Wikipedia talk:Iranian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 3

Keep an eye on the Nizami article
Friends, The current republic of Azerbaijan has some serious identity problems and sometimes they claim to be Oghuz Turks, other times Caucasian Albanians, and other times Medes. A good example is this article Of course Iranian Azarbaijanis know their Iranian roots, but the people of that republic do not and have been effected heavily by negative pan-turkist propaganda. Keep an eye on the article because Nizami did not have anything to do with Turkish culture. --Ali doostzadeh 23:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The Seeds of Discord are Being Planted
Iranians, Editors, People of Rational Minds, Academics... The seeds of propaganda are bieng planted: reports of the massacres of Azaris are being doctored. Look at what is weing said by editors from the Republic of Azarbaijan about Azaris,. They are really trying to forment biased articles. They have created to alternative articles about Shah Ismail I, one being a mythical Turk king. 72.57.230.179

Nizami
Friends thanks for your help. Keep an eye on the issue. In point 4 of my latest response I have shown why Nizami's other half was not Turkic. I think the issue is settled. --Ali doostzadeh 21:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

the dispute over Nizami might be settled ...
... but the POV-attacks on Babur, Alisher Navoi, Kizilbash, Safavids, Ulugh Beg, Timurids, and al-Farabi continue! Your help is needed! Tajik 21:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * With the exception of Al-Farabi who was probably Soghdian/Iranian, I think the Babur, Kizilbash, Ulugh Beg and Timurids were Turkic. As per Safavids, there is no doubt Shaykh Safi Ad-din Ardabili was Iranian Tat or Kurdish.  But the later on Safavids were Turcophones and Uzun Hassan I believe is related to Shah Ismail (who was a mixture of Seyyed, Kurd/Tati, Greek and Turk).  Let me know how I can help though.  But Babur, Safavids, Ulugh Beg and Timurids were to a large extent Persianized/Iranianized and so we can include facts about this matter.  What do you think? --Ali doostzadeh 23:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The POV-issues in those articles are not only about "Turks and Non-Turks", but about POV minority-opinions ignoring authoritative sources, such as Iranica or Encyclopaedia of Islam. As for the Timurids being "Turks": NO, they were NOT Turks, but Mongols. They were Mongols who had adopted the Central-Asian Chaghatai-Turkic language and lived in a world dominated by Persian culture and language. That's why they are called Turco-Persians or Mughals (="Mongols" in Persian). See also the info given in the Iranica:
 * F. Lehmann, "Zaher ud-Din Babor - Founder of Mughal empire", Encyclopaedia Iranica, p. 320(-323): "... His origin, milieu, training, and culture were steeped in Persian culture and so Babor was largely responsible for the fostering of this culture by his descendants, the Mughals of India, and for the expansion of Persian cultural infleunce in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and historiographical results ...", Online Edition, (LINK)
 * Tajik 23:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay I will definitely look into these issues. Of course we need to mention the Persian cultural influence and you are right.  On Timurids you are correct.  Let me know the current enteries that are controvrsial.  I feel add some details on the funny book of Alisher Navai which compares the languages.  The book has no linguistic and scientific value.  .  --Ali doostzadeh 02:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help
Dear Friends, Thanks for the help. The article is currently locked and I hope no one agrees to unlocking it until the truth is apparent. And the truth is that Nezami Ganjavi's mother was Kurdish (hence Iranian) and his father although in my opinion is 100% Iranian, it can not be proven, so for the sake of neutrality we will leave that aside. Also he is a Persian poet because he wrote in Persian and contributed to the literature and culture. Also three of his stories are based on Shahnameh and I have made much comment on the talk page about his Iranian background. --Ali doostzadeh 23:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Compromises were made and everyone is happy. I put that Nizami's heritage belongs to Azerbaijan, Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan.  This way all users were happy and now I can concentrate on other subjects.  --Ali doostzadeh 05:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting Observation
I could be totally wrong, but from what i have seen so far, it seems that we never say persian when refering to famous iranians of the modern period. When its about a famous iranian who is of persian descent, we just call him/her and iranian in the articles, but when its a fomous iranian of lets say azari descent the azari part is always mentioned for some reason. I say it should all say iranian, regardless of ethnic background, because they are iranian. how about every famous iranian after 1935 be called just iranian, regardless of ethnic background!

i mean, we dont say "george bush, origionally from english descent" or fredrick douglass "origionally from the something somthing ethnic group...." etc...

