Talk:Persians/Archive 6

Ethnic?
We should refrain from calling Persians an ethnic group. Persians are too mixed to be considered anything close to that. The main factor determining who is Persian and who is not is language. Shervink 13:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)shervink


 * The term ethnic may give the wrong impression, but it doesn't mean Persian is not an ethnic group. Just like how many if not all Jews see them selves as an ethnic group (ethno-religious), Persian can be seen as an ethnic group in the sense of an ethno-linguistical group --Rayis 14:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Some Jews identify themselves as a race separate from Caucasians, and nearly all Jews identify with Israel. Let me clarify that while employed at a prestigious American College I personally witnessed a few Jewish students explicitly articulate they are of the Jewish Race. Not all Jewish students identified themselves as being of the Jewish Race. These students may very well be a minority, but there are enough Jewish students that identified themselves as being of a different race to be noteworthy. Anti-Jewish bigots have also labeled Jews as a different Race in furtherance of racist causes. I am not a bigot, and think it is appropriate to disclose first-hand accounts in Wikipedia discussions so that editors may conduct their own research and incorporate independent findings that are later included in Wikipedia articles. My comment is merely a first-hand account of student responses and no disrespect what-so-ever intended. παράδοξος 04:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Persians are a fairly distinct ethnic group, related by common ancestry. All Persians do not share a common language, and the distinction is made. Persians can be of different religions and are geographically dispersed, much like Slavs. Jews consider themselves a distinct ethnic group, which is interesting because of the diaspora from Israel to Africa, Asia, and Europe thousands of years ago and a partial Jewish assimilation of their respective resident countries. παράδοξος 05:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Friends, if this article doesn't even mention the race or ethnicity question, it's very inadequate. No matter the result of the above questions, at least a mention of the varying hypotheses (and there are many) and explanations should be included.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.91.100 (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The acope of this article is the ethnic group called Fars in Iran and is translated into persian in English. there are a lot of names' confuison. But still I think it should have been discussed the ethnic Fars, which I see is poorly done in many occasions here. --Babakexorramdin 08:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the article 'Persian identity' lacks ALL validity and is written for propoganda purposes, it is dening the existence of Irans largest ethnic group. There is no such thing a 'Persian identity' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danz23 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are confusing articles. Please see Persian-speakers of Iran. Tajik (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have never met a person from Iran who referred to themselves as Iranian - always Persian. Usually they are quite adamant about it. it's strange to see the article say that most call themselves Iranian, as I have not found that to be even remotely true. It seems the ethnicity of most Iranians is Caucasian, but that doesn't make clear someone from Iran versus someone from Europe. Perhaps Caucasian is too broad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.141.187 (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

" Calling the land Persia or Iran depends on to whom you are writing. If the readers of the article are non Persian speaking people, Persia is more correct since the global name of the land was Persia until the last century. If you write the article with Persian speaking people in mind, than Iranian is the most correct term, since Iranians have been calling themselves and their land Iranian since the beginning of time. Persian can refer to Persian speaking people or people from the Iranian province of Pars/ Fars. Although it must be known that the province was originally much larger than what it currently is, and also included many other provinces such as Khoozestan/ Khuzestan and other provinces. The Iran which we know today is a smaller version of Iran Zamin/ Greater Iran which used to have "current" Iran as it's centre and Eastern Iraq, Afghanistan and Tajikistan as part of the land, not as a colony or empire, but as additional provinces. What current Iran is and during the beginning and it's growth also was, is a united land made out of two Aryan tribes, the Persians and the Medes, these were brought together by Cyrus the Great/ Kourosh-e Bozorg, who was half Mede and half Persian, thus the land of Iran was fully established. The concept or idea of Iran as a unifying land amongst other Aryan tribes or ethnic groups was strengthened by the later Parthians and Sassanids and even the Saffavids. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by خرمدین۸۹ (talk • contribs) 19:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Caucasian is race, not ethnicity (some of can be ethnically Chinese, Kazakh, Korean, but will be Asian by race, same way someone can be Iranian, Tajik ethnically, but all Caucasian by race). As for the term Persian, it is not only Iranians, Tajiks and Afghans, for instance were also part of Persia (geographically, politically) and Tajiks still identify themselves as descendants of the great Persia. --RukhShona (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"Persian" is an unknown ethnic term in contemporary Iran
Indeed, such [ethnic] divisions as Persian or Turk(Azeri) in Iran is not in common contemporary use. The local identity of Iranians are now mostly based on the geographical location of individual and not by language. That means if you ask some one about his ethnic identity, he will answer I'm from Isfahan ( Isfahani ) , Mashadi , Tabrizi and etc; and not " I'm Persian ". So I think it's better to mention on text, that many Iranians are not aware of lingual-race ethnic identity , but geographical identity instead .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To add from the Wikipage Ethnic group:"'Ethnic identity is also marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness and by common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioral or biological traits'"

In Iran, the most important figure in grouping people is cultural (including religious) and racial-linguistic differences is often is not important(or even understood). As a result I think the whole article needs a re-write for mentioning the fact that the term Persian is a historic term now not in contemporary use ... --Alborz Fallah (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

www.PersiansAreNotArabs.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.9.229 (talk) 02:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "Persian people" is politically motivated
Look, guys, you cannot treat the "Persian people" as a group of various peoples solely related through language (face it, that's the quintessence of the first paragraph) and, at the same time, define the English as "The English (from Old English: Englisc) are a nation and ethnic group native to England, who speak English."

The English are ethnically no more diverse or unique than the Persians. NUMEROUS people around the world use English as their mother tongue, but are not of English descent (blacks, Hong Kong, etc.). So why do you treat the Mongol Hazaras as Persians (while EVERY Persian KNOWS that they are not of Persian origin) just to make your unjustified linguistic point and, at the same time, do not use the same standards on the English?

Come on, re-edit that introduction and write "Persian preople are the main inhabitants of Iran and one of the major Iranian races that settled in the Iranian cultural area from around 1200 BC". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.170.205 (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

" I fully agree with SineBot, I add to his example of English people being the only English people in the world although a minority amongst the English speaking peoples in the world. In Iran and of all Persian speaking countries in the world, Persians (ethnic Persians and Iranians) though being the majority, many for instance Afghan Hazara's and Pashtuns know themselves as Persian, though they just are part of the Persian speaking world. Pasthuns speaking Persian as a second mother tongue and Hazara's (with their origins considered to be in Mongolia) having replaced their previous language with that of Persian. Equal to Latin America speaking Spanish or Portuguese. "--خرمدین۸۹ (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Since you mentioned the English people, I though I'd take the leading sentence for the article English people : "The English (from Old English: Englisc) are a nation and ethnic group native to England, who speak English."

- English people

The current first sentence of the lead on this article, states as follows: "The Persian people are defined by the use of the Persian language as their mother tongue."

- Persian people

Therefore, if you would like to make the leading sentence on this article, similar to the one on English people, perhaps changing the leading sentence on this article to

"The Persian people are an ethnic group native to Iran, who speak the Persian language."

- Possible leading sentence for Persian people. Mr.TrustWorthy Got Something to Tell Me? 04:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That doesn't work. The "Persians" were a nomadic tribe who lived some 2500 years ago. The current "Persians" of Iran only derive their name from those Persians (or to be precise: they derive the name from the Persian Empires which derived their names from the ancient Persians), but are themselves of diverse backgrounds. Tajik, for example, is just another name for this group. Even in Safavid Iran, the common designation of Persian-speakers was "Tajik" and not "Persian" (see the informative article in Encyclopaedia Iranica). Hazara is the name given to a whole bunch of people in Afghanistan: those who may look Mongolian, those who are Shia by faith, those who claim descent from Hazara tribes, those who are from so-called Hazara provinces (Hazarajat), etc. By definition, the Hazara are a "Persian-speaking Iranian people", and that is also the definition of a "Persian". Tajik (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

" Excuse me, but the name/ word/ term Tajik given to Persians during Safavid time functioned as a foul word, used mostly by Turks to insult Persians. (Michael Axworthy - A history of Iran: Empire of the mind) "--خرمدین۸۹ (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is an article for Persian-speakers of Iran;
 * but there are also two other articles: Persian people and Iranian people which deal with the exact same peoples. would not it be better if we could merge the latter two? Ellipi (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Iranian people include Kurds, Balochs, Pashtuns, ..., but this page does not include them. Alefbe (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer, I just saw it. Why this page does not include Kurds, Pashtuns Baluchs etc? Are not they Persians? Ellipi (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Persians are the group of people that originated from Persis. The other ethnic groups originated from different places, and have thier own article about them. Warrior  4321  16:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article gives no sources for defination of Persians. Ellipi (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Starting around 550 BCE, from the region of Persis in southern Iran, encompassing the present Fars province, the ancient Persians spread their language and culture to other parts of the Iranian plateau through conquest and assimilated local Iranic and non-Iranic groups over time. Warrior 4321  17:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

But this gives us nothing about an existing separate ethnic Persian group. Ellipi (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead sentence change
Why does the lead sentence state the Persian people are people whose mother tongue is Persian. Shouldn't the lead sentence state that the Persian people are an ethic group of people who originated from Persis? Warrior 4321  21:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No. "Persians" are those who are native speakers of the Persian language. Scholastic encyclopedias, such as the Encyclopaedia of Islam, do not even have an article "Persians". They only mention the Persian language, Persian culture, and the Persian Empires. Tajik (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The third line states that they "started" or originated from Persis. I am not asking to add the line, but to rather move the third sentence (a line already in the article) as the lead sentence.  Warrior  4321  21:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the sentence is work. The Persian language originated in Fars, but the Persian people - as speakers of the language - are an eclectic people with many different origins. In fact, modern standard Persian (after the ISlamic conquest) developed in Central Asia and found its way back to Western Iran due to the expansion of the Ghaznavid and Seljuq empires that patronized Persian. Tajik (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Persia was surperior to greece
I object to the sentence "The artistic heritage of Persia is eclectic and includes major contributions from both east and west. Persian art borrowed heavily from the indigenous Elamite civilization and Mesopotamia and later from Hellenism (as can be seen with statues from the Greek period)" Obviously it was the inferior Greeks who stole from Persia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.245.140 (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, you are just exaggerating. The Helenistic art is totally different from the Persian art. What is Persian art anyway? if you mean the Iranians Arts, I can imagine that maybe the Greeks were introduced to some Persian musical instruments, but it is impossible for me to imagine that Iranians were superior in sculpting and architecture. That's impossible. However, the Iranian culture at the time was a conglomerate of the cultures they ruled, so maybe those other cultures did influence the Greek style of arts. For your information, I am a Persian Iranian writing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.183.124.223 (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Rename to "Persians"
Unlike English people, Turkish people, and French people, Persians are almost never referred to as "Persian people" in any serious written work; to name an article "Persian people" is an utter joke. This article should be renamed to "Persians" for the same reason these ethnic groups are named "*s":


 * Russians
 * Armenians
 * Bosniaks
 * Romanians
 * Albanians
 * Germans
 * Greeks
 * about a billion others

The term "Persian people" sounds awkward, and is never used. It has 300,000 hits on google (most of which are copies of Wikipedia pages) while "Persians" has almost 4,000,000 hits. 174.18.4.14 (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

" I agree fully "--خرمدین۸۹ (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that, Persian has always been a LANGUAGE. The term Persian referring to the the people of Persia is totally a western nomenclature and nobody in Iran used that (Then again, this is an English Encyclopedia). Prior to 1900s if you told an Iranian about "Fars" as a people nobody would understand you. The people of Iran have been mixed from the very start, the persian language being the lingua franca among them, in fact nobody ever referred to himself as a "Parsi" after the achaemedian period. So this is a problem lying within the English language and we as the People of Iran have unfortunately become involved with this recently which is the reason for many arguments between kurds, azeri lurs and persian speaking people.20:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.183.56.203 (talk)

