Talk:Iranian peoples/Archive 3

message: —Khoikhoi 02:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

message: Here is one the definitons of the word Aryan by Oxford dictionary, “The restricted use rests on the ground that only the ancient Indian and Iranian members of the family are known on historical evidence to have called themselves Aria, Arya or Ariya; the wider application rests partly on the inference that the name probably belonged in pre-historic times to the whole family, while this still constituted an ethnic and linguistic unity; and partly on the ground that even if it did not, it is now the most convenient and least misleading name for the primitive type of speech from which all the languages above-mentioned have sprung, inasmuch as Indo-Germanic is too narrow, and Indo-European too wide, for the facts, while Japhetic introduces speculations of which science has no cognizance”.Zmmz 03:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of Aryan According to Dictionaries and Encyclopedias

message: This is the study  that I had mentioned earlier, either here or over at Talk:Persian people. SouthernComfort 10:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Macedonian genetic study

message: "Iranian Peoples" as described in the Wikipedia's article of Iran includes many ethnic groups like Azeris 24% etc. I think the title "Iranian Peoples" is quite misleading. It strikes me how on earth we can leave out so many Iranian Peoples in this article which is about "Iranian Peoples". I am not sure how to do it best. Maybe a sentence that we are talking linguistics here. Unless someone tells me that we are redefining the term "Iranian Peoples"! —This unsigned comment is by 203.48.45.194 (talk • contribs) .
:Yeah this is about linguistic group, but some editors seem to be confused about this and somehow think Iranian is a "race". The article about people of Iran is Demographics of Iran. There Azeris are included. Does this help? AucamanTalk 03:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a note saying this has very little to do with the country of Iran. See this for an alternative explanation of why this is happening. Is there anything specific that you don't like? AucamanTalk 04:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes it is. But in Wikipedia it takes some time and effort for wrong things to be corrected. If you make a comment and leave no one's going to listen to you. AucamanTalk 04:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaving out many Iranian Peoples from "Iranian Peoples" Article 

message: It seems that some users support existence of a infobox in the article. Ok I'm not against that. But actually parts of infobox at least its last section is wrong: See:
Related ethnic groups: Indo-European, Indo-Iranian, Nuristani, Dardic and Indo-Aryans. None of these groups are ethnic group. Ethnic group is: Persians, Armenians, Goergians not Indo-Iranian etc.. The suggestion is that whether correct that term or remove that.  Diyako Talk + 17:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when these groups have become an ethnic group?! It looks like a miracle! Diyako Talk + 00:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Diyako, the source clearly says "Iranian ethno-linguistic group". Just the fact that it acknowledges the Iranian peoples as an ethno-linguistic group is enough. What are you disputing? --Khoikhoi 02:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source says Kurds are an Iranian ethno-linguistic group. The subject of the sentence is the word "Kurd". The statement does not say anything about Iranian peoples as a whole except that it says Kurds (and Persians, etc.) are an Iranian group. This article claims that the linguistic group "Iranian" is an ethno-linguistic group, which is totally false. AucamanTalk 02:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your POV that it's false. You asked for a source that claims there is an Iranian ethno-linguistic group and SouthernComfort provided one. I'm not sure what else you want. --Khoikhoi 02:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't believe I'm having this conversation. The claim in the article is that Iranian is an ethno-linguitic group. The source says that Kurds are an ethno-linguistic group. Do you understand the difference? AucamanTalk 02:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source says the Kurds are an Iranian ethno-linguistic group. As I said above, the fact that they said "Iranian ethno-linguistic group" is enough! The article says that the term exists, and shows that it is a valid one. --Khoikhoi 02:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the last time I'm going to repeat this. The subject of the sentence is "Kurds" and the statement says nothing about Iranian peoples as a whole. AucamanTalk 02:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Khoikhoi! :::Are you a native speaker of English???.??! Diyako Talk + 11:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I second Khoikhoi. He seems to be correct as always. --Kash 20:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Again Infobox