I say we call them all just iranians.Iranian Patriot 23:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How about we take it a step further and attempt to use Iran/Iranian over most instances of Persia/Persian, even considering usage prior to the 1935 declaration. Some may see this as a revisionist approach but I don't see any reason why we shouldn't. Iranians should not be constrained by Western conceptualizations that directly produce an artificial feeling of self-worth. --QajarCoffee 08:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have thought about that before but its not the right thing to do. the west thinks of iran as a creation only 70 years old. westerners usually do not associate iran with persia at all, and by writing iran instead of persia when referring to irans past will be a total shock to the system for them, and for many, they wont associate persia with iran. that is the problem. persia has been used to refer to iran by the west for 2500 years, we cannot expect them to associate iran with persia so easily.

what i recommend would only apply to people born after 1935, where iran first comes into western history. ethnic background should be included in everyones page who was born pre-1935, but not afterwards. modern iranians should only be referred to as iranians, simple as that. i think we should take a vote on this issue.

Qajarcoffee, us iranians know that persia is actually iran, but most westerners do not, and this is english wikipedia afterall. we are trying to preserve irans history, not make it even more confusing. im sure that iranian wikipedia only mentions iran, and not persia, but this is english wikipedia.

Its the same with the roman empire. it was called rome then but its now italy, but history still remembers it as rome. what you suggest would also have to apply to rome also, imagine calling it the italian empire instead of the roman empire, that would cause lots of confusion.Iranian Patriot 16:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the original idea --K a s h Talk 21:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

so you agree with me that all iranians born after 1935 should be labled only as iranians. thats good, we should get more peoples opinions so we can start changing some of the articles.Iranian Patriot 22:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree.--Zereshk 06:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is the Westerner who deserves that “shock to the system.” They have led themselves into creating a dichotomy. Persia and Iran are not mutually exclusive, but how they are represented in the occidental’s imagination is more important than what it actually denotes. In this sense, they are. They are perceived as being distinct in character. With the Rome/Italy issue, the association has already been made clear. Is a “shock to the system” not education’s intended result? By continuing to stonewall any type of historical ‘integration’ on our part, we continue to perpetuate the notion that, in actuality, the two terms are not related.


 * You are right Iranian Patriot, we are operating on a Western format, but every article that is related to Persia, must be redirected to Iran. I believe this should be done in the introductory paragraph of every article in order to dispel confusion. An example: Born in Persia (present day Iran)--QajarCoffee 09:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes definetly, Iran should be mentioned in all the Persia articles, but i thought that was already the case, if its not, then we should mention that Persia is iran in everyone article. but what i am trying to discuss here is calling iranians, iranians, without the need for the ethnic background.Iranian Patriot 15:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So we should come to some sort of agreement. Here is the idea so far::

1) Put Iran in parenthesis after Persia in every Persia-related article, so people know that Iran is what the west calls Persia.

2) Taking out the ethnic background part of Iranians born after 1935, and only referring to them as Iranians. Iranian Patriot 15:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

''I didn't like that ALL CAPS so I changed it to bold to make it easier on the eyes. Anyone who doesn't like this, revert since it's not that big of a deal.'' -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  21:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

But I would like to add something to the second idea: their ethnic background should be mentioned if it is directly related to their notability. If someone was Kurdish/Baluchi/Azeri/Shirazi/Arab, they should be called a Kurdish/Turkish/Shirazi/Arahb Iranian (Iranian of Kurdish/Azeri/Shirazi/Arab descent), not just Iranian. For instance if (and I'm just making this up) if an Arab Iranian fought against other Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war because of Saddam's propaganda directed towards Arabs, we have to include that he's an Arab so the reader can understand what's going on. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  21:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

i see what you are saying, but in the USA, people dont say Irish american, Italian american, or french american anymore, they just say american. however, saying "of arab descent, or of kurdish descent, etc..." sounds fine to me.Iranian Patriot 02:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Everyone hates this man but Wikipedia is supposed to be about neutrality not character assassination and propaganda. The way it stands now, the article on Ahmadinejad is nothing but propaganda and opinion, such as the category "Anti-Semitic people". Almost every article on Wikipedia about a Muslim politician suffers from these problems. SirDiplomat 19:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Persianism
I've added the sections "Pashtuns" and "Anti-Persianism in Central-Asia" to the article. Because of lack of time, I won't be able to continuue the writing in the next 3 weeks. Please feel free to add infos to the text.

