, the noun Iranian means "a native or inhabitant of Iran, or a person of Iranian descent". Therefore, generally when someone hears "Iranian", they are not thinking about Pashtuns, Tajiks, Kurds, Ossetes, or Pamiris. Khestwol (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree, the majority of academic sources use "Iranian" (more than 90-95%, thus making it WP:COMMONNAME), end off. Also, you can't assume what other people think when they hear the term. This is ultimately your own personal assumption, and thus irrelevant. It's also interesting that you avoided mentioning this from the dictionary "relating to or denoting the group of Indo-European languages that includes Persian (Farsi), Pashto, Avestan, and Kurdish." Furthermore, do take in mind that the majority of Xerxes931's edits have been unconstructive and reverted by other users (no, this is not casting asperations, see ). And his behaviour isn't too good either, as seen up above. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that the term "Iranian" has two separate definitions (an Iranic ethnicity, and a citizen of Iran) isn't a concern then? The above posters are making a valid point; it's like the difference between "Turkish" (citizen of Turkey) and "Turkic" (a pan-ethnic group). Certain key sources used (such as Izady for the Kurdish people article) also specifically use the term "Iranic".
 * Also from the Qahramani44 (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Izady is the same person who calls the Sasanians, Commagene, and Pontus Kingdom for "Kurdish", and has been criticized of being too nationalistic in his work by his colleagues. Also, Iranian is not a inaccurate name. At the end of the day it is a matter of preference, but it can't be denied that the term "Iranian" is a winner here. I've been editing and expanding Iranian-related articles here for ages now, and I don't think I have a single source that uses the term "Iranic".--HistoryofIran (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, your personal interpretation of a term is not a valid argument. Yeah, Iranic is more accurate but Iranian is the preferred term by historians and linguists. Actually Turkic vs. Turkish comparison proves my points and HistoryofIran's. Scholars replaced "Turkish" with "Turkic" and it's the preferred term now. We can't replace "Iranian" with "Iranic" when the cited sources use the former. If some readers and users are too lazy to click on that "Iranian peoples" wikilink to see it, that's not our problem. --Wario-Man (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Since the term "Iranian" is the most common term used by scholars, it's the one used on Wikipedia. People are free to click on the link provided to better understand this term. For example, we don't say that Al-Biruni was an Iranic scholar. Also, other terms have two definitions, like for example "French" (ethnic and citizen of the country), this is not an issue. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category:Indo-Iranian-speaking countries and territories
It is currently being proposed that Category:Indo-Iranian-speaking countries and territories be deleted. This article is related to that category. The relevant discussion is located at Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8. The deletion discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Iranian peoples. Krakkos (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Potential arbitrary changing of the dating format on this page
I have noticed that the dating style on this page was changed from BC/AD to BCE/CE without first discussing on the Talk page. The reason given for this edit was 'fixing dates for consistency'. Yet having looked at this, it appears that BC/AD was both the dominant style on the page and the first to be used. My understanding of the guidelines on this is that that the style which is used first is generally the one that should continue to be used and that to arbitrarily alter it can lead to page instability.

I think for the sake of impartiality, so that it does not appear Wikipedia is favouring one style over another that this edit should be reverted.

I wanted to get opinions on this before going ahead and changing it.

Thanks Midlandmadness (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would an article on Iranian people use a Christ-centered date-notation? B E/CE is to bd preferred, because it is more neutral. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

By that logic you could easily argue why use BCE/CE system which is, ultimately, still derived from dates of the Christian calendar; if we were going down that route we would have to use the Muslim calendar because modern Iranians are primarily of that faith. CE can also be interpreted as meaning 'Christian Era', so its hardly neutral. The only neutral dating style that could be used is the BP (before present) system, which is generally not appropriate for historical articles.