message: Souces have to be provided for this sentence:
:"Having descended from the Aryans (Proto-Indo-Iranians), the ancient Iranian peoples were separated from the Indo-Aryans in the early 2nd millennium BC"
All Iranian peoples are descendants of one group? I've never heard such a thing. AucamanTalk 04:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aucaman, it does not matter what you have personally heard of or not. You can't just dispute an article because of what you don't know about in the world, see Wikipedia:Verifiability This particular information has a link that is posted after that sentence, that is the reference. --Kash 19:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That source is only about the country of Iran and in particular Persians. It's not talking about this "Iranian peoples" of yours. AucamanTalk 20:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aucaman, I have warned you about rudeness before. Rudeness is indeed against a valuable Wikipedia policy WP:CIVIL.
'It's not talking about this "Iranian peoples" of yours.'
I thought you said you are Iranian? then why is "Iranian people" - of mine exactly?
Also I am not sure what exactly you are after here? The source is on the topic of Iran and not "only about the country of Iran", it clearly talks about the people of Iran as well as the Early History of the people and their origin also. --Kash 23:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm Iranian because I was born in the country of Iran, not because I'm a member of a nonexistant ethnic group. AucamanTalk 12:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "non-existant" ethnic group? --Kash 17:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indo-europeans are not an ethnic group. you claim it in the article. Xebat Talk + 17:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed section