Here are some useful links:


 * Taliban and "Yakaolang Massacre" in 2001: Human Rights Watch
 * Opression and forced Turkification of Persian-speakers in Uzbekistan: D. Carlson, Harvard University
 * Iraj Bashiri's researches:
 * Persian cities/places that have been given Pashto/Pashtun names: Balkh --> Wazirabad (to honor the Pashtun national hero Wazir Akbar Khan); Sabzavar in Herat ---> Shindand; replacement of the Persian word "danishgah" (university) with the Pashto word "pohantoon"; replacement of Persian military titles with Pashto words; replacement of Persian political terms with Pashto words ("Woluse Jirga", "Loya Jirga", etc); use of Pashto forced by constitution; according to Afghanistan's constitution, Pashto is the first national-language (although spoken by a 30% minority; see CIA factbook) and the national anthem has to be in Pashto.

Good luck!

Tājik 00:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Watch out for this user
this user: 68.44.193.160, has been vandalising articles about iran and armenia. for example, he has been putting "he was turkish" in random places in the avicenna article, and has been putting anti armenian propaganda in random articles related to armenia. watch out for him.Iranian Patriot 03:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Project Iranian History
Iran's contribution to western society has not been acknowledged in the west. ITs always greece and rome that are talked about. the fact is that Iranian civilisation has impacted western civilisation in may ways, including through religion, military, culture, etc...

the goal of this project is to gather information on the aspects of western civilisation that have been impacted on by iranian civilisation.

once the information is gather, they will be put in article format, and published on various sites, including wikipedia. WE NEED EVERYONES HELP ON THIS PROJECT! any information you have should be sent to: ProjectIranianHistory@yahoo.com

any help is welcomed, please help and participate, this is very important and is a very large project. our history needs to be acknowleged by the west, not neglected.

read this article for more information: http://www.iranian.com/Diaspora/2006/June/Iranian/index.html

To my knowledge, there has never been anything specifically on this topic, and we need to change that! We can do this and we should do this!

Iranian Patriot 22:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Persian code on Wikipedia
Can anyone please direct me to where I can find the numerical codes for Persian, on Wikipedia? I'm trying to write a couple words out for a new article I'm writing but I can't seem to find a guide. Here is an example of what I'm talking about:

Thanks. --QajarCoffee 17:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

To do
Of all the listed universities in Iran, not even 1/4 of them have Wikipedia articles.

I think that is quite lacking.

Ive been trying to make an article for each university. But the sheer number of Iranian universities limits my efforts. It takes me 20-30 minutes to make a brief article with template and proper category such as this article.

Help is direly needed in this department. Thanx.--Zereshk 04:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Kurdish people
I am involved in the Kurdish people article and if anyone else likes to get involved, feel free to join in. Some users want to claim that Kurds are not Iranic, but that is clearly wrong. --Ali doostzadeh 22:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijani Literature
A certain user TimBits is trying to put a lot of misinformation in the article.  --Ali doostzadeh 12:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That certain user usually explains what he does and puts it in there because it belongs there. --TimBits 15:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, your explanation and various different criterions are not in line with standard Encyclopedic and Academic work. Your explanations are pro pan-Turkist.  --Ali doostzadeh 22:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good, the label is ready. And is it you who approve the standards? --TimBits [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|25px| ]] 02:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope it is standard academic sources like Encyclopedia Iranica and Encyclopedia Islam. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HP), Qur'an and Hafiz have had more influence on Azerbaijani literature than any other figure, but they do not became part of Azerbaijani literature.  Had Nizami written even one line of Turkish, he could be counted as part of Azerbaijani literature.   --Ali doostzadeh 04:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)