Talk:Persian Iraq

Comment
Who invented this name "Persian Iraq"!! The Name which had been used by Arabs authors in the middle ages was "IRAQ AL-AJAM" to describe this area and sometimes it called the mountain region, ajam mean  Foreign people  like kurd,azeri,persian,dilama etc.. all that nations who were Living in that region,  you can take a look on the Turkish  Wikipedia and Arabic Wikipedia and Persian Wikipedia, The only exception is the Dutch Wikipedia, which quoted the artificial English Name. --Gronvich (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is used in many English sources (like Iranica) and that's enough. We don't need to transliterate all names, some parts of names can be translated (and Ajam is synonymous with Persian, in historical sense). Alefbe (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not like the manipulation of historical terms for political purposes, even Iranica used the correct name but with putting a ridiculous interpretation whether deliberately or wrote citing of the Persian nationalist books, For me, I insist on the use of the correct name, I hate the Geography when it is  politicized Gronvich (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Gronvich, Ajam means Foreign people. Mussav (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your statement is wrong, but I don't argue about it, because it's irrelevant to this discussion. Alefbe (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your type of reasoning is considered Original research and is not suitable for Wikipedia. About the common usage of "Persian Iraq" in English books, you can see this (it is much more common than Iraq al-Ajami or Iraq al-Ajam). Alefbe (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I noted that The person who Wrote the article in the persian wikipedia is you!! Strange isn't it? you Wrote the correct name there! even you didn't mention the false name "persian iraq" Which has never used in the Middle Ages.. why do you do that? --Gronvich (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The title which I used in Persian Wikipedia is a Persian name. This is English Wikipedia, and the most common English name (in English texts) should be used. Alefbe (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ajam in matter of fact means Foreign, read Ajam. so yeah Ajam could be Persian... or diffrenet tribe of Iranians. or it could be Turks, Kurds, Assyrians... etc. Mussav (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The term, as used in English language sources of the nineteenth and early twentieth century, is "Persian Iraq" or "Persian Irak". If you want to change that, I'm afraid you'll need to go back in history and convince them to use a different term. This article even says that the term is obsolete, so what is the point of arguing about it? The only use of this article is for people doing historical research using old English language sources so that they can figure out what "Persian Iraq" refers to. No one should be using this term in contemporary literature. Kaldari (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (The term, as used in English language sources of the nineteenth and early twentieth century, is "Persian Iraq") do you have a source for your Statement? and are you telling me that the English language sources know our Arabic words better than us? Mussav (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Check out The Travels of Marco Polo and the Encyclopedia Britannica for starters. I'm definitely not saying that English language sources know Arabic better than Arabs, they obviously do not. "Persian Iraq" may be complete nonsense, but you're about 200 years too late to fix it. It is not Wikipedia's place to correct errors in transliteration, especially historical errors. For example, it is nonsense that California was named "California" (since it was named that on the incorrect report of it being an island). Do you think Wikipedia should rename the California article? Kaldari (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that this person understands nothing about the subject,well let me explain it a again Iraq is the Arabic name for Mesopotamia and also (Ajam) is a arabic word..so the  Arabic books Used to use of this term to describe the geographical area inhabited by the Kurds Armenians Assyrians persians azeris and dailams in the middle ages. --Gronvich (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Iraq-i Ajam was known to the Arab geographers as ‘al-Jibal’ (the mountains) and came to be known as Iraq-i Ajam (or Iraq Ajemi) in the 12th century. It included Hamadan, Esfahan, Qom, Kashan, Rai, Qazvin, and Zanjan more --Gronvich (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Persians may well feel insulted by the word ("Ajam") but Even the holy book used it, so Either we use the geographic terms without distorting or not use it at all --Gronvich (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

counterfeit!
The article says that the term (persian iraq) is defined in the Middle Ages, and this is not true. It has been known as Iraq al-ajam or iragi ajam, persian iraq is Simply inaccurate translation for the arabic term appeared in the last century, moreover The article gives the impression that the term has a Persian root!! I do not think that the Persians will humiliate themselves --Gronvich (talk) 03:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's an inaccurate translation. Complain to Marco Polo, not Wikipedia. We didn't make it up. And for the record, "Persian Iraq" dates back to at least the thirteenth century, although it was typically spelled "Persian Irak" then. Kaldari (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

well that because the letter of Qoph in the slang become k (for the of arabs of iraq and arabian peninsula).