Ultimately though that is just a debate over what style people prefer rather than the main issue which is why the page was arbitrarily changed to the CE system without discussion or reason in the first instance. Midlandmadness (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we include these groups as Iranians or partly Iranians ?
Ethnic groups who are Iranian genetically but do not identify with Iranians; Armenians, Azeris, Georgian. From a genetic and linguistic standpoint they are basically Iranian people Vamlos (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:fringe. Beshogur (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just NO. None of them fits in Iranian ethno-linguistic group. Armenians and Georgians are not Iranian or Iranian-speaking groups. Azerbaijanis are already explained in Iranian peoples. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But being Iranian is not only about the linguistic. Is the genetics, appearance, culture, geography. Can't we at least add that including them as Iranian people's is controversial ?  I'm not asking them to be identified as Iranians from now on.


 * About Armenians this is what it said from Professor Gilbert Lazard:
 * "The language known as New Persian, which usually is called at this period (early Islamic times) by the name of Dari or Parsi-Dari, can be classified linguistically as a continuation of Middle Persian, the official religious and literary language of Sassanian Iran, itself a continuation of Old Persian, the language of the Achaemenids. Unlike the other languages and dialects, ancient and modern, of the Iranian group such as Avestan, Parthian, Soghdian, Kurdish, Ossetian, Balochi, Pashto, Armenian''" etc


 * A Hypothesis of Armenian language being related with Iranian still holds
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_language


 * As for Georgian, Linguistically they are not Indo-European, although genetically they are similar to other Iranian groups.


 * Georgian genetics
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgians#Genetics


 * A study of human genetics by Battaglia, Fornarino, al-Zahery, et al. (2009) suggests that Georgians have the highest percentage of Haplogroup G (30.3%) among the general population recorded in any country. Georgians' Y-DNA also belongs to Haplogroup J2 (31.8%), Haplogroup R1a (10.6%), and Haplogroup R1b


 * And in the Iranian people genetic page it also confirms what I mean.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples#Genetics
 * With J2, R1a, R1b, G being all common in Iranian groups which are common in Georgians.


 * Do I have any support now of mentioning in the Iranian people's page that Armenian, Georgian can be considered partly Iranian or at least mentioning their Iranian links are controversial ? Vamlos (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from Vamlos but you have to bear in mind that many neighbouring peoples are genetically very similar to one another and also share linguistic roots, but that does not mean they should all be considered as part of the same ethnic group. Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks share almost identical genetics and very close linguistics but are considered separate. Other groups share genetics but not linguistics (Greeks and Turks) and yet are still classed as different ethnic groups.

In this case both Georgians and Armenians are culturally distinct. Linguistically, although the languages are related, an Armenian is no more speaking Iranian than an Englishman is speaking German or a Romanian is speaking Latin. Midlandmadness (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Map
The Infobox needs a map, I understand that not every map is perfectly accurate but it shouldn’t be hard to find an at least somewhat accurate map of Iranian languages on commons, a major article like this can not just stand there without a simple illustration Xerxes931 (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * User:HistoryofIran, User:Casperti, User:شاه عباسXerxes931 (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Anahita temple Iran.jpg

azeris are iranian
Azeris are Iranians, not Turks Genetic studies and historical evidence show that Azeris are Iranians and not Turks. In the past, Azeris spoke the Tati language, which has its roots in Persian. The Turks were an immigrant people living in Northeast Asia. The Turks migrated to lands such as Azerbaijan and settled there, and over time they merged with the Azeris, and the Azeri language gradually changed from Tati to Azeri Turkish. Genetic tests show that less than 20% of Azeri genes are Turkish genes and Azeris are among the people of Iranian descent. https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%85_%D8%A2%D8%B0%D8%B1%DB%8C?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijanis?wprov=sfla1 آریو آریو آریو (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Azeris are Iranic and probably one of the most prominent Iranic people after Persians. Although the Azeri people are known to be Turkic, their ancestor's roots back in Indo-Iranian tribes and ethnic groups. Further deletion of Azeris off this page will be c considered vandalism not backed by historical research.
 * Read WP:OR and WP:CIRCULAR and WP:RS. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