RV
I have reverted User:R1000R1000. He has been asked a few times to use the talkpage first. So far, he is ignoring the requests. Tajik (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarity
This article makes it extremely unclear that the term "Persian" is often used synonymously "Iranian", and that the article they are probably looking for when they type in "Persian" is really Persian-speakers of Iran. In fact there was absolutely no mention of or link to the article "Persian-speakers of Iran" (until my addition ) which is utterly ridiculous. Immakingthisaccounttohidemyipaddress (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit war
Hello there. I have protected this page so that editors stop reverting each other on the article, and use this talk page to reach a consensus on the structure. Please remember to remain civil and keep calm. Thanks. Ged UK  14:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Before locking the page, you should have looked at those IDs who started the edit war. Four of them are banned for sock-puppetry and you have locked the page in favor of them. Locking the page in this kind of situation is just helping the trolls. Alefbe (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, in the case that you haven't already noticed, you have locked the page on a version which is a redundant copy of Persian-speakers of Iran. As you can read from the comments of the user who as asked you to protect the page, he wants to delete this page and move Persian-speakers of Iran to this title. For doing that, he should go to WP:AfD, but instead, he has chosen to disrupt this page and then ask for protecting it on his version and you have done it. Alefbe (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not locked the page in favour of anyone, as the template says, the current version is NOT an endorsement. Yes, i know users have been blocked, but the edit war has continued. Throwing insinuations around despite me just asking you to be civil is NOT the way to progress any argument on here. Ged  UK  20:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So, now you claim that my comment here is uncivil? interesting. Alefbe (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Ged UK, I have to concur that the protection was premature and undue, as the edits/reverts made by the obvious sock-puppets and against them, should had been disregarded as enforcement of Wikipedia policy, not an edit-war. Also, the last revert to the same banned users/sock-puppets by another WP:SPA who also requested the protection of the page, should had been automatically reverted per Banning_policy. As it is, the page, in it current state, violates various core policies of Wikipedia. Please reconsider your decision and unlock the page  --Kurdo777 (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I will ask another admin to review the protection at RFPP.
 * To Alefbe, I asked that you remain calm and civil, and the first comments you make are to accuse me of siding with Danz23 and protecting on his version, and you've also attacked him by saying he's run to the admins to get the page protected how he wants it. So yes, I do think you aren't being as civil as you could be. Don't attack, in any way, other editors, and focus on the content issue. Ged  UK  08:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Right decision was made

I think that the right decision have been made. Clearly the issue was an editing war resulting from the fact that different editors can not agree on the content. The intention should be to end the editing war and bring the editor to the discussion table so a consensus can be reached in a FREE climate of debate, using arguments and logics instead of socket puppets, bots.

I have previously tried to share my concerns with other editor and contributed several times to The talk page but all of my concerns and complains has fallen on def ears and all my changes have quickly been undone with thuggish methods so I felt that requesting editing restrictions was the only way to create space for debate.

This article has been tagged for POV, unverified claims and original research in since As early as april 2009. Still there has existed no willingness to resolve the issues by Debate and arguments, it is clear that an edit protection is needed.

My concerns is that this article violated three outmost important principles of No original research, neutral point of view and verifiability. The whole premise Of the article in its previous conception was to commit ethnocide against on The largest and oldest ethnic groups of the Middle East by diluting and watering down the clarity of their ethnic designation.

This was done mostly by making unverified claims such as;


 * “Numerous dialects and regional identities emerged over time”,


 * “The Persian peoples emerged as an eclectic collection of groups with the Persian language being the main shared legacy”.

And also by exploiting the fact that various dialect of the Persian language is spoken by several ethnic groups, thus claiming that Persians are an ethnolingustic group but ethnicity must can never be considered by criteria of language alone, there are numerous ethnic groups who share the same language with some variations but do not belong to the same ethnic collective.

Other parameters must be considered too such as; Identity, genetic heritage, history, culture. According to the 2007 report by the Organisatin Internationale de la Francophonie, an estimated 115 million African people spreak across 21 Francophone African countries can speak French as either a first or a second language. But no thirld party publications considers those Africans as ethnically French.

All sources that contradict this scheme been ignored or suppressed, that Fact That Persians are a distinct ethnic group is an undeniable fact confirmed by sources Such as the CIA factbook, the Joshua project, UNHCR (Who do not designate Tajik or Hazara refugees in Iran as Persians) and countless other Iranian publications.

I believe that this scheme is being perpetuated to push the separatist political agenda I don not think that the purpose of Wikipedia is to be tool for ethnocide to further political Interests and I strongly believe that this is happening. I can also add that I am far from the only individual that has complained about the content, but the concerns of other user have often been ignored.

I also believe that the article 'Persian speakers of Iran’ is basically a shorter version of the this article in this previous form and created in order to push for the views that couldn’t be expressed in this article. Wikipedia has a special name for this and I believe that this too is unlawful: Only one article should exist concerning the same topic; There can exist only one article about: the ‘United states of America ‘or ‘Barack Obama’. You can not create a second article about Barack Obama using a slightly different name if you don’t like the content in the current article. I have therefore suggested that the article 'Persian speakers of Iran' should be deleted.

Thanks for creating a space for dialouge and debate and stopping the tuggish edit wars. Danz23 (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Danz is completely wrong on this issue. The article was factual and very informative before. Danz has simply turned into nationalistic none sense. I ask that the administrators please unlock the article so that we can undue the changes. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to air out ones nationalistic concerns.


 * Danz, Persian is not simply an ethnic group in Iran, Persians are all over Asia, from the Caucasus to Central Asia to the Arabian peninsula. Iran's modern day borders do not define who Persians are and who they arent, remember that Iran used to be a far bigger nation.Kalifo (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Kalifo I think that you need to review the policies of Wikipedia about POV, original research and third party publications. we must differentiate fact from opinions. The existence of a Persian ethnicity is an undisputed fact acknowledged by countless publications. Denying a fact a thousand times doesn't make it true. Wikipedia can not be turned into a tool for genocide in order to push for the political interests of the editors. The premise of the previous article was clearly to dilute and water down the peoplehood of the Persian people which is clearly ethnocide; this too is for most neutral observers very apparent.

Danz23 (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to unprotect the article in light of 2nd opinion at RPP. HOWEVER, I will remind all editors of the WP:3RR, and edit-warring. If I feel that the edit war is starting again, editors breaking 3RR etc, I WILL protect the article again. Ged UK  21:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it is a good idea to unlock the article as no consensus has yet been reached. And I don't think that several parties will respect the practice of reaching consensus on the talk page.

Danz23 (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Reaching consensus
I strongly believe that we should stop reediting each others contributions and agree instead discuss the subject of the content here.

I believe as I have stated earlier that the tenants of the article in its previous conception built on unverified and false claims and were contradictory to third party publications such the CIA Factbook, the UNHCR and the Joshua project.

The main function of the article was to deny, distort and dilute the ethnic designation of the Persian people by making a series of unverified claims and exploiting the fact that the Persian language was used by several different ethnic groups while Persians like many ethnic groups are not an ethno-linguistic group as their native tongue is not used exclusively by them. Other non ethno-linguistic groups include the Germans, Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, French and the English. Other factors must be weighed in when considering the collective identity of those groups such as culture, heritage and identity.

Some of the unverified claims included:

•	“The Persian peoples emerged as an eclectic collection of groups with the Persian language being the main shared legacy”

•	“Numerous dialects and regional identities emerged over time”

I think that the main thing we have to agree on is the distinctive Persian ethnicity which in my view is undeniable.

We should be able to agree that the articles content should NOT dilude, distort, falsify this by making false claims using wessel words or including other ethnic groups in this designation, ethnic groups who have their own article contesting this claim.

Finally I would like to bring your attention to the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous peoples which states:

Article 7

1. Indigenous peoples have the collective and individual right not to be subjected to ethnocide and cultural genocide, including prevention of and redress for: (a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples or of their cultural values or '’’ethnic identities’’’.

I truly hope that wikpedia isn't turned into a tool for ethnic genocide just to push the separatist agendas.

Danz23 (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To delete this page, you need to go WP:AfD (instead of disrupting this page and making it a redundant copy of Persian-speakers of Iran). Repeating your argument here doesn't help you. Alefbe (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Danz, you are misunderstanding the topic of this article. Arabs are not all ethnic arabs, Turks are not all ethnic turks, and Persians are not all ethnic Persians. Persians today are a mix of many people, just like most peoples of the world! Hazara's are of Mongol descendant but they speak Persian and share Persian culture, are you going to say they arent Persian? Azari's for example, have a language that is heavily influenced by Turkic (infact it is mostly Turkic today) but Azari's are not ethnic Turks.

Do you get it now? There is no agenda here, we are discussing basic facts!

The article clearly says at the top:

This article is about Persian-speaking people including those found in Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and other neighboring countries. For in-depth information about Persian-speakers in Iran, see Persian-speakers of Iran. For Central Asian Persians, see Tājik people.''' "Persians" redirects here. For the Athenian tragedy by Aeschylus, see The Persians. For other uses, see Persian people (disambiguation).''

You are no more Persian than I am, and neither of us are anymore Persian than a Tajik (which simply is the name for Persian's in Central Asia). You have to remember that Iran was much larger than it is today, influenced a lot of other peoples as it was influenced itself. Persian being the major language of the region was adopted by many people over many centuries.Kalifo (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

--

Obviously the good faith shown by GedUk have failed to meet its purpose immediately as I predicted it would and the article was reverted instantly without due time for all parties to be heard and a consensus reached this is the most frightening part.

I have stated my arguments over and over again. The tenants of the article is self contradictive in several ways (the most obvious beign that the aforementioned groups have their own article that refutes the claims made in this article)and builds on unverifiable statements and point of views which violate the policies of Wikipedia. The basic tenants of an article can not be built on falsehoods.

This article is not about ‘Persian speaker of Iran’ although that claim is made to create confusion. Persian speakers of Iran would include almost all the peoples of Iran and would not concern either Persian ethnicity, identity or history. The article is simply about diluting the Persian ethnic identity by lumping Tajiks and Hazaras into the article

I reject the notion of ‘Persian speakers of Iran’ or other nations as the subject is perfectly covered by the article about Persian language and there is were any contribution in such regards should be made. And I also strongly oppose the notion that no Persian people ethnicity exists and see all such claims as ethnocide. I think that all discussion should be concentrated of the content on this article, NOT other subjects. Danz23 (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The Persian ethnicity certainly does exist, there are about 60 million ethnic Persians in Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and other places. On top of that, including those that could be considered ethnic Persians, there are many more Persian speakers.


 * Hazara's, are not ethnic Persians, but they are Persians culturally, linguistically, and historically. Thus, they are included in the article.


 * For example, Azari's are not ethnic Turks, but they are Turkic linguistically, thus they are included as a Turkic people. Another example would be the English monarchy, who infact had their ethnic origins in France, but are nevertheless English by all standards. You are confusing the meaning of this article.


 * The definition of Persian is not what you claim it to be, it is much broader, because Persian has been one of the few cultures that influenced a huge area of the planet. Its just not that simple. Hazara's are descendants of Mongols but culturally, linguistically, historically, they are just as much Persian as you and I.


 * You want to make the claim that Persians are only those people who are in Iran. But you have to realize that Iran's boundaries today are a product of it losing much of its land throughout history. Much of Iraq used to be Persian (linguistically and ethnically until it because Arabicized), much of Afghanistan is still today Persian, although it may not be within the boundary of Iran (we lost these lands to the Russians and British). Tajik is the Turkish word which simply describes Central Asia Persians. There were many Iranic and Persian kingdoms in Central Asia.


 * Iran's boundaries today do not determine which people can be considered Persian and which cant. Iran's borders used to include much of Central Asia, the Middle East, and the Caucasus. You are looking at this in a very narrow viewpoint. Herat, for example, is one of the historic Persian cities of the past several centuries, it is today located in Afghanistan, and has a very rich Persian culture and tradition.