message: Ok, You have not been able to provide a source for several months. Everytime you were asked for citiation rejected or provided a link wich is totally irrelevant to the topic. When I provide encyclopedic sources you delete it. and push your PERSONAL POV. I hope in deletion article we can reach a compromise. Xebat Talk + 17:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, you are riight that nomination is wrong. but you clearly clearly are using a irrelevant source. Why when I insert the Encyclopedia of Ukraine you delete it???? ) Also Swedish Nationalencyklopedin stats the same. Xebat Talk + 18:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: How can a source be irrelevant when it talks about the topic? I don't have a problem with your source, but you have repeatedly said that you have a problem with the term "Aryan", so you are contradicting yourself here. --Kash 18:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Link is not 'mine', I have not claimed ownership over it. It was not even introduced by me. So please keep it WP:CIVIL and don't be rude. I don't know who introduced the term originally, but since it is being used by academic sources, it seems correct.
The article by the way, mentions that Kurds are an Iranian ethnolinguistic group. Keep that in mind. Also, there is no dispute over that different ethnicities have different ethnicities! but the article correctly states that they are all branches of one ethno-linguistic family of Iranians. --Kash 18:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, no problem. It seems that the dispute tag should stay forever until you will accpet that your link does not claim that. Xebat Talk + 18:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with your point Zora, however you should keep in mind that your hypothesis is just a theory in this case and not really relevant to this case as far as I can see, as well as not being a generally accepted theory on this case and you can't generalise from one certain class of people to whole of Iranian peoples anyway. --Kash 18:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kash, that's shuffling and jiving. Of course it's relevant to this case. And something doesn't have to be "generally accepted" to rate mention in WP. NPOV is about giving alternate theories, not picking one and shutting out the others. A theory just has to be "notable" and the current theories of IE language spread are widespread in academia and indeed notable. Zora 18:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In that case I would like to see sources about your ideas then, --Kash 18:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: This is not an ethnic group - it includes at least 15 other ethnic groups within it!!! Where are all the definitions in this article coming from? Where are your sources for the article as a whole? You seem to be trying to justify the article one sentence at a time (by finding ad hoc sources for each sentence). But when you put things together it doesn't really add up. 
You also might want to read this article a little more closely. Pay specila attention to this map (the codes are provided here). As you can see from the map, Persians are genetically (hence "racially") closer to Turkish Turks and Caucasians than they are to Pathans or Baluchis (who are almost half South Asian). (This is why some Iranians like Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi look more like Caucasian or Turkish people (compare Vigen, the Armenian singer) than Afghans, Pakistanis, or Tajiks.) So, again, linguistic similarity does not automatically lead to genetic/racial similarity.
I'm going to be looking at some of the sources provided in the reference section to see if I can find a consistent definition of "Iranian peoples", but this is going to take some time. Until then people should explain their reasoning as to why this article was formed in the first place. 
I will also ask User:Xebat to exercise some patience until we get to the bottom of this. AucamanTalk 18:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, no one claims Iranian peoples to be of one ethnicity. I am not sure where you are getting this idea from.  --Kash 18:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They why are you saying it's an ethnolinguistic group? AucamanTalk 19:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: I have temporarily protected the article, so you could discuss your edit conflict on the talk page, before the edit warring. abakharev 07:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for protecting. I really didn't want to get involved in this dispute, but I kept seeing numerous reverts come up while I was on recent changes patrol and initiated a discussion with Xebat. Frankly, I'd say I tend to agree with the anti-Xebat crowd, yet I nonetheless find it inappropriate to repeatedly delete his dispute tags. I really wish everyone would just follow WP:1RR in these cases: Xebat tags the article, the tag is deleted, the tag is restored--leave the tag in place. He honestly has not been given adequate time to explain his complaint, and none of the editors here have shown him any respect or civility. He, on the other hand, was equally uncivil by adding a ridiculous number of inappropriate tags to the article with the intent of undermining its ethical appeal and making a point. As there clearly is a dispute about the factuality and neutrality of the article, I urge the editors here, after the article is unprotected, to leave Xebot's tag in place until a resolution is reached--either through an overwhelming consensus, his concession, or mediation. It is most definitely inappropriate to repeatedly remove these tags only a couple of hours after they were originally posted. Leave them in place for at least a few days, and if everyone agrees that Xebot has made no valid statement of a dispute, then you can delete them without being rash and cruel. AmiDaniel (Talk) 07:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think User:Xebat deserves more credit than he's been given. Some users here try to push for certain terms and ideas to appear in the article not by concensus or cooperation but by carrying out constant revert wars and repeatedly taking off the dispute tags. This has got to stop. The article is on Iranian peoples but the source justifying its definition here comes from an article on Kurds. No sources have been provided that give a consistent definition of who Iranian peoples are and this is of great concern. Instead of looking for comprehensive sources and presenting them here, they have decided to just define things the way they see it and then look for (incomplete) sources justifying one sentence but at the same time contradicting another. AucamanTalk 08:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect. There is a consensus and the sources clearly define what is meant by "Iranian peoples". Please see WP:V, and as for your other comments directed towards specific editors, please see WP:CIVIL. SouthernComfort 08:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, users such as Xebat have asked for sources that say that an Iranian ethno-linguistic group exists - we provided it to him and Aucaman but both rejected it saying "it's about the Kurds". Yes the subject of the article is about the Kurds, but it still acknowleges the existance of an Iranian ethno-linguistic group. --Khoikhoi 09:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, just because Kurds are an ethno-linguistic group it doesn't mean you can call Iranians an ethno-linguistic group. An ethno-linguistic group is an ethnic group that shares a common language. Kurds have that. "Iranians" don't. Iranian is a general linguistic group. I can't believe you're bring this same issue back up. Makes me wonder if you're reading the source correctly. AucamanTalk 09:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is what the source says: "The Kurds, an Iranian ethno-linguistic group--like Persians, Lurs, Baluch and Bakhtiari". The source clearly indicates that Iranian peoples (Kurds, Persians, Lurs, Baluch and Bakhtiari) are a related ethnolinguistic group. --ManiF 10:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: It looks like this page was already archived but the person archiving forgot to remove the archived material (or put in the link). I finished the job. AucamanTalk 14:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: Here's a message I left someone discussing some of the problems here:
:The article does not provide any sources discussing the subject of the article. All the sources provided are about other ethnic groups, but they make side comments that have been taken out context and are contradictory to some of the other statements appearing on the page. The article is on Iranian peoples, so it should contain at least one source discussing who these people are. Such a source has yet to be provided. 
:I think the article was initially meant to be written on the linguistic group of all speakers of Iranian languages, but the definition has changed considerably due to some misunderstandings (Iran is also the name of a country and some Iranian citizens see themselves as part of a greater ethnic group, that of "Iranian peoples" - see the article on Greater Iran for signs of this). I'm not sure what's the best way to move on from here. The article definitely has to be rewritten with a clear definition in mind, but a lot of users are not being cooperative. I'd strongly consider any advice or mediation.
I think this well-describes the problem here. I think the Germanic peoples article makes a good model for this. Pay particular attention to this section as well as my comments here. AucamanTalk 14:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The problem here