What is Iranic? It's a made-up term. The correct spelling is Iranian. There is no academic backing for "Iranic".
This Wikipedia article is about Iranian peoples, and not about citizens from Iran. If someone cannot distinguish Iranian peoples from Iranian citizens, then it's not our problem and it should not be our duty to accommodate anything for them. The formal academic term is "Iranian" and not "Iranic". Its simple correct term is "Iranian peoples", not the newly crafted "Iranic peoples". All instances of "Iranic" must be replaced with "Iranian". If the suggestion edit is declined, then I demand a valid academic answer as to why said decision was made. Sickofthisbs (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Iranic. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 16:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not an academic answer. "Iranic" is newly created term and it's being promoted on Wikipedia to supersede the correct academic term Iranian which GOES AGAINST the policies of Wikipedia (which apparently is completely fine to anything related about Iran, Iranian citizens, Iranian peoples and Iranian languages). Looking at the facts and the purpose of the newly crafted term "Iranic", it can easily be regarded as a pejorative slur. Sickofthisbs (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Iranic vs Iranian
,, someone made a video arguing exactly what you're arguing. Have a look.--Persian Lad (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Right, and by this exact logic it is quite false to call the article and corresponding as "iranian people". Pashtuns are not iranian as they do not live in Iran, but they speak an iranic language. That's the difference. So why do you call the article Iranian people? We also do not call the article to the germanic people "german people" or "germanian people", right? We do not call the Turkic people as "Turkish" or something else. --77.1.156.239 (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I find it quite disrespectful and shameful how the term iranian is used here on Wikipedia (especially by the Persians). On almost all pages, the terms iranian and iranic are used like synonyms, with iranian even seemingly taking precedence (iranic is mentioned incidentally only at the very beginning). But Iranian means people who have Iranian citizenship (I refer to the discrepancy german vs germanic, turkish vs turkic, etc.), that should be obvious. On the other hand, some pages equate the term iranian with the term persian or extremely suggest that these terms are sysnonme (see for example Newroz page, Iranian plateau page, etc). All this makes the general public believe that Persians are the original race of the Iranic people and that all other Iranic people originally come from Iran and are descended from Persians. By the way, this is also supported by any experience, if you look at how people just equate the terms "iranian" and "persian" and just call an Iranian a Persian occasionally, because they think these terms are the same and that Iran, for example, consists only of Persians (but the truth is different: only about 50% of the Iranian population are ethnic Persians, with the rest of the non-Persians being significantly assimilated). This is an impertinence on all levels that is being spread here. A complete degradation of the dignity and independence of all "Iranic" people who are not Persian. This pro-Persian sentiment should not be spread here on Wikipedia pages. The truth should be spread! --95.112.136.222 (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Considering there's a country named Iran, and the citizens are Iranian, the title should be changed to Iranic People, so there won't be any confusion. Iranic people refers to multiple ethnicities throughout West Asia and South Asia, and not just Iranian people of the Republic of Iran.70.29.14.47 (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Title should be changed to Iranic People instead of "Iranian"
Considering there's a country named Iran, and the citizens are Iranian, the title should be changed to Iranic People, so there won't be any confusion. Iranic people refers to multiple ethnicities throughout West Asia and South Asia, and not just Iranian people of the Republic of Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.14.47 (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As has been discussed, "Iranian peoples" is the standard academic term, with "Iranic" a distant second. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Western Iranians and Eastern Iranians
The difference between Western Iranians (the Medes and Persians) and Eastern Iranians or immigrants began when the Western Iranians converted to the religion of Zoroastrianism and called themselves Aryans, and then came to the iranian plateau. But the Eastern Iranians remained on the ancient Iranian religions. The Parthians, who were from the eastern Iranian tribes, when they formed an empire and came to the Iranian plateau, continued to follow ancient religions, but gradually settled in the cities under the influence of the western Iranian culture. Until during the Sassanid period, they followed the Zoroastrian religion and merged with the Western Iranians. Mejlej (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 28 September 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