 * As a matter of fact, Tajik's are probably the most pure Persians left in the world, as, they probably more isolated from other peoples historically.Kalifo (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

enough is enough
Thank you Danz23, you're right this is a daylight robbery This article is a wikiIran project ,it was created before 2007 and has nothing to do with afghanistan. persian-speakers of iran was created in late 2008 but now is being used by certain people as a political smoke screen to conceal the truth and mislead people. The definition, Persian People = An ethnic group native to iran who speak Farsi or Persian. I could provide you so many refrences. Tajik people and Hazara people are Dari or Dari speakers of Afghanistan, with  their own articles dedicated to themselves. I've noticed they [I know who] want to merge Dari language page with persian language article, another crafty move ....... This article is being hijacked and manipulated continuously by user called Alefbe and his other 2 buddies. I've seen the tricks used in this channel recently ie manipulating refrences, redirecting articles and writing propaganda statements in the articles such as persian people, enough is enough.--Owen3050 (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

So true You are right User:Owen3050, one can repeat a lie thousands of times but it will remain a lie. They will not get away violating basic Wikipedia guidelines to push their political agenda. We must change the content in a way consistent with reliable third party publications and facts but this must be done using discussion, debate, providing sources and not further edit warring or sucketpuppery, this article has been tagged since april of 2009. There is little doubt to anyone familiar with Iran or the criteria’s of ethnicity that there in fact exists a distinctive Persian ethnicity that does not include Tajiks, Hazaras or any other group. http://www.PersiansAreNotArabs.com

Danz23 (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Including Iranian peoples who speak Persian language like Tajiks as "Persians" is absolutely correct, but Hazars who are ethnic Mongols is not. I dont understand which is the purpose of Wikipedia if uneducated people like Danz can edit it... Very sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.61.141 (talk) 05:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hazaras are not ethnic Mongols. Comprising 10-20% of the population, the Hazaras are largely descendants of the native Persian-speaking population. But unlike others, they have a much stronger Mongolic (East Central Asian) influence - there are Hazaras who look very Mediterranean. On the other side, there Tajiks and Pashtuns who look very much "like Mongols". Tajik (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Update Population Stats
Friends, the statistics given on this page and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_citizens_abroad are inconsistent (taking into account the difference between Iranian and Persian) and there either outdated or completely unreliable. I'll try and find a better source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 04:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The population stats from Afghanistan only contains the Tajiks/Farsiwan, but not Hazaras. That should be corrected. Tajik (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 114.76.90.75, 13 June 2010
hazara are not persians. they are of mongol descent. please delete the 'hazara' mention next to australia persian number on right hand side of page.

114.76.90.75 (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reference please? C T J F 8 3 pride 17:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- &#47; DeltaQuad &#124; Notify Me &#92; 19:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Persian people=Iranian People
I don't see the difference!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.191.229.194 (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Separate articles
Someone shared an opinion here, why not leave the term Persian to Iranians, as those other nations have their own articles. Well, speaking of that, there are articles named "Iran", Demographics of Iran" and "Peoples of Iran". Excluding other nations (of the same inherited ethnicity!) is discriminatory and illogical: Why decrease the greatness of Persia?! --RukhShona (talk) 10:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Persians in Afghanistan
Why is the number at 17 million in Afghanistan? Whether we use the 50% estimate (speakers of Persian language), 27% (Tajiks) or 40% (Tajiks, Hazaras & Aimaks) from CIA Factbook, it won't add up to 17 million. 50% = 14.5 million, 40% = 11.6 million and 27% = 7.9 million of Afghanistan's population. The number was at 11 million before it was bumped to 17 million by User:Tajik. (Ketabtoon (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC))

Persian and Indian people should not be seperated then
This article is kind of strange. I mean for example, Persian and Indian people, at least from North India, are the same people. They are of Aryan ancestory. Before the arrival of Islam, Persian and Indian people were a united people following Hinduism. When Islam came, they were still the same people. Even today they are the same people. But the difference is, after Islam came in the region, as time went on, they kind of seperated. But even when they seperated, they still have historical and cultural ties. So the point im making is that this article is kind of wrong because they give persian history as a seperate identity from Indian people and its kind of strange.....i mean....its kind of like saying......Americans and Canadians are not the same people. They are. But in time they kind of seperated. But still they have historical and cultural links then. 71.106.83.19 (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Population Update
According to CIA World Factbook, Iran's population is 77,891,220 (July 2011 est.). So population for Iran and total population must update: Iran: 39,724,000-50,629,000 or 45,176,000-50,629,000 total: 78 to 82 million.

Also see Statistical Centre of Iran (SCI): 75,197,000 http://www.amar.org.ir/default.aspx?tabid=52 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.159.132.255 (talk) 05:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Iranian and Persian
There is usually a recurring discussion about the use of the words Iranian and Persian. I think there should be some consistency with the instances where the words Persian or Iranian are used. The section on Terminology is useful and clear, however, when we continue in the article we see Iranian and Persian used interchangeably, moreover, if we are speaking about Persians (as in persians vs. medes) there is no way to clearly specify if individuals referred to as persians are Iranianss or specifically Persians. There has been a lot of mixture of blood between all the ethnicities in modern and ancient Iran and unless there is a consistent way of treating the two labels, we will end up misusing both of these words. I think whatever is decided on needs to be clearly explained in the article so others can use the same rules.

Some issues to consider are that the country has always been called Iran and never Persia (as stated in the article), that "Iranian" will exclude many Persians and "Persian" will exclude many Iranians. Many of the people who consider themselves persians in countries other than Iran might also not be ethnically persian, although they have the same language and culture (just like some Iranians). In the end, the article should respect all of these people and realize that in the end, we are talking about people who have very much in common and respecting this sense of unity and at the same time diversity is important.

Definite —Preceding undated comment added 00:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC).


 * [interjected] I am confused by the concept of non-Iranian Persians you are introducing above. It is either wrong or I am missing something. Could you please give some concrete examples of people who consider themselves non-Iranian Persians? --bahman (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * [...] many Western sources [..] will label many non-Persian Iranians as Persians, which distinguishes nationality, not necessarily the Persian ethnic group.Also, many others who embraced the Persian language and culture are also often referred to as Persian, not necessarily meaning ethnic group, but rather as a part of Persian civilization (culturally and linguistically).

I think it's not clear to the reader when the article is speaking of the Persian ethnicity and when it is referring to people who embraced the culture (which includes all of Iranians and some non-Iranians). I also just read in wikipedia that even Cyrus was half Persian and half Mede, so now when we are talking about kiarostami or behbahani, are we using persian to mean they are ethnically fully persian? I believe there should also be more consistency between all of the pages relating to Iran, Persia, Iranian women, Persian empire, Persian people, etc. Finally, I recommend including a link to the "Iran naming dispute." It's very informative and I believe unbiased. If someone were to simply try to find out the right labels, the articles would each point the reader to a different direction. I believe the most useful pages are Iran naming dispute and Iran. --Definite 05:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Behbahani and Kiarostami are indeed persian for the simple fact that they are seen as persian by Kurds, Azeris etc (example:). Persian is not a genetic/ethnic groups as Kurd are Azeri are. It is more a linguistic/cultural groups who is identified by other ethnic groups in the region as an "ethnic group". Sina Kardar 20:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I know about the fact that westeners use too often persian instead of Iranian, but the scope of this article is the Persian ethnic group. Or better said the ethnic Fars people. I am also opposed to group the Tajiks and Farswians into the same group. Articles about ethnic group, discuss always a clearcut ethnic group. Only with this article we have always difficulties due to the name confusion and that everyone sees it differently. Part of the problem are the Iranian-American community. It is unfortunate that the Iranian-Americans are not eager to use the correct term Iranian and use instead Persian every where. --Babakexorramdin 08:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The distinction between Persian and Iranian is a frequent cause for confusion in western European countries and USA. What follows is a hopefully objective attempt to clear the confusion. It may help to remember a general rule applicable to naming of all countries and not just Iran: how a country x is called in country y is a feature of country y's language. As an example, There is no confusion between United Kingdom and England for UK citizens - the former includes the latter, but also Wales and Scotland. Across the channel and on the European continent, however, UK is routinely referred to as England. Another good example is Germany, called so in English speaking countries and Allemagne in France. Again, this is not a mistake. Germans and Allemands were distinct people who, with others, constituted a nation called by its own citizens Deutschland. The names given by the British and French correspond, in each case, to the specific people with whom British and French were in most in contact. The German case is very similar to that of Iran; Iran is the historic name given to the grouping of many different people, each with their own names and having in common shared geography, interests and religious beliefs and having together created the first Iranian state around 3000 years ago. Historic inscriptions by Iranian kings talked about Iran, as the nation, and listed Iranian people who were the constituents of this nations. They further distinguished between Iranians (i.e., those people who shared a common real or imagined ancestry and race) and Aniran (i.e., the others). The former included Persians, Scythes, Mazenderanis, Medes, Parths, Azeris, etc.). Aniran referred to people of non-Iranian origins: Babylonians, Armenians, Egyptians, etc.

Therefore the historic distinction between Persian and Iranian was clear and well understand: the former was a distinct component of the latter, in the same sense that English are British but not all British are English. This distinction is still valid today: Azaris, Kurds, Mazenderanis, Khorasanis, Sistanis, Baluchestanis, Khuzestanis, etc., all consider themselves Iranians rather than Persians. The principle reason for confusion in west is due to a mistaken interpretation of the role of language in defining identity in Iran. Most Iranians speak two languages: the national language, Persian, and their own, regional, language. The regional language are distinct and not understood by people of other regions. All Iranians are highly to attached and proud of their dual regional-national identities. The Persian majority - non-Persian minority schema often referred to by western media is a misunderstanding, since there is no such thing as a Persian majority. Alongside with Azari, Kurdish and Arabic speakers there are distinct regional languages and identities in each of Iran's provinces.

The second question often raised in West is the correct name for the country: Iran or Persia. The answer for Iranians is simple: their country is Iran and the name is as old as the first unified state created by Medes 3000 years ago. Persian is the name of the national language. It does not, as sometimes mistakenly believed outside Iran, get its name from a majority people. Persian, the national language, is an evolution of the Iranian language spoken in Northwest of Iran at the time of Arab invasion in 7th century. It was adopted as the national language as Iran become independent again. For non-Iranians, how they call Iran is, strictly speaking, their own choice. In the same way that Germany is called by different historic names in different countries Iran can be called Persia or Iran or any other historic name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahman (talk • contribs) 17:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading the texts above, it is clear we need to distinguish between two things:

- Persian/Iranian distinction in Iranian history, e.g., the example above of Cyrus the Great. He was indeed half Mede and half Persian; but to him and people of his period Persian meant belonging to the Pars group of Iranian people, who had settled in South of Iran. - Persian/Iranian distinction used in English. In this case Persian usually means Iranians who speak Persian, or a close dialect of it. This would include most of the people in North East and centre of Iran. To make things really congusing, Persian language is not an evolution of the language spoken by old Persians as in the previous case. Modern Persian language is an evolution of the Iranian language spoken in North Eastof Iran and brought to Iran by the Parthians. It is for this reason that today the purest form of Persian, i.e., the one with the least foreign word usage, is spoken in Khorasan, Tajikestan and North-West Afghanistan. With the revival or Iranian as national language around two centuries after the Arab invasion it was logical that the language which came to dominate was the one of North East, since this was the first region to be liberated from Arab rulers. --bahman (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

" Calling the land Persia or Iran depends on to whom you are writing. If the readers of the article are non Persian speaking people, Persia is more correct since the global name of the land was Persia until the last century. If you write the article with Persian speaking people in mind, than Iranian is the most correct term, since Iranians have been calling themselves and their land Iranian since the beginning of time. Persian can refer to Persian speaking people or people from the Iranian province of Pars/ Fars. Although it must be known that the province was originally much larger than what it currently is, and also included many other provinces such as Khoozestan/ Khuzestan and other provinces. The Iran which we know today is a smaller version of Iran Zamin/ Greater Iran which used to have "current" Iran as it's centre and Eastern Iraq, Afghanistan and Tajikistan as part of the land, not as a colony or empire, but as additional provinces. What current Iran is and during the beginning and it's growth also was, is a united land made out of two Aryan tribes, the Persians and the Medes, these were brought together by Cyrus the Great/ Kourosh-e Bozorg, who was half Mede and half Persian, thus the land of Iran was fully established. The concept or idea of Iran as a unifying land amongst other Aryan tribes or ethnic groups was strengthened by the later Parthians and Sassanids and even the Saffavids. "--خرمدین۸۹ (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Though I know that in the old days Persia and Iran might have been the same, I agree that today there are many non-Iranian Persians. I am, for instance, one. So are the majority of people in Tajikistan. And I am sure there are more such people also in other countries. Reading the article with "Iranians" and "Persians" used interchangeably really creates a confusion, as "Iranians" today is mostly associated with the geopolitical territory that Iran holds today, while Persia (or old Iran) had different borders and they have changed since significantly. I think the term needs to be really clarified, as the article does give an impression to the reader that Persia is today's Iran only.

--RukhShona (talk) 09:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not want to be offensive, but I would appreciate some consistency here! It seems that each time an Iranian insults Afghans and Tajiks and Uzbeks, nobody remove their insults, and keep elaborating around it. However, when the Iranians are insulted the comments are promptly removed and we are told to watch our language. The editors of this page should either take an academic tone, and erase all insults and disparaging remarks, or let everybody speak their minds. Please be consistent! I see this pattern all the time. That is the problem with this whole debate as well. The Iranians are making it look as if we Afghans aspire to be Iranians. Nothing is further from the truth. The problem is that when you pick the greatest Afghans and Tajiks leaders and authors and claim that these are Persians, and then say that the people who have produced those leaders are not Persians, this creates a sense of hypocrisy. You really need to have a consistent method and stick to it, both when it comes to historical analysis ans the simple discussions in these pages. If you do not accept that Tajiks are Persians, fine with us, but please admit to us that Rumi, Avicenna and Rudaki were not Persians as well. You can't do both! That's call hypocrisy and it opens many ugly doors!--Yamaweiss (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A note about Uzbekistan: During the Soviet Union, the Tajik people of Uzbekistan were forced by Russian authorities to either label themeselves as Uzbeks, or pack their stuff and move to Tajikistan. Most people simply put Uzbek in their passport in order to stay in the country. Until now, the Tajik people cannot send their children in Farsi schools and must go to Uzbek/Russian schools. The idea that Tajiks are aspiring Persian is ridiculous. These people, from Samarkand and Bukhara and countless other regions, have been Persians for millennia, and despite centuries of oppression and cultural imperialism by the Mongols, Russians and Uzbeks they have preserved their Persian roots and origins. Thus, the real Tajik population is around 35%, contrary to what the Uzbek government says, whic is 5%. --Yamaweiss (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, there is a lot of wikipedia users who claim to be one thing and do another.. there is no proof the guy that is insulting Afghans is from Iran, in reality it could be anyone. I am an Iranian and I do not see any difference between Afghans, Persians, Tajiks and etc.. it is all the same civilization. Tajik is a general term used for Persian speakers along with Tat, 'Ajam, Parsi and Fors.  The term Iranian is used academically in several ways: 1) citizen of Iran 2) Iranian-language spakers... However, most people in Iran specially Persian speakers just call themselves "Irani" or "Iranian-e Parsi-Zabaan".  The term Persian and Iranian were also used synomously at least during the medieval ages (say 8th to 12th century) as mainly equivalent.. One must look to see how terms are used during their own time.. and how they evolve.  Tajik is definitely Persian though. Thank you.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Improvements Checklist
I have made the following improvements to this article:

I have expanded it including only the highest quality sources, almost all of which are cited through Google books. I have removed dubious terminologies, and tried to keep the discussion as authentic to the original text as I humanly could; you may check them against their mother sources (check the quote against its book) and critque me or change it as you see fit, however only if a change is warranted, meaning only to reflect on an inaccuracy. Please avoid, changing the author's quotes because "you do not like them" or because "you wanted to reword it." That is against WP:citation. I have also added new photos.

To do list (You may help please!)

Still needs considerable expansion and probably needs spell checking too, if you can pinpoint them.

We need to restructure some of the primary sources to wiki worthy status. There are sources on this page that are online websites and some of which lack credibility, even if their claim is well known and true. In these instances I think we should find other suitable or citable sources to replace the faulty sources. Those that are credible sources, are sometiems not even cited and simply present in the references as a link. I am going to try to fix them but I need help, so if you are willing, then please do and we shall more than appreciate it!

Thanks Dr. Persi (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Political constructed article must be redone
This article violated the guidelines of wikipedia in regards of reliable published thirld party sources, neutral point of view and no original research.

This article it is a marauder, it is a robber, it is robbing the Persian people of everything; Their identity, legacy, heritage and their connection to their homeland.

It clearly denies the existence of an separate Persian ethnicity and is entirely political motivated to ease separatism and Irredentism intentions by spreading misinformation and falsehoods. This is done mainly by lumping together two separate articles.

1) An article about Persians people which is undeniable a distinct ethnic group.

2) An Article about speakers of Farsi (Is such an article even needed when one exists about Farsi, this is obviously an SCHEME to create confusion?

No ethnic group in the world can be described as 'supra-ethnic group', Supra-ethnic means non-existent. Ethnic groups are by definition of ethnicity defined by common heritage, common identity, common culture, common history and speaking the same language does not create an ethnicity. According to the 2007 report by the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, an estimated 115 million African people spread across 31 Francophone African countries can speak French as either a first or a second language, does that mean that those Africans are French?

And the Persian people share no common ethnic identity with Hazaras or the Tajiks, they are clearly considered Afghan foreigners in Iran.


 * Your analogy is very wrong. The Africans are people of another race, culture and religion from the French. They are merely speaking French as a second or third language. Thye have their own native language and culture. The Persians are more like the English (England, Canada, USA, ...), Arabs (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, UAE,...), Spanish (Spain, Argentina, Chili,...) or th German people for instance. The German people are found in Germany, Austria and Switerland. There is a German people, spread in three countries and then there is the nation of Germany. The citizens of Germany cannot claim to be the only real Germans and deny the Austrians and the Swiss their German identity. Now, the Austrians and Swiss are certainly considered foreigners in Germany, since they are not citizens of Germany but of another country, but the fact that they are not citizens of Germany doesn't mean they are not Germans. Thus, there is an ethnic group which is German, and there is a country called Germany. For political reasons we call the people of Austria "Austrians" but they are still Germans racially/culturally. On the same level, Persians are a ethnic/cultural group that have existed for thousands of years. They are present in half a dozen country (Iran, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Irak, Pakistan, USA, ...). The fact that they are not citizens of Iran doesn't remove their cultural/ethnic identity which is still Persian. To compare Tajiks with Africans is nonsense! Farsi is not the second or third language of Tajiks, it is the only language we have, and the same language we've had for thousands of years. If you make a list of all the writers and poets of Tajik origin, you will see that they have all written in Farsi since that have been their mother tongue for millennia. The reason why today there are so much separation between the people is due to recent political boundaries. I am not saying that Tajiks are Iranians, but rather that both Tajiks and Iranians are Persians (think of Persians as a large group of people like Germans which include citizens of Germany as well as Austria). The Tajik are the same race as the Iranians, the same religion, the same language, they have shared the same governments for thousands of years. To compare them as Africans and the Iranians as French is a proufound misunderstanding and insult (this is like comparing Austrians to Africans and the Germans to the French)!!! As far as the Hazaras are concerned, they have always been mostly Persians who have always spoken Farsi for millennia. Their features may have Mongol characteristics, but this doesn't change their identity. You have to realize that millions of people didn't came from Mongolia. Some people came, conquered those lands, and their mixture with native Persian blood created a mixed race that we now call Hazaras. Besides, everybody in the region has had a mixed blood with other people.--Yamaweiss (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * To continue with the German/Austrian/Swiss anology, what you and some other people are trying to do is as follows: you are making a list of all the greatest man in the history of Germany, Austria and Switzerland, and then you are saying that these are all Germans, because they wrote in German, but the people of Austria and Switzerland are not Germans. You are mixing up ethnic identity and national identity in a maliscious way to improve the image of your own country. In this anology, there is only two fair possiblity. The first is that you ignore national boundaries and consider all citizens of Germany, Austria and Switzerland as Germans, and the writers and poets of these three countries as the collective authors of the civilization. Or, you can exclude the Austrians and the Swiss, because they are not German citizens, but in that case you should also excluse all the great man of Austria and Switzerland as well, since they are now Austrian writers and Swiss poets, not Germans. I hope this was helpful.--Yamaweiss (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no reliable third party publication that uses the term Persian to denote either Hazaras nor Tajiks and there is no thirld party publication that denotes the Persian ethnicity as a supra-ethnic group, that is to deny their existence, but plenty or sources that describe Persians as a distinct ethnic group such as the CIA fact book, the Joshua project, The UNHCR and countless Iranian publications.

A plenthora of other arguments have been used by the separatists to deny, water down and confuse the definition of the term Persian, all are grasping for straws, and when you refute one claim their always put forwards several new ones.

Articles that describe ethnic groups are politically sensible and must therefore be put under editing restrictions. Political interest groups tend to push for their own viewpoint; this article has been manipulated beyond belief and has made wikipedia into a tool for ethnocide against one the oldest and largest ethnic groups of the middle east: the Persian people.


 * So please tell us one thing, the same thing that many Afghans and Tajiks have asked the Iranians for decades, and that the Iranians never answer and always find a way to dodge the question: Is Rudaki, Avicenna, Rumi, and others, or they Persians or are they Tajiks??? The whole question lies with this point! You Iranians are robbing Afghans and Tajiks of their history, and then you make it look as if we are the "political interest group"??? How are we the political interest group??? We are saying that we are the same people who come from the same cities and cultures and language of Rumi, Avicenna and Rudaki. You are saying that these people, who are clearly from Afghanistan and Central Asia, are real Persians but we somehow are not Persians!!! If there is any political manipulations here it is the Iranians like yourself who are stealing the history and leaders of neighbouring countries in order to glorify the present nation of Iran!!! We have no political agendas! I don't care if you call me Tajik or Persian or Afghan, as long as I am called the same thing as Rumi, Avicenna and Rudaki! Don't call them Persians and call me Tajik since they are the greatest man of OUR past, OUR history, OUR culture, and OUR very identity!!! We do not aspire to be Iranians, but we do aspire to be recognized as the people and nation who have given birth to these man! --Yamaweiss (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)--Yamaweiss (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * To continue our polite discussion ... (I hope the administrators are not going to erase since I've being working hard here). Here is another example that will clarify the relationship between Persian and Iranian. A few century ago, some "Persianized" Turkmen from Central Asia, mainly Babour and his surroundings, came to Afghanistan, made Kabul their capital and from there they gathered all the great Tajik/Persian authors, artists, poets, sculptors, intellectuals, of Afghanistan, and some from Central Asia, and together they conquered India and created one of the greatest empires in the history of the world: The Mughal Empire. While the Turkmen and his family was on top of the ladder, all the administrators under him were Tajiks of Afghanistan. They made their language, the Afghan Farsi, now called Dari, into the langua franca of India. All Indian Maharajas, Brahmins, aristocrats, scientists, and so on, were using Dari as their means of communication. If the British hadn't shown up, Farsi would have still been the langua franca of India, and Tajiks would have been enriching and expanding the Persian culture there. You have to understand the main point here: the persian culture and language was introduced and expanded into India by Tajiks! Not a single person from today's Iran ever put foot there!!! Now, you want to tell us that the "Persians" created the Mughal empire, while telling us that Tajiks are not Persians ??? You want to tell us that the langua franca of India was Farsi, and that Dari is not Farsi ??? You want to tell us that the Taj Mahal is a Persian masterpiece, while saying that the Tajiks who designed it and build it are not Persians ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaweiss (talk • contribs) 14:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC) --Yamaweiss (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I have put a lost of time and effort to once for all correct this article that was previously misinforming and totally incomprehensible. The decription is now correct but changes need to be made to the infobox which is obviously wrong. Persians do not number 48 million, the infobox must be corrected. And the article 'Persian speakers of Iran' need deleting.