message: People have been saying that Iranian peoples are "only a linguistic group", but this article provides sources to show that they aren't. See Iranian peoples#Genetics for example - it cites a scientific source (I believe Xebat was asking for one awhile back) and says the following:
: People are not saying "Iranina poeples" are only a linguistic group. What they are saying is that this article, called "Iranian peoples" groups all who have a common language origin while excluding Iranian Azeris who, according to your source below, share common mtDNA lineage composition with the rest of Iranians. So that is why, we either have to merge "this" article with Iranian languages or mend this article to reflect what true definition of "Iranian peoples" is. Please note that we are not here to invent meanings for terms but to define them the way they are used in true academia. 
:: As I mentioned before, I'm totally in favor of including Azaris in the article. In fact, we must include them for the article to be complete. Shervink 19:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read that entire article. The definition of "Iranian" they have there is different from the one here. In that study Tajiks and Pashtuns are not considered Iranian. The study also shows that Pashtuns are genetically close to South Asians and Tajiks are close to Eastern Eurasian people. Iranians (i.e. those from the country of Iran) are generically closer to Caucasians and Turks than Tajiks, Pashtuns, and various Pakistani groups that happen to speak Iranian languages. I've already discussed all of this here and your post here shows that you haven't been following the previous discussions. As I've said before, we need to find sources that specifically discuss Iranina peoples as a linguistic group. I've checked a copy of this book and will let you know if I find anything (I haven't had the time because you keep removing my other edits without much reason). Until then the article would be protected until someone presents some sort of an academic paper that discusses who these people are (no, an article on Kurds doesn't count). AucamanTalk 19:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aucaman, you say: we need to find sources that specifically discuss Iraninan peoples as a linguistic group, whereas the whole point of our discussion is that they are much more than that. Your statement basically suggests that you are only willing to accept sources which validate something which you mistakenly already have decided to be true. This is not the way to work here. Shervink 19:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you have not provided any evidence that say they're more than just a linguistic group. In fact, as I have pointed out, the evidence show that Eastern Iranian peoples (who are closer to South Asians and/or East Eurasians) are genetically different from Western Iranian peoples (who are closer to Caucasians and Turkish people). In any case we need to come up with sources that clearly define who these people are. Right now we don't have any. The only source presented so far is the one mentioned above which shows that Iranian peoples are genetically heterogeneous. AucamanTalk 20:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not true. You have been presented with overwhelming evidence. In fact, it is nearly impossible to find a source defining Iranian peoples in merely linguistic terms, so in any case the burden of proof lies with you (who is the one challenging common academic views). I'm not going to waste my time reciting the sources. You can find them yourself by looking at the discussion, or looking up many books you would find in a library. The definition is also clear. Iranian peoples are usually defined as the people of Greater Iran, according to many of the same sources. The fact that you select not to look at or accept the definition does not refute its existence. Shervink 21:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "People of Greater Iran"??? Like I said you have not provided any sources. AucamanTalk 22:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Of course. The people of Greater Iran. Shervink 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm asking for sources for this article, not Nowrooz or "Persian myths". AucamanTalk 16:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no source for that and if there is it does not serve big claims of some people, so you never find a proper source for that esp by claimants. Indeed whole of this article is manufactured here in this talk page and is not based on scientific evidence.  KhalidMarwan 17:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aucaman, I cannot teach you how to read books if you have never done it before. These books and articles very clearly support the contents. Shervink 21:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What's your problem, Aucaman? The term "Iranian people" is a scholarly term used in many works. Here, take a look at the article "Ancient Iran" in the Encyclopaedia Britannica:  The word "Iranian people" is used, and it does NOT refer to the present-day population of the modern nation "Iran"! And now, please stop wasting our time and instead try to imrpove the article! Thanks! Tajik 00:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I just wanted to add one thing about the Pashtuns. They largely do NOT cluster with South Asian populations, but rather with Iranian peoples of West ASian origin. If you look at the map with the genetic affinity breakdown, the genetic survey used people from the Punjab, possible Punjabi Pathans, a group that overlaps with Pashtuns and Punjabis. Most genetic studies of just Pashtun groups show that they cluster with West Eurasians as with the study regarding their supposed Greek ancestry etc. found on the Pashtuns page.  In addition, I've been