Iranian peoples → Iranic peoples – The same as we differentiate German people from Germanic peoples or Turkish people and Turkic peoples we should differentiate between Iranian people (people of Iran) and Iranic peoples (pan ethnic term). The current article is about 'Iranic peoples'. Privybst (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Dolyn – 21:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral Oppose . based on WP:COMMONNAME. Based on the Google Ngrams, "Iranian peoples" is far more common than "Iranic peoples". Compare this to "Germanic peoples" vs "German peoples", and "Turkic peoples" vs "Turkish peoples". Rreagan007 (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Iranic peoples" is not a commonly used term in the scholarly literature compared to "Iranian peoples". Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * * Rreagan007, Hemiauchenia but WP:COMMONNAME is not the only WP:CRITERIA. Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. Iranian people could also refer to Iranians, i. e. people of Iran. Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Mongolic peoples vs Mongolian people, Germanic peoples vs German people, Turkic peoples vs Turkish people, Finnic peoples vs Finnish people etc. --Privybst (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Dolyn
 * I am somewhat persuaded by your argument, but the Google Ngrams are pretty persuasive too. If the 2 terms were at least a little closer in usage I would support, but for now I will change to neutral and think about this some more. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I think the title of this article should indeed use Iranic but evidence shows that its far from comparable with Iranian peoples. Altough Ngrams is not the only way for showing which name is more common. Super   Ψ   Dro  21:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support as per nominator and the explaination he gave below. With current title it's quite confusing so it needs to be moved to the precise title. USaamo (t@lk) 02:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Using Iranic is strongly adviced. It's ethno-social language family, Trying to make the language family ethnicity is only an absurdity that Iranian propagandists brainwashed with paniranism will believe.

If someone seriously agree with using Iranian, then we should replace Finnic with "Finns" or we should call Scandinavians as Germans or maybe we should use "Turks" for entire Turkic community.

I have not been able to understand why some nationalist polices still tend to create a false nation, while even Iranic encyclopedias confirm what I am saying.

"In the following discussion of 'Iranian peoples,' the term 'Iranian' may be understood in two ways. It is, first of all, a linguistic classification, intended to designate any society which inherited or adopted, and transmitted, an Iranian language.

https://iranicaonline.org/articles/iran-v1-peoples-survey Volgabulgari (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Due to the vast difference there is in WP:COMMONNAME. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For comparison here, on Google scholar, "Iranic peoples" has been used in 57 publication since 2010, while "Iranian peoples" has been used over 1,600 times . It's not even remotely close, and it would be a disservice to the reader to use this frankly comparatively barely used term as the primary one. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Iranic has almost as many citations as "iranian." The nominator has sufficient reason for proposing this change and WP:COMMON name favors both equally more or less.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Iranic" has almost as many citations as "Iranian"? Could you please demonstrate that? Because the comment up above heavily contradicts you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nonsense sources.
Mehrjoo, Zohreh; Fattahi, Zohreh; Beheshtian, Maryam; Mohseni, Marzieh; Poustchi, Hossein; Ardalani, Fariba; Jalalvand, Khadijeh; Arzhangi, Sanaz; Mohammadi, Zahra; Khoshbakht, Shahrouz; Najafi, Farid

What's that nonsense sided iranian sources with full of propaganda about this so called heterogenicty of bmac Iranians with %3 Aryan elements lol :) 176.90.201.123 (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

You can not write UTC in the heterogeneity ok Majwede (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Strongly suggest keeping a close eye on possible sabotage attempts
There is a possibility of incoming sabotage attempts. Please keep a close eye on coming changes. Kane 1371 (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This verges on casting WP:ASPERSIONS. You are supposed to not restore your edit until you build a consensus. Aintabli (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your edit history is apparent to all, and you are sabotaging this page.
 * The page referred to and the article itself both have sources that are supporting the change.
 * Stop edit warring Kane 1371 (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's get this straight. I have over 11,000 edits, you currently have 31 edits. I don't even have to extend your edit history. Aintabli (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Good for you, and yet you go around reverting edits with no sources.
 * Stop sabotaging Kane 1371 (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not casting aspersions, you can't do something and then when it is pointed out say "aspersions" Kane 1371 (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2023
Please remove extraneous link for "Iran" in this hatnote per WP:HATEXTRA. 2001:4451:8209:7B00:BC44:473B:97E5:9EC2 (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)