Danz23 (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This page is about the Persian people as an ethnolinguistic group. This ethnolinguistic group can be also divided in smaller ethnic groups in the same way that Arabs can be divided to smaller ethnic groups with different sub-cultures. Also you should learn to obey Wikipedia rules and for deleting a page you should go WP:AfD, instead of making this page a redundant copy of that page and asking admins to protect it in your favor.   Alefbe (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Persian people are different from the Tajik people
Persian people are part of the people of Iran and the Tajik people who live in Afghanistan and Tajikistan are different. Tajik people spoke Persian, but they consider themselves Tajiks. Iran and other places, they also called Tajik. Mohsen Abdollahi (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That is simply not true. "Tajik" is just another word for "Persian". In fact, until the rise of the Pahlawi dynasty in Iran, "Tajik" was the common designation of Persian-speakers in Iran. The Persian ethno-linguistic group is a large and eclectic population, very similar to Germans or Arabs, for example. There may be significant differences in culture or speech based on the geographical location, but they all have the same core of culture, language, literature, etc. There are even significant differences within the modern nation-states. The speech and culture of Khuzistan is different from that of Tehran, Yazd or Mashhad. The same goes to the people of Herat, Mazar, Bamiyan or Kabul, or to the people of Samarqand, Sughd and Ferghana. And that is exactly what this article is trying to explain, as it is supposed to do. As for Hazaras: they are largely descendants of the local Persian-speaking population, however with a much larger Mongolian impact and influence. But that does not mean that they are not "Persians", because "Persianness" is not solely based on genetics. If that were true, than most "Persians" of today would be no "Persians" because of the extreme Arabic, Assyrian, Turkic and other influences. To understand the "Persianness" of Hazaras, you should start with this video. Tajik (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The Tajiks do not feel or define themselves as Persians!--77.177.45.209 (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not true! Tajiks (at least on Tajikistan's part)identify themselves not only with Persians but as well with Iran. If you ever read ANY book of Tajik classic literature, you would see the same poets, the same scientists are praised as the national pride. The same history is shared. The same language is spoken. The same script was used in Tajikistan until Soviet Union. Rudaki and Ferdawsi are the founders of Tajik literature. And, if you look at the map of Alexander the great's conquest of Persia, while only a part of Afghanistan is in Persia, Tajikistan is almost COMPLETELY a part of it. The BC Balkh - last Persian province to fall to Alexander - was on the territory of the current Tajikistan. Now, if Tajiks and may be other nations (people) would NOT identify themselves as Persians, I believe this article would not be discussed so heavily. And I don't see a reason why acknowledging other people's belonging to the term Persian somehow makes Persian a non-existent ethnicity.
 * Comparison with "English" does not make sense here, comparison with British is more appropriate, as "English" - if referred to as people of England - is a term covering smaller area than the term "British", which covers the people who belong to Great Britain. Persia, on the other hand, is not a small province, it is not the name of a country today - it is the name of a whole Empire, and descendants of that empire are Persians. Now Scottish people probably identify themselves different from English. But they are both British.


 * An even more appropriate way of seeing the Persians, is to think of them as the "Anglo-Saxons". There are English, Canadian, American, Australian Anglo-Saxons, the same way that there are Iranian, Afghan, Tajik, and Uzbek Persians.--Yamaweiss (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

From what I've understood ethnic Persians only make up 51% of the Iranian Population. This article needs serious restructuring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.24.44.220 (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 24 November 2011
Please change "Besides modern Iran/Persia, ethnic Persians are also found in Central Asia (Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan) and are assholes how listens loud techo music This should be deleted because it is not true. Tajiks are (farsiwans), Persian speaking not persian genetically. Just like south americans who speak spanish but are not spaniards. &lt;ref>source: http://www.afghan-network.net/Ethnic-Groups/tajiks.html

12bobby1234 (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Does not appear to be a reliable source. Take it up on WP:RSN.  Chzz  ► 21:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Question about fact checking
(Moved from User talk:SilkTork)

Is there any way to candidate an article for fact checking? I know one article who’s central tenants are based on original research and unverifiable claims. It is the article about the Persian people that in my view has been totally distorted for political purposes.

The following claims are bogus and is in contradiction with several reliable sources and third party publications Original research and unverifiable claim 1

Original research and unverifiable claim 2 that can easily be proven wrong by linking to official Iranian government websites

I don't think that Wikipedia should be used as a tool of cultural genocide using original research and unverifiable claims. Truthtellers78 (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You can add fact (including the curly brackets) after the quote, which will add a request for a reference.
 * You can post to the talk page of the article and hope that somebody takes interest in your concerns.
 * You can remove the dubious facts from the article yourself, but be sure to add an edit summary saying why you're removing them; something along the lines of "unsourced and dubious". After you remove it, you might also want to post about the removal to the talk page as a belt and braces approach. --GraemeL (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for raising this issue Truthtellers. GraemeL is right - putting a fact tag just after the disputed material is the normal way, and raising the matter on the talkpage is also good. Removing the material is also an option, but as Graeme indicates, this may be contentious. I would suggest only removing material after you have first checked for sources yourself. I took a quick look and easily found these sources to support the first statement:, , , , . The second claim is a little more difficult to check as the claim is more complex, however I found these: , , , which indicate that the nature of Iranian and Persian identity and ethnicity is a matter of valid scholarly discussion. The second claim would need more research, and some balancing statements, as well as sourcing, though simply removing it would be inappropriate. I hope that helps. SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just looked at the article in question, and the material you quoted came from the lead - however, the material was sourced - either in the lead itself or in the main body of the article. I would agree, though, that the sourcing could be improved. I have added one cite, and I moved some material from the lead to the main body. There is further work to be done. SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I would like to thank you for taking time to do your duo diligence; I have looked at your sources and think that none of them support any of the quotes. You have referred to several books about the central Asian states and nowhere have I found support for the claim in the first quotes which is that people who speak Persian are 'ethnic Persian' or automatically a part of the Persian people. Support can be found that speakers of Persian language are found in those areas but it doesn't prove the claim that they are ethnic Persian. Speaking a language is often not enough to be considered a part of any ethnic group. You are welcome to make a direct quote from any of your sources and we can discuss it.
 * Let me explain something. Persian language or "Farsi" is a language with various dialects [Tajik language] that is being spoken in central Asian (the former territory of the Persian empires) whereas Persian people or فارسیc is a distinct non - ethnolinguistic ethnic group from the country of Iran. This can be compared with the French language that is spoken in many parts of the former French colonies such as of Africa, List of countries where French is an official language, whereas French people is a distinct European ethnic group from France. Speaking a language or a dialect of a language doesn't make you a part of an ethnic group. I'm writing in English right not, but that doesn't make me an Englishman.
 * The definition of ethnicity according to Wikipedia is as follows


 * The people defined as Tajiks, Hazara and Uzbeks doesn't fit the criteria for being considered as a part of the Persian people. Many of them who are in Iran as refugees are considered as non-Persian and non-Iranian by the native population. These ethnic groups also have their own Wikipedia articles that refute the claim that they are a part of the Persian but give plenty of explanations of their own ethnic roots how they historically have been influenced of Persian language and culture. The article in its current form defines everybody who speak the language Farsi as belonging to the Persians which is ridicules and confusing.
 * The CIA factbook which is a very reliable source defines the follow ethnic groups in Iran:
 * Persian 61%, Azeri 16%, Kurd 10%, Lur 6%, Baloch 2%, Arab 2%, Turkmen and Turkic tribes 2%, other 1% (2008 est.)
 * https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html
 * Afghanistan: Pashtun 42%, Tajik 27%, Hazara 9%, Uzbek 9%, Aimak 4%, Turkmen 3%, Baloch 2%, other 4%
 * https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/af.html


 * We can seen that Persians are a distinct ethnic group differentiated from both Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. Why would the CIA fact book make this artificial distinction of everybody who spoke Persian belonged to the same ethnic group? I can make references to Iranian sources if needed.


 * The only source presented in the article which in some way relates to the second quotes is the following


 * How should we interpret this? Firstly the source supports the notion of a distinct Persian ethnicity that excludes other groups who speak the same language, secondly is says that the term "Iranian" is an umbrella term referring to all of Iran's ethnic groups. It doesn't mean that the Persian people are not a distinct ethnic group or that they don't exist just because”Iranian" is an umbrella term for various ethnic groups in Iran. Example: All ethnic groups in the UK can be called "British' but that doesn't mean that it is wrong or misleading to speak about a English people, or a Welsh people.


 * The article has been problematic and a source of edit warring and contention for a long time, it was previously flagged for about than one year (look at the history) before somebody removed the tags and it was semi-protected without any of the issues being resolvedTruthtellers78 (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please go back and read the sources. Google Books doesn't allow me to cut and paste, and I think you should at least make the effort of reading the sources I found rather than asking me to laboriously copy out the material for you. If you read those sources you'll note they indicate that Tajiks trace their history back to Persia, and consider themselves Persian. Your initial post here was that there was unsourced material in an article - but it turns out that the material is sourced, and that what the material says can be supported by further sources. And now you are attempting to interpret what a source is saying, which is not our purpose at all. We are not writing essays and giving our personal opinions - we are summarising verifiable facts and verifiable opinions of experts. It matters not that we agree with those opinions. We are not taking sides in a debate. I suspect you are too close to the topic and are over-thinking the issue. I often find it better to edit articles on subjects which I don't have a close interest or opinion. I can be more balanced and factual. SilkTork  ✔Tea time  20:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * let’s go back to the contentious first quote




 * It is making one claim and a second claim & conclusion that build upon the first claim. The first implied claim is that Persian peopleare defined as an supranational ethno-linguistic group that can include any ethnic group who speak the language, the second is that there are Persian speaking people known as [Tajiks]] in central Asia and that they automatically can be included in the Persian ethnicity.


 * I have found no publication that supports the first implied claim, and therefore the second claim is null and void. Tell me which pages of your sources claim that Persians are a supranational ethno-linguistic group that can include any people who speak Persian language. I don't think that ANY ethnic group in the world can be defined by the use of a common language alone. There are a lot of ethnic groups who are very closely related racially, culturally, linguistically but still are distinctly different. A good example of this is the Scandinavian people nobody claims that Swedes and Danes are the same people, although they are very similar in many ways, they both know the differences and wish to keep separate identities, I think that a Swede would become very angry if his distinctiveness were violated in Wikipedia.


 * I agree that your sources provide plenty of evidence that Persian speaking peoples known as Tajiks, Hazara etcetera live in central Asia and that they are called names such as Farsiwans but that bears no relevance for this discussion.


 * The Tajiks are a people with a mixed heritage, some of their ethnic and cultural heritage is indeed Persians but they have been transformed into a new distinct ethnicity through the process of Ethnogenesis, although they still share the same language and cultural traits with Persian people. I'm sure that they can trace back their roots to the Persian empires, many people can as "Persia" is 3000 years old, but We can't live in the Past. Ethnicity is a two way process, it is like a marriage where both parties have to say "YES", one party is not enough. We don't know how many Tajiks consider themselves as belonging to the Persian people and how many consider themselves distincly different, any sources on this? Any sources on what the Persians (from Iran) think of this?


 * Tājik' (Persian: تاجيک; UniPers: Tâjik; Tajik: Тоҷик) is a term generally applied to Persian language speakers of primarily East Iranic (mixed Sogdian, Khorezmian, Bactrian, Tokharian and Parthian)[1] origin living in Central Asia. The traditional Tajik homelands are in present-day Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and southern Uzbekistan. [1] Krader, L. 1963. Formations of the Peoples. Indiana Uralic and Altaic Series v. 26- Peoples of Central Asia: 54-57, Hirth, F. 1917. The story of Chang K'ien, China's pioneer in Western Asia. Journal of the American Oriental Society. v. 37, no.2: 89-152; Shiratori, K. 1902. Über den Wu-sun-Stamm in Centralasien, 103-140.


 * The Tajiks are probably the oldest group in central Asia, descending from eastern Iranian Bactrians and Sogdians. In the seventh century, the Sassanids( See Persian Sassanids) were conquered by the invading Arabs, and many Western Iranian speaking, or Persian speaking peoples fled to Central Asia and mixed with older Eastern and Western Iranian speaking populations. Most experts consider this blend of ancient Iranians with the flood of Western Iranian refugees to be the foundation of the contemporary Tajik People. Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania, Volym 1 Barbara A. West, page 770. http://books.google.se/books?id=pCiNqFj3MQsC&pg=PA770&dq=Tajik+people&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=xDzuTtL4FcrZ4QT97NDmCA&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Tajik%20people&f=false


 * And Why should there be a separate article about Tajik people if they are the same as Persian people, makes no sense at all.


 * finally the language and diction of the whole article is mushy and confusing and it if very hard to comprehend the nucleus because of all unrelated content and political manipulation, such as issues relating to language, rugs, and close related ethnic groups. I advise you to ready some of the discussion relating to the article and you will understand how politicized it really is Truthtellers78 (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think I can help you further. The sources support what the article says, in that Tajiks trace their history back to Persia, and consider themselves Persian. I understand that you personally don't agree with this, but we go by what the sources say. If you have some reliable sources that contest that the Tajiks have a Persian heritage, then that would be worth including in the article - but we cannot, even then, remove material which is so widely supported in sources. As for having an article on Tajik people as well as Persian people - well, that's the nature of cultures and ethnicity. It's rarely as simple or pure as some would like. I am British and Welsh, as I was born and raised in Wales, which is part of Britain. My heritage is also Irish (on my mother's side) and Portuguese (on my father's side), and because of my heritage and birthplace I consider myself Celtic. I wouldn't be happy if someone told me I couldn't be Welsh because I'm British, or I couldn't be British because I am Portuguese. Ethnicity is complex. But if someone has a connection with a culture and feels they are part of that culture, then generally they are considered part of that Ethnic group. SilkTork  ✔Tea time  00:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You have presented no sources that support the claims that contemporary [Tajiks]] are considered the same people as [Persian people]] by any scholar, nor have you been able to present any source that claims that the Persian people are an ethno-lingustic group of people, defined only by a common language (almost no ethnic group can be defined by language alone). I've ask you several times to name the book and the pages that support this claim but have not recieved any answer. There is no question about the fact that contemporary Tajiks have some Persian ancestery and share cultural and lingustic traits with the Persian people. This qualifies them as an Iranian people as stated by my two sources. I understand and respect your decision not to discuss this issue further. I think that the root of this problem is political corectness, the Persian identity inside Iran has been hard suppressed for a long time to make minorities feel welcome and therfore little is written about it by western scholars and almost no resarch has been conducted. Truthtellers78 (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is the "Famous Persian people" bar removed?
Almost all peoples have such a bar. Look at "German People" forexample.

If noone fixes it in the next 2-3 weeks, I will find a way to readd it.

--Arsaces (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a genetic test section in other groups of people such as Uzbeks and Turkmens, why don't you guys include a genetic results section? You can put the R1a results, which clearly shows that these so called "persians" of Iran are the conquered semitic Elamites of old time, who are just Dari speakers? This whole Iranic nonsense will collapse within a decade due to genetic results. You iranians have always been, are and will always remain the Elamites, semitic people of Mesopotamia, who doesn't even have their own language, and speak the Dari of Afghanistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.178.179.154 (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

1. I am Norwegian, not Persian. 2. Stop coming with nonsense and try to keep this discussion on topic. 3. Iranians, Tajiks etc. are all Persian people. Tajiks are usually called East Persians while People from Iran are called West-Persians. 4. I am gonna add a "Famous people bar" when I have time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsaces (talk • contribs) 13:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

To continue on from what others have said
This article is clearly biased. Most likely edited by afghans or kurds who have hatred towards Persians. Of course the tajiks or afghans should not be taken in this artcile as Persian. Persian is the synonym for Iranian and will always remain so. The ethnic group itself is from the Pars province of Iran. And no the Tajiks are not Persian. they are a mixed group of people, half turkish/mongol and half Iranic.

SomeGuy1122 (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Tajiks are East-Persians. Iranies like to think of themselfs as the only Persians, yet that is of course wrong. Btw, if Tajiks are not Persians, I suggest you remove famous East-Persians(Tajiks) from the "Famous Persian people" bar..

Avicenna, Biruni, Ferdowsi and Rumi forexample were East-Persians (Tajiks.)

--Arsaces (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ferdowsi was not "East-Persian", whatever that is. He was born and died in Tus. Look up in a map and see what country that is located in. ResurrectionOfABeast (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

What about today's Persian people?
Um hello?Where are Persian people who aren't dead? People won't know what Persians look like if all they know is what some ancient rulers look!--78.151.53.200 (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a space missing between two sentences in section 1.3
Section 1.3 (the modern era subsection of the Terminology section) has the following:

The name "Persia" was the "official" name of Iran in the Western world before 1935, but Persian people inside their country since the Sassanid period (226–651 CE) have called it "Iran".Accordingly

There should be a space before "Accordingly". 128.8.247.78 (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Terminology
The following is absolutely false: "Also, many others who embraced the Persian language and culture are also often referred to as Persian as a part of the Persian civilization (culturally and/or linguistically)." The Persian language had been used and adopted by many Turkic peoples and neighbouring empires and kingdoms to Iran, yet none of these dynasties, khanates or societies considered themselves to be Persian (Turkic peoples called Persians Tajiks, Sarts etc to distinguish Persians from Turks) and neither does Iranian history as viewed and recorded by Iranians consider these groups or entities to be Persian either as evidenced from even literary works like the Shahnameh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.193.128 (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I second this neither the Turks nor Afghans or even the Mongols that adapted Persian language and culture called themselves Persian nor did anyone else refer to them as Persian. e.g. Hazaras speak Persian but we don't call them Persians Iraj Ali (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This page has been hijacked for a long time
Persians are native to Iran and nowhere else. People in Afghanistan only speak a dialect of Persian. They have nothing to do with the ethnic Persians. It is also rather amusing that Afghans have their own page but Persians do not. This is the work of people with a clear and disgusting agenda here in Wikipedia who would like us to believe there is no such thing as Persians. And all the people in Iran are actually something else. SomeGuy1122 (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This isnt entirely correct. Herat was historically an Iranian city until relatively recently. Its inclusion in Afghanistan during the 19th century was due to British pressure on the Qajar's not to retake it from Afghan occupation. Also, Balkh is an historically Iranian-Persian province. Would you say that Rumi was not Persian and had nothing to do with ethnic Persians? You'd be right about places like Kabul though. They may speak Persian/Dari there, but people from Kabul etc have nothing to do with ethnic-Persians from Iran. Neither do the Afghan Hazara's from Bamyan etc. اردیبهشت (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't confuse Persians who now live in Afghanistan "Tajiks" with Afghans. Afghans are not Persian nor Iranian. Persians being native to Iran means they originate from the state which is called Iran today, from the Pars province to be exact. Not from Afghanistan, central Asia nor anywhere else. This is the fact that people who have edited this page into what it is today have tried to hide. Take a look at Afghanistan's wikipedia entry, a picture of Persepolis on it, trying to pass it as their own; a very simple but strong example of what's going on here. SomeGuy1122 (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that all the irrelevant material on Afghans and other non-Persians should be removed. I dont have time now but i'll start going slowly through this article and making amendments to it so that it better reflects an accurate picture of who and what Persians are. اردیبهشت (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to Afghans as Pashtuns, it's a bit confusing to understand who you are talking about. First of all no, Persians are not only from Iran, if you want to think like that then say bye bye to atleast half of Persian accomplishments and famous people like Avicenna, Al farabi, Rayḥan al-Biruni, Omar Khayyam, Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, Rumi and a truck load of others, you can include all of North-east Iran too, mainly the province of Khorasan since they were one province under both the Persian empires and later he Islamic. By the way, Greater Khorasan was the cultural centre of Persia where all the science, culture and religion came from (including Zoroastrianism and the Modern Persian language). Just because all that is destroyed today because of endless wars instead of helping your brothers you instead say they aren't Persian and never were. My whole point is there are Persians outside Iran and the only times we were truly great was when all Persians were united :) Iraj Ali (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Why don't Persians from Iran have their own Wiki page?
There is a page for Persians of Afghanistan. There is also a separate page for Austrian people, even though they are considered to be Germans. Why can't Persians of Iran have the same treatment? ResurrectionOfABeast (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Persian-Iranians are not the same Persian-speakers in Central Asia or Afghanistan. We have a very different culture and ethnic identity from Tajiks and Afghans. The only thing in common is the language and broader civilizational linkages. But that aside, the peoples of Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan are very different cultures and societies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.190.8 (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree hi my name is Aquafina(: that Iranian people get their own page, but I dont agree with 92.4.190.8. Iranian Persians are West-Persians. Tajiks are East-Persians. If Tajiks aren't East-Persians, then I suggest you remove Avicenna, Rumi and Biruni from famous Persian people.

--85.165.212.65 (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as I know Wikipedias are made for different languages. All Persians from Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan speak the same language. Specially people of Iran and Afghanistan can understand each other easily and as for Tajiks since they use a different writing system their language has changed a bit and there is a whole other wiki for them.Pouyakhani (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No you are wrong, as I mentioned above Austrians have their own page (even though they speak German). Tajiks also have their own page, even though they are also included here. It is really unjust that Persians of Iran don't have their own page. ResurrectionOfABeast (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Because the Lingua franca of all of the people living in Iran has been Persian for a very long time, nowadays it is not possible to consider a separate ethnic group of Persian people of Iran , as it is interchangeable to use terms Persia and Iran . Something like inventing a theoretical ethnic group of English- language Americans , that is not real in real life because they are not homogenous and not an ethnic group at all . We can say the ethnic group of Persian-Iranians has vanished in history and dedicated their culture to all various ethnic groups of Iran . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That is just a theory and their is no proof to what you just said. All sources agree that in Iran their are roughly 60% Persians. The other ethnicities in Iran; Gilakis, Azeris, Kurds and so on all have their own page. Tajiks too have their own page! The 40-50 million Persians should also have their own page. This is a conspiracy on Wikipedia keeping Persian Iranians (original Persians as Persian is from Fars Province in Iran) from having their own page! ResurrectionOfABeast (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't think even the Tajik page should exist, Persians are one people. What's the difference between Herat and Mashhad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iraj Ali (talk • contribs) 12:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the significant difference between Vienna and Munich? Yet these two German groups both have their individual pages. I am not saying that Tajiks aren't Persians, of course they are. All I am stating is that we should play fair by Wikipedia rules. If Germans and Austrians have their own separate pages, and Iranian Azeris have their own page, Persians of Iran should have one as well. ResurrectionOfABeast (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but we have a problem of these groups fighting each other over small things, for example, if you make a page for just persians of Iran the problem arises whether someone like ferdowsi is Iranian or not. Because while he was born within the borders of Iran, at the time that part of Iran was part of Khorasan, so you will have Persians from Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Uzebekistan starting fights saying he is from Khorasan. This is why I oppose even the "tajik" page and think it should be deleted. Persians were the greatest when united and that is what we should work toward no matter how small the steps we start with are. Azeris though I don't care if they have their own page because they have a lot of turkic origin and history so I think they need to have their own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.161.19 (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if their is in-fighting between different Persian groups or not. I also want to make clear that by wanting this seperate page, doesn't mean I am trying to deny Afghans/Tajiks their Persian identity. I am a Pan-Iranist and believe all the groups are Persian, however doesn't change the fact that Iranian Persians deserve our own page. Now on to the Ferdowsi example, he was Iranian. The Persians of Iran page would be related to our current borders, if someone was either born in, lived majority of their life or died in Iran then they would warrant inclusion in the Persians of Iran list. That simple. ResurrectionOfABeast (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Images
This page needs to include images of well-known contemporary (living) Iranians/Persians, such as Asghar Farhadi, Golshifteh Farahani, Nazanin Afshin-Jam, Omid Djalili etc Iranians who are ethnically Persian that are known both in Iran and in the West. اردیبهشت (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, ive added some. Also it is not necessary to list so many ancient Kings from the same dynasties. Some, like Xerxes and Shapur II, could be removed. اردیبهشت (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Catherine Bell and Amanpour are ethnically only half Persian and both have been born and raised elsewhere. Surely there are more deserving Persians than these two? I am not good at editing otherwise I would do it myself, so please remove them and add more deserving people like Shirin Ebadi. Also Golshifteh Farahani has been irrelevant for a long time and has to strip naked in order to remain famous. ResurrectionOfABeast (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no doubt more deserving people than Bell and Amanpour but these two are internationally known/recognizable by Iranians and non-Iranians alike. It doesnt matter than both are only half-Persian. They have Persian heritage and both can speak the language. I have replaced Golshifteh Farahani with Shirin Ebadi as you requested since you're right that Ebadi is far more well known internationally than Farahani is. اردیبهشت (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion those guys should't be at the top, if at all on it. it shouldn't matter how well recognised they are by westerners, it should be people who are great contributors to our culture, society and advancement. People like Avicenna, Ferdowsi and cyrus should be at the top. Not Catherine Bell, even look at her name what is this? We don't need to impress westerners with the most famous people, our traditional people are much more important in my opinion. Especially because they are links and people can learn about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iraj Ali (talk • contribs) 08:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok i have moved them to the bottom. But i still think that some well-known 'living' Persians (and that includes mixed-raced Persians like Bell) should be included since lots of ignorant people in the World try to claim that either Persians no longer exist or that there is no distinct Persian-Iranian ethnicity. اردیبهشت (talk) 10:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahh yes I know what you're talking about, good thinking. Iraj Ali (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I see some Iranian pictures such as Babak Khorramdin keep on disappearing, and the links to their pages keep on going red. Can someone figure out the reason for this and make sure it stops happening? Thanks. PS, I removed Goli Ameri, because she is not well known neither amongst Iranians in Iran, or to foreigners. Also she is a republican and has backed ideas that are against Iranian interests and is therefore a traitor to Iran. I put in Mohammad Khatami instead as he is very well known, and has tried to increase dialogue in the west. Also it was important to increase numbers of local Iranians in the images, this isn't a page for Iranian Americans to have so many of them. ResurrectionOfABeast (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sub-groups
I believe that Parsis, Hazaras and Aimaq's should be removed from the category of sub-groups, especially the latter two. Parsis left Iran over 1000 years ago and there is nothing that binds them now to Iran or to Persians. They do not even speak Persian anymore and aside from the Zoroastrian religion, they have become mostly Indianized. Hazara's on the other hand are not a sub-group of Persians/Iranians and never were. The only relationship they have with Persians is their adoption of Persian-language as a first-language. Historically they have nothing to do with Persians and have a completely different culture and way of life from Persians. And as best as i can tell, this is also true for the Aimaq people too.

If there is no disagreement, then i will remove them from the article.

Only Lurs, Mazandaranis, Gilakis, Tats, Talysh and Tajiks can be properly considered "sub-groups" of Persians, or at least ethnically and culturally very closely related to Persians as to warrant their inclusion in this article. اردیبهشت (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As you have correctly stated, it is only your belief and nothing more. The "Persians" are not even an ethnic group - it is just a constructed, artificial expression for a whole bunch of people who share to certain degrees the same language and culture. That's the reason why, for example, the Encyclopaedia of Islam, does not even have an article abouthe Persians. This group was for some time known as Tajik. In fact, as late as in the beginning of the 20th century, the official name of the Persian-speaking people in Iran was "Tajik" (see for example the Brockhaus_Enzyklopädie of 1894-1896, original print in German, ).
 * So if only culture and language are what defines the Persians, then why can't Hazaras be considered a sub-group?! They have the same language, the same culture, the same religion, and even to a large part the same ancestors due to 800 years of mutual relationship which includes inter-ethnic marriages. The Talysh and Tat do not even speak Persian, yet you consider them "Persians"?!
 * With all due respect: this is popular racism and the usual discrimination against Hazaras, trying to alienate them from what they really are: part of the native Persian-speaking population of the Eastern Iranian lands. --Lysozym (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you also think that African-Americans are "English" and an "Anglo-Saxon" people just because they speak English and have been living in an Anglophone America for hundreds of years? That would be an absurd suggestion, wouldnt it? Just like it is totally absurd to call Hazara's a Persian and Iranian people when frankly, they're not.

Persian is an indigenous, self-designation. It is not an "artificial construct". What an absurd suggestion. The word derives from the Old Persian name for southwest Iran (Pars) and has its continuity in Middle Persian (Parsig) as an ethnic identity. Persian is merely the Hellenized form. It is irrelevant whether the Encyclopaedia of Islam has an article about Persians or not since Persian identity and civilization is over 1000 years older than Islam and is not dependant on an entry in any Islamic book to give us existence. As for the word Tajik, it is a relatively recent (in the scope of Persian history) foreign (Turkic) applied term to Persians and other Iranian village dwellers or sedentary communities.

Now, Hazara’s are not an Iranian people, they are not Persian, they do not have the same culture and history as Persians, they do not have the same ancestors as Persians. They speak Persian and have been influenced by the Persian culture, but that's it. Intermarriages with Iranian peoples is irrelevant. They are still a distinctly different and separate people from Persians, ethnically and culturally, hence why they are known as Hazara's and not Tajiks in their part of the World. Their ancestry is largely Mongol, the high presence of a Y-DNA lineage particular to Mongols confirms this, as does their physical appearance, as does the presence of many Mongolian words in their dialect. اردیبهشت (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a place for popular racist fiction. "Iranian", "Turkic", etc are just linguistic terms that define linguistic groups, not the ethnogenesis of a people. It is an absurd and uneducated to claim that "Persians" are all descendanst of the original people who lived 2000 years ago in what is now known as Fars. The Persians are like, all other peoples in the world, a mixture of different peoples who - for various socio-political reason - speak the Persian language. In fact, after the Arab conquest of Iran, the Persian language was almost about to disappear. It was a Turkic dynasty, the Seljuqs of Khurassan, that re-introduced and strengthened Persian in what is now the IR Iran. For more than 1000 years, Turkic and Mongol dynasties ruled and dominated the Persian world, and the different peoples mixed with each other: Semitic, Iranian, Turkic, Indian, Caucasian. It is just languages and their respective cultures that define them.
 * And please do not come up with genetics. Do you know that the Haplogroup R1a which is associated with the Aryan/Indo-Iranian expnasion has a rate of more than 30-50% in Afghanistan and Northern India, but less than 10% in central and western Iran. That totally redicules your racist argumentation. So does this becautiful Hazara lady who is the living proof that the Hazaras are part of the larger Persian nation. Skin color and looks do not define people. There are short Persian, dark Persians, blond Persians, and those who have mixed with East Asian peoples or others. I do not see whay Hazaras - as a single hroup - should be excluded. Not to mention that there are Hazaras that look like Europeans while others have a distinct East Asian look. This girl is Hazara, this man is Hazara, this girl is Hazara, this man is Hazara, this woman is Hazara, and this woman is Hazara. And you want to decide by "their looks" that they are "Mongols" and do not belong to the Persian nation?! While at the same time you claim that these Talysh are Persians?! That's racist rubbish ... --Lysozym (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently you are arguing with yourself since you appear to have tried to anticipate my response with ready-made replies to various topics that havent been raised by anyone other than yourself. To make things quick, easy and comprehensible, please refrain from making assumptions. Yes, all of those Hazara's have clear Mongoloid / East Asian looks and none of them look Persian/Iranian. But that is all besides the point. Posting up handfuls of pictures and videos is a waste of time and proves nothing. Hazara's are remnants of the Mongols that swept into Central Asia in the 13th century. Over the generations, they began to lose their Mongolian language in place of Persian. They have absolutely no connection to Persian heritage or history. They do not belong to Persian/Iranian civilization, and they are not ethnically Persian, nor even a sub-group of Persians like the Lors, Mazandaranis etc are. What they are, are Hazara's. A Persian-speaking people of Mongol descent. Intermarriages with Iranian peoples is not important. They are a distinctly different people, with their own distinctive ethnic-identity and history that is different to Persians, both modern and historic. And like i mentioned before, had that not been the case, they would have merely been recorded by history as Tajiks. There are no historical sources in Persian that treat Hazara's as part of the Iranian people, realm or civilization. Their earliest mentions come from Safavid era chronicles and Turkish books like the Baburnameh, which clearly distinguish them as a separate people from Iranians.


 * Now, there is nothing you say that is going to convince me otherwise. I do not accept Hazara's to be Persian since they are not, either historically or contemporarily. Since the 1980s there are hundreds of throusands of Hazara's that have been in and out of Iran as refugees or immigrants (legal and illegal) from Afghanistan. Nobody in Iran accepts them as Persians, because they are not. However, i am happy for other people to join in the discussion and offer their thoughts. اردیبهشت (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * People like you won't be convinced any way. And what you say is racist nonsense. Maybe you should read Benedict Anderson - just as a side note. The Hazara are not just of Mongol origin, they are mix of different peoples of various Turkic and Mongolian descent. That's the reason why the number of Turkic words in the distinct Hazaragi dialefct of Bamiyan is much higher than that of Mongolian words. Yet, they are are certainly a part of the Persian civilization, as "Hazara" personalities - meaning Persianized Mongols and Turks of Khorasan - have formed modern Persian history at least in the past 500 years. Great Persian-speaking imperial powers, like that of the Mughals in India or the Timurids of Khorasan, was formed by a people who were no different than the Hazara. Great poets, such as Amir Khusrow - who is regarded as one of the three great Persian poets of the 13th century (along with Rumi and Hafez) - was in fact a Persian-speaking Mongol of mixed Turko-Mongol and Indian descent (that's why he was called the "Turk-e Hind", the "Indian Turk"). One of the greatest personalities of the Persian world, Bayram Khan, was a Persian-speaking Turk from Badakhshan. For 1000 years, Persianized Turks and Mongols were ruling and dominating the Iranian world, they were the ones that cultivated and protected the Persian realm, language, and heritage, and here, you show up and claim that they are not part of the Persian world?! Right now, it is Hazaras in Afghanistan who are standing against forced Pashtunization and for the protection of Persian language, portry, and heritage (such as Nowruz). The well-known racist attitude of Iranians and Afghans towards Hazars does not change anything. As the Iranian comedian Hadi Khorsandi puts it: Iranians treat Afghan Hazaras as if the Hazara were Iranian and the Iranians themselves were Europeans. The general uneducated, unjustified and racist attitude of Iranians and Afghans towards the Hazaras drew Hazaras into the arms of Pan-Turkists, and Pan-Turkism has become a major problem in Afghanistan in the past 15 years. The Hazara are more Persian than wannabe European Iranians with Arabic and Turkic origins and obsessed with race and racism. --Lysozym (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I politely asked you already to please refrain from making assumptions. The Timurids and Moghals were not Persian. The politics and the culture that Temur and the Moghals cultivated may have been heavily drawn on and influenced by Persian culture, but those peoples themselves were not Persians, especially not their subjects (in the case of the Moghals particularly). You have no argument basically and appear desperate to relate Hazara's to Persians in some kind of vain internet campaign at preventing the 'Pashtunization' of Hazara's. Your political gripes along with inter-ethnic Afghan feuding have no place here. All this article is intended for is to present some factual information about the Persian people, of which the Hazara's are not apart of. Your last response betrays the fact that your cause here is clearly political, and not academic. Therefore, you're fighting your war in the wrong place. And with reference to your moronic allegations of "racism", are barking up the wrong tree. I have nothing against Hazara's. Rejecting your vain attempts to have them included as Persians and as an Iranian people is not racism, it is just simply the truth. Both from a historical point of view, and a contemporary one. اردیبهشت (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Not my cause is political, but yours. In fact, it heavily draws on nationalistic ideas that are totally redundant. You do not even know that the expression "Iranian peoples" is a purely linguistic one. You talk about genetics, as if you had any knowledge of it. At the same time, you proclaim some kind of fictional "Persian people" who - as you claim - are all of the same origin and descent which is - ironically - totally rediculed by genetic studies, the same ones that you rely on when arguing against the Hazaras. Your position is very similar to that of European racist politicians who claim that only blond and blue-eyed people are "ethnic" and that all others are foreign and have simply "adopted the language" - that was a prominent argument of the Nazi regime against Jews but also against the Sinti and Roma who - by definition - are an "Aryan people", but simply did not fit in the racist world of the Nazis; hence they became "Non-Aryans who had adopted an Aryan language". As the Encyclopaedia Iranica - the most authoritative scholarly work on this subject - states, the term “Aryan” is thus basically a linguistic concept, denoting the closely related Indo-Aryan and Iranian languages (including Nūrestānī), which together form the Indo-Iranian or Aryan branch of the Indo-European language family, sharing a linguistic and cultural development separate from the other IE. Hence, the Hazara are by definition an Iranian people, and as speakers of the Persian language, part of the larger Persian nation which is a conglomeration of different peoples who over the past centuries have adopted the Persian language and customs. The real Persians are only the native population of Fars, or at least those who can directly trace their linage to those original Persians. That also means that the large majority of modern Persians are not direct descendants of these original Persians. "Persian" is not an ethnic, but a cultural and linguistic concept. And Hazaras are, from a scholarly and scientific point of view, part of the Iranian peoples and the larger Indo-European family. What you are trying to do is to impose pseudo-scientific racist ideology on a purely linguistic scholarly concept. And that should not be tolerated in Wikipedia. --Lysozym (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * For the third and last time, stop making assumptions and stick to the actual issue. You have a peculiar tendency to ramble on about irrelevant things, argue with yourself about things that only you have raised and jump from one issue to another. When you learn how to provide a coherent, straight-forward response and not a long-winded tirade about nothing, i'll be OK with disagreeing about this further with you. But until then, i have zero interest in repeating myself or in entertaining your attempt to troll a response out of me. So in short, and for the last time, you're still wrong, still unable to provide any kind of credible explanation as to when the Hazara's have ever been considered ethnically Persian or a sub-group of Persians (which they are not, and thats why you cant). All you have, are your personal whims that they are, and when you're whims are rejected, you get upset and throw a tantrum about how neither Persians nor Iranian people exist, but that these are merely 'invented' 'linguistic categories'. What a joker. I dont agree with you, neither would 50+ million Persians in Iran and 70+ million nationals of that country. Hazara's are not Persian. They are Afghans of Mongol descent that now speak a Persian dialect. اردیبهشت (talk) 10:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

What you or other uneducated people in Iran or elsewhere believe, is irrelevant. The Persian people are, like all other ethnic groups in the world, a mix of different peoples and have an ethnogenesis that goes back millenia. The ethnogenesis of the Persians was modified by countless waves of Mesopotamians, Arabs, Turks, Mongols and others. What defines the Persian ethnic group is predominantly the New Persian language - a language that was strongly influenced and appeared in Central Asia 1000 years ago, and was later expanded to what is now Iran by Persianized Turks such as the Ghaznavids and Seljuqs. The Persians do not have common ancestors, they do not even see themselves as one nation. That's why Persian-speaking Central Asians such as Rumi or Avicenna are considered "Persian" today, although they were - like the Hazaras - of Non-Persian origin whose forefathers had adopted Persian (Sogdians, Bactrians). These groups where already Turkicized to an extant that in some cases, it is totally impossible to tell if someone was a Turk or an Iranian (for example al-Farabi). All scholars worldwide agree that the term "Iranian people" is only a linguistic definition and has nothing to do with race. Nobody knows what the original Iranians looked like. The modern Persians are not one people. Their look differs from blond and blue-eyed to dark and black-eyed. The Tajiks who are without any doubt part of the Persian people (in fact, as late as the 1970's, they were officially termed "Persy", meaning "Persian", in Soviet registers) differ from light-skinned and green-eyed to Mongol physical features. It's not their "race" that defines their Persian identity. So, to keep it short: you are not the first person who shows up and tries to impose anti-Hazara, anti-Mongol, popular racist ideology on a purely linguistic scholarly matter. Denying the Hazaras cultural, linguistic and ethnic ties to their surrounding Iranian neighbours - including Pashtuns and Tajiks (Persians) - is the common racist BS that we have read here so many times. You are just another one ... and your racist claims won't be tolerated. --Lysozym (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If what 'I or anyone else believes' is irrelevant then there is no need for you to come back here with your characteristically jumbled replies about nothing. You try to dodge the issue at hand which is simply that of Hazara's by attempting to divert attention away to other topics like New Persian, race etc Topics which your reply above clearly demonstrates that you know nothing about either. And when that fails, you get upset again and resort to assumptions and accuse the other party of racism, being uneducated etc All in a vain and deliberate attempt to confuse the topic away from a very straight-foward issue because of your, already admitted to, political cause for being here (boo hoo, Hazara's are being "Pashtunized" in Afghanistan, boo hoo - nobody cares). You cant explain, yet again, with reference to anything other than your own personal whims when Hazara's have ever been considered to be Persians or a sub-group of Persians. Making stupid remarks like "all scholars worldwide agree. . ." etc does not help your argument since such a statement is simply not true. My above replies to you all stand, i see no reason to repeat them. اردیبهشت (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not "you and any one else", but you and all others who are obsessed with race and racism. You have not read a single book on this subject and are here, trying to convince us that race and racism matters. All scholarly works agree that Hazaras are an Iranian people. It's only racist people like you who claim otherwise: "Nooooo ... they are noooottt ... they do not have the pure, white, Aryan genes of the Persians" ... this is racist BS! Your attempt here is clearly racist - the same racism taht is targetting Hazaras and others in Iran and surrounding areas. If you were straight-foward, as you claim, you would also removed names like al-Biruni and Khwarizmi from this article, names like Rumi and Ibn Sina of whom none were ethnic Persians, some of them did not even speak Persian as their first language. I have given you sources, but so far, I have not seen a single one from you that actually proves that Hazaras are considered an Altaic people as you claim and that they are not an Iranian people. You also ignore the scholarly remarks of the Encyclopaedia Iranica that "Iranian" is purely a linguistic term and not a racist one as you propose. Ironically, Turkic racists are way ahead of you, for their "racism" is at least based on linguistic characters. They do not differ between "Mongol", "Middle Eastern" and "White" - anyone who speaks a Turkic language is regarded a Turk. In your case, it is the same Nazi BS about race: "they do not belong to us, they only have adopted our language because their own was inferior" - racist nonsense that must not be tolerated in Wikipedia. The Hazaras have more in common with Persians - linguistically, culturally, and ethnically - than the Talysh who do not even speak the same language and whose language is closer to Kurdish than to Persian. You should have more respect. Thankfully, not all Iranians are like you. In 1988, an Afghan Hazara leader was even honored in an Iranian national stamp, Ismail Balkhi. --Lysozym (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "You have not read a single book . . ." - Right i've had enough of your nonsense and sheer stupidity. Thanks for participating with your opinion. I agree with nothing you've said, however, and reject your personal whims to include Hazara's as a sub-group of Persians, because frankly, they're not. The rest of what you think or have to say is not important. اردیبهشت (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your racist rant will not be tolerated. Not now, and not in the future. EOD. --Lysozym (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ordibehesht on the Parsi part, they look Indian, speak Gujurati and have nothing left in common with Persian people. Thus should be removed from the list. Hazara have adopted Persian culture and see themselves as Persian, so I have no problem with them being included. However I must stress that Persians of Iran need our own wiki page. Hazaras and the like can be included in their own page, as well as this larger page which includes all Persian people. But Persians of Iran need a distinct page, as we have enough which is distinct from other Persian people to warrant it. ResurrectionOfABeast (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This is wrong. afghan people are not called persians. as much as the congose people are not called french people and the jamaican people are not called english people. please fix it. afghans are distinct from iranians. --Pakteenat (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

More Persians Please!
Hi, I think you should add more pics of contemporary Persians, like Dr. Mahmoud Hessaby, Firouz Naderi, Anousheh Ansari and many other Persians. BTW, Yesterday a Super-Genius Persian named Bobak Ferdowsi successfully landed Curiosity spacecraft/robot on the face of the Mars. Everyone's talkin' about him on the Internet right now! I guess it's something that only a Persian can handle ;p Add Bobak's pic, too and make this article shine more than before. Thanks.--The Fierce Guy (talk) 08:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Dubious population statistics
It is extremely difficult to ascertain accurate (or nearly correct) population figures for Persians residing in various foreign countries as census records and other statistical data in the West do not differentiate between Iranian-Persians, Iranian-Azeris, Iranian-Kurds and so on, but record immigrants from Iran merely as Iranians (if they even bother to give Iranians their own 'box' at all!). The population figures currently given on this page for Persians around the World cannot be trusted and appear to come largely from dubious sources.

I suggest that the box be narrowed down to just listing the estimated number of Persian-speakers in Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan. The figures for Persian-speakers in other countries generally cannot be trusted at all. Even the estimates for Iran are not entirely trustworthy while the estimates for Afghanistan are entirely speculative as no credible compilation of population statistics has been undertaken there for decades. Similarly the population of Persian-speakers (Tajiks) in Uzbekistan is unknown and is purely speculative. اردیبهشت (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the current list is too long. Maybe shorten it to the top ten or something, but three is too short. Irānshahr (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, i've shortened it. I'll check the accuracy of the sources for the current figures soon. اردیبهشت (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Persian Rug Section needs improvement and here are my suggestions
1. "Persian Rug" is not the proper term used by historians, artists, and collectors. The proper term is "Persian Carpet". Rug denotes an inferior product.

2. The list of Persian Carpets named after region is sadly incomplete. Please include these important areas: Qom, Lori-Baktiari (Chromabad is the central trade/distribution center in Luristan), Persian-Gabbeh (thick 10-15 cm with simple designs), Asfar.

By not including these major rug producers, the carpet section appears somewhat amateurish.

3. The value of Persian carpet is well-defined, although prices in countries outside Iran vary greatly. Among certain nomadic tribes, a carpet may be a person's most valuable possession.

4. A section with better photos showing some typical designs would be lovely. For example, explaining the difference between a city-woven carpet and a nomadic carpet. In addition, the Lori (Lur) nomads should be specifically mentioned because their carpets have not been influenced by the West. Carpet designs are handed down by generation after generation. Finally, it should be explained that nomads weave on a collapsible horizontal loom while city weavers use vertical looms. City carpet weavers follow a design drawn on paper where nomads weave from memory.

5. Be sure to mention the term "abrash" as a distinctive feature of Persian carpets. The former carpet appraiser for the national art museum in Iran has a website called "www.carpetu2.com". Why don't you consult him for suggestions about the Persian carpet section in Wikipedia? He is, afterall, the world's foremost expert on the subject.

Thank you for reading my post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.67.22.215 (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You need to provide reliable sources for any changes you want made to the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 September 2012
In the section on language, it mentions that, "In Tajikistan, the dialect of Persian spoken there is called or Tajiki." In addition to removing the unnecessary "or," it might be good to rephrase the sentence so as to remove the redundancy of "In Tajikistan" and "there." One possibility is: "The dialect of Persian spoken in Tajikistan is called Tajiki."

69.169.132.23 (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thank you for the suggest, I suggest you consider creating an account as it will allow you further access to functions in Wikipedia (such as being able to move and create pages, and after a while edit semi-protected pages. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Latest images
Googoosh is ethnically an Iranian Azeri, while Zoroaster was an Iranian sage/prophet who existed long before Persia/Persians existed. As such, is it correct to label Zoroaster Persian? Certainly Zoroaster / Zoroastrianism is a the foundation of Persian civilization, but to label Zoroaster a Persian when there were no Persians during his time and the writings attributed to him (the Gathas) are in Avestan language, and not Old Persian, seems to make labeling Zoroaster a Persian to be incorrect.

I suggest removing Googoosh and replacing her with Shirin Ebadi. Zoroaster im not so sure about, but keep him for now at least.

Also Mumtaz Mahal is completely irrelevant to Iran, Persians and Persian history and so should not be on this list. User:اردیبهشت 92.4.181.137 (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 October 2012
"Throughout the period, the pre-Islamic Iranian identity reached its height in every spect: political, religious, cultural and even linguistic."

should probably be:

"Throughout the period, the pre-Islamic Iranian identity reached its height in every aspect: political, religious, cultural and even linguistic."

Lrtalley (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Done Rivertorch (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)