any way Perhaps the translator who translated (The Travels of Marco Polo) Translated the word (iraqi ajam) to the (Persian Iraq).

and for your information. Arab geographers (in the Middle Ages)  divide the Kingdom of Islam  into two mian provinces Arab territories and Ajam territories. --Gronvich (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, you're right about Marco Polo, my mistake. I imagine his works weren't translated into English until several centuries later. Regarding Arab geographers, that may be useful for the Arabic Wikipedia, but this is the English Wikipedia. Our articles are based on the terms used by English-language geographers, not Arabic-language geographers. We have plenty of articles on place names that were inappropriate or even offensive. The article on Gropecunt lane, for example, was just featured on the main page. Kaldari (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Google Book search:
 * Persian Iraq: 638 matches
 * Persian Irak: 670 matches, 8 from before 1800
 * Iraq-i ajam: 221 matches
 * Iraqi ajem: 60 matches
 * Eraq-e Ajam: 19 matches
 * Iraqi ajam: 13 matches
 * Iraq al-ajami: 8 matches
 * Iraq al-ajam: 7 matches
 * Of all of those, the one with the least matches is the one you want us to use. Naming conventions says "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize... Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." Kaldari (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
I'm not sure I understand why the neutrality of the article is being disputed. What about the article isn't neutral? If "Persian Iraq" isn't a good translation, someone can add a section to the article explaining the term's etymology. The term, however, was not invented by Wikipedia, so I don't understand what's wrong with it or what Gronvich would suggest to fix the article's neutrality. What specifically do you want to change about the article? Kaldari (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is the term isn't persian and "iraqi ajem" is the geographical term used in the Middle Ages unlike "persian iraq" Which is a mere translation of the arabic term, Это все   --Gronvich (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the Wikipedia Naming Convention is very clear about favoring English language terms over transliterations: "Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article, unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form." I think this article currently follows this guideline pretty well. The article is named using the English term "Persian Iraq" (which is far more common according to Google Books), but we still include the native transliteration in the first sentence. I would also like to include the native Arabic name in the first sentence as well. Unfortunately, the one you provided above didn't render correctly for me. You might need to make sure you are using a Unicode Arabic font. Kaldari (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Done --Gronvich (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding that. Back to the neutrality issue... is there any solution that would satisfy you besides completely renaming the article? Perhaps discussing the origin of the term "Persian Iraq" and how it is a problematic(?) translation of "Iraq-i Ajam"? I'm open to any ideas you have, although at this point I don't think there's a convincing argument for completely renaming the article. Kaldari (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we explained the difference of the terms in the article it will be great --Gronvich (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Useful image?
Can anyone decipher this image and/or translate its caption? It's in the Arabic version of this article, so I thought maybe it would be useful here as well. Kaldari (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It is the map of the world, Written in Arabic During the Middle Ages --Gronvich (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not bad, but it's not much helpful either. It's a schematic illustration (rather than a map) from a book by Mahmud Kashghari, a Qara-Khitan Turk who was living at the beginning of the Seljuq rule, when the word "Iraq-i Ajam" started to replace the word "Jibal". This page of the book mentions Iraqain (the two Iraq) between Khurasan and Hijaz. Alefbe (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Native language names (edit war discussion)
It looks like an edit war has developed about whether to include both the Arabic and Persian native names or just the Persian native name. According to Naming conventions (geographic names): "Relevant foreign language names (used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages. As an exception to alphabetical order, the local official name should be listed before other alternate names if it differs from a widely accepted English name."

So the question is, which languages were used by the people of Persian Iraq while it was Persian Iraq (or Iraq-i Ajam if you prefer)? I don't actually know the answer to this, so any input would be helpful. Should we also include Kurdish for example? Kaldari (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Kurds dailams Azeri Armenians Assyrians Persians and maybe Turkmens --Gronvich (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What languages did they speak and would any of them be considered the "official language" of the region at the time? Kaldari (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This term was used after the 11th century and at that time, the official language of the region was Persian and the books which introduced this term where written in Persian. Alefbe (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone's disputing whether or not Persian should be included. Does anyone know if a significant portion of the native population would have spoken Arabic or not? Kaldari (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only Arabic wasn't the native language of that region, it didn't have any official status in that region (other than for religious usage) after 11th century (when this term replaced the term "Jibal"). For Jibal, it's fine to refer to Arabic language (becuase it had oficial status in 8-10th centuries, when this term was used). Alefbe (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a special case.. the term is un-known for Persians, it Only found in Arabic geography books in the Middle Ages .. No one calls himself a stranger (Ajam) Especially the Persians, because this description racist towards them, it Has a double meaning, and Here the word used to reverse the Arabs see arabian iraq --Gronvich (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Gronvich: If that's true, what did the Persians call the region at that time? Kaldari (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * they do not have a name of the whole region --Gronvich (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Most of its usage is in the 11th-16th Persian books, such as Nuz'hat al-qulub (by Hamdallah Mustawfi). Also, it's enough to note that all the reputable encyclopedias (such as Encyclopedia of Islam) have mentioned it with the Persian syntax ("Iraq-i Ajam[i]), not with Arabic syntax ("Iraq al-Ajami). The Arabic versian is quite irrelevant. Alefbe (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nuz'hat al-qulub Written in any language?? its ARBIC BOOK --Gronvich (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasn't it written by Hamdollah Mostowfi, a Persian geographer? Kaldari (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Gronvich, I recommend you that before posting this kind of comments, at least take a few seconds to search internet (for example see ). Alefbe (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone can show conclusively that Arabic was a significantly used language by native residents of Persian Iraq, I'm inclined to support removing it from the intro sentence. The issue isn't which language the term "Persian Iraq" was translated from, it's which names are authentic native names for the region. Kaldari (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I will See what I can do --Gronvich (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we should add only two languages, The Arabic language (Iraq-i Ajam means foreign Iraq) and Iraqi Ajam is a pure Arabic word so I think Arab named this region by this name and if you want to disprove it then think about it, how come Persians refer to themselves by Foreigners? Iraqi Ajam it's originally an Arabic word so The Arabic language defiantly should be in. The second language is, (well it's just a suggestion and it could be good or bad idea) so the second language is the Iranian language instead of the Persian language because Persian language, Azeri’s language and Kurdish Language are all branches of the Iranian Language. so instead of adding them all (Persian language, Azeri Language, Kurdish Language.. etc) we should add one, The Iranian language. not sure about the Turkish language and the Syriac language. Mussav (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If the rulers of Persian Iraq were the Turko-Persian Seljuq sultans, couldn't they have referred to the residents of Persian Iraq as "foreigners" (in Persian)? Just wondering. Kaldari (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, on the language issue, no one in Persian Iraq spoke "Iranian" (which isn't a language), nor did they speak Proto-Iranian, the common ancestor of those languages, since it had died out by then. Thus no "Iranian" native name of the region exists. Kaldari (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ajam is an arabic word and if the rulers of Persian Iraq were Turko-Persian Seljuq sultans why would they name that region by an Arabic word? Mussav (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well what did they call it then? Kaldari (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no Idea, but it's defiantly a Persian name. Mussav (talk) 10:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've unprotected the article now that things have simmered down some. It seems like we still haven't really come to a definitive resolution on things, but I hope you guys will continue to discuss the issue rather than just edit warring over the article. Personally, I don't see a problem with including both the Persian and Arabic language versions in the intro sentence for now. Maybe we can all just "agree to disagree" until more conclusive research can be done. Or perhaps as a compromise we could remove both, now that they are both interlanguage links anyway. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Although removing both versions is not a big deal, I'm not fine with this type of "compromise" because it's not much different than a compromise in including fringe theories. This term (Iraq-i Ajam) was primarily used in Persian texts (since 11th century) and all the major English texts (on this subject) have mentioned its original version with Persian grammar ("Iraq-i Ajam[i]", not "Iraq al-Ajami"). I don't see any point in compromising when the main argument of the other side is misinformed statements like this. Alefbe (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You used many Arabic words in your Persians texts but that doesn't change the fact that Ajam is originally an Arabic word and Arab called you by this name and you adopted this word from Arab. Mussav (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is nonsense. Many geographic names in Turkey have Arabic or Persian parts. This doesn't justify referring to these languages in those pages. Also, note that if we want to implement your approach, then we should also do it in the first sentence of Baghdad, because it's a Persian name. Alefbe (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Fist calm down. secondly YES many geographic names in Turkey have Arabic or Persian parts and YES in each part we must mention the facts of its (origins, names and history… etc) and don't try to change the facts. For example read about Diyarbakır, despite there is a physiological war between Turks and Kurds about this city (being a Turkish or Kurdish city) but no one changed the fact about the city's Arabic name. this city is called “Diyarbakır” because an Arab tribe called Banu Bakr lived in this place along time ago. So the Turks are really decent and civilized people because they did not change the facts of the city’s name, so try be like the Turks and don't try to change the fact that Ajam is an Arabic word. And no this is not a compromising because Iraqi Ajam is a fact an Arabic word and adding the Arabic language is the least thing we can do. Mussav (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First sentence of a page is not the place for referring to the etymology of the name. If you are interested in doing that, first start it in Baghdad, by referring to Persian language there. After that, we can discuss doing it here. Alefbe (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the best solution would be for us to discuss the etymology and history of the various terms in the article itself. It sounds like the Persian name might be the only one that qualifies as a legitimate "native name", but there's no reason we can't discuss the Arabic origin of the term Ajam in the article. Kaldari (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussing about the meaning and etymology is fine (but not in the first sentence). Also, for the discussion about the meaning of the term in those texts, the meaning of the words in 11th-16th centuries should be emphasized (specially in Persian language which was the language of those texts), not the 6th-century meaning of "Ajam" in Arabic. Alefbe (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's make sure we don't forget the English term as well since that's what this article is actually supposed to be about :) Kaldari (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * First, Baghdad's name has nothing to do with it here and your statement is called compromising my friend. Yes, I said it before adding the Arabic language is the least thing we can do, adding the etymology and history.. etc would be great but I don't have the time for it right now. Mussav (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Mr. Kaldari, The whole thing is built on an Arabic word. read this Oxford Islamic Studies - Ajam. why they say "Refers to non-Arabs"? why they did not say "Refers to non-Turks" or "Refers to non-Armenians' or "non-Assyrians"? Because the only one who would say they are non-Arab are Arabs themselves. this is another prove that Persians or Turks aren't the one who named this region by this name... can a Persian person call his region by "the land of the people who are unable to speak properly"??! This is very obvious, This is an Arabic word (fact) and the Arabic language desserves to be mentioned in the first sentence just like the persian one. Mussav (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No term "deserves" to be mentioned in the first sentence unless it is (1) a native name of the region, (2) a name commonly used in English language sources. It's been shown that عراق عجم is a valid native name for the region. It's also been shown that "Persian Iraq" and "Iraqi Ajam" are used in English language sources. Unless you can show that عراق العجم is also a native name of the region, it doesn't belong in the first sentence according to the English Wikipedia guidelines. If you want to keep it there, that is the task you must accomplish. Mentioning that Ajam is originally an Arabic word meaning "foreigner" is certainly worth mentioning in the article body, however. Arguing that the name must be put in the first sentence just because Iraqi Ajam is "built on a Arabic term" isn't a convincing argument. First of all "Iraqi Ajam" isn't even the commonly used term in English, "Persian Iraq" is. Secondly, all English terms are built from other languages. We don't discuss the etymology of every English word in the first sentence of every article. Kaldari (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Mr. Kaldari Both the Arabic عراق العجم and Persian عراق عجم are the same, I know you aren’t Arab nor Persian but I think... by the looking at the words you can see no different except the ال Al Defnition next to عراق that Arabs use. If we use the English litters both words will turn to be Iraq-i Ajam. In the other hand, Persian Iraq in is written like this عراق الفرس . so the valid native name for the region  عراق عجم you mentioned above  is actually Iraq-i Ajam.  Mussav (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On the English Wikipedia, a "native name" consists of 2 (and sometimes 3 pieces): a language (which must have been native to the region at the time of the term's use), the name as written in that language with the native script, and sometimes, the name in the native language transliterated to the latin alphabet. The native name(s) are included in parentheses after the English name. If Arabic was a language used in the Persian Iraq region, then it can qualify as a native name language and be included in the parentheses section. The only other names that should appear in the first sentence are names used in English language sources, which are often transliterations. In the case of Persian Iraq, the most common names that appear in English language sources are "Persian Irak", "Persian Iraq", and "Iraqi Ajam" (a distant third). Since "Iraqi Ajam" is rarely used in English language sources, I don't even think we need to include it in the first sentence (other than in the native names section in native script). What names are "valid" doesn't matter. English Wikipedia only cares about (1) which names are most often used in English sources and (2) native names in their native language. All the rest is irrelevant for the intro sentence. Kaldari (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Then I think we should add the Mythology and history sections to avoid ignoring some facts. Mussav (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's a great idea (so long as everything is verifiable). Kaldari (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Location of Persian Iraq
According to Britannica, Persian Iraq is a name for the location of modern northwestern Iran referring to Khūzestān Province but in this article it says for the central region of Iran. Mussav (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, Khuzestan is in Southwestern Iran (not northwestern), and none of them have anything to do with Persian Iraq. Secondly, for accurate information on a specific subject, you should look at the relevant entries in specialized encyclopedias or the academic texts on that specific subject, written by authors who are expert on that subject (the author of the "Iraq" article in Britannica is not expert on all the names that he has mentioned briefly in his article). Alefbe (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How come none of them have anything to do with Persian Iraq? forget about Khūzestān Province thing and britannica but isn't Western Iran included to that Term? look at the Persian Iraq article, at first the article says that Persian Iraq is an obsolete term for the central region of Iran but In the same article it says Persian Iraq is corresponded with ancient Media. Well, I know that Media empire included the Western Iran so how come none of Southwestern Iran and northwestern have nothing to do with Persian Iraq? what exactly the expert authors are saying about the Persian Iraq's location? Mussav (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Persian Iraq included Western and Central Iran, and Western Iran in this case doesn't include southwestern and northwestern region. Persian Iraq didn't include Khuzestan and Azerbaijan at all. Alefbe (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean "Persian Iraq"? Kaldari (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I meant "Persian Iraq". Alefbe (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't in that time, Iran's geography was different or they used Westren Iran term to Refer to westren Iran as whole (West, northwest and Southwest including all the parts of Ilam, Kermanshah and Khuzestan regions?) Because honestly it doesn't make any sense, how come Mesopotamia was called Arabian Iraq and Central and western Iran was called Persian Iraq while in between (northwestern and Southwestern regions) did not include to any of the terms? Mussav (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Persian Iraq" mainly included regions of Ray, Isfahan, Qom, Qazvin and also parts of Western Iran, such as Kermanshah and Hamedan. It didn't include Khuzestan and Azarbaijan at all. About the term "Western Iran", I added it to the Iraq article and if you think it's ambiguous, we can change to a less ambiguous term. Alefbe (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Somehow you made it clear to me that whoever gave the Iraqi Ajam’s (Forging Iraq’s) name, he made it sure that Khuzestan “the Arab inhabited land” is not part of that term. See we all know that Khuzestan province is known of being an Arab inhibited land, Khuzestan is full of Arab and you guys call them Iranian Arab meaning “Iranian by nationality and Arab by ethnic”. So I guess you were right about Khuzestan is not being Part of Iraqi Ajam. Mussav (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Khuzestan was not included, because of geographic reasons, not ethnic reasons. The same thing applies to Khurasan and Fars which were distinct from Persian Iraq. Alefbe (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Britannica, Persian Iraq was bounded North by Azerbaijan and Gilan, East by Samnan and the central Persian desert, South by Kerman, Fars and Arabistan, and West by Kermanshah and Kurdistan. Kaldari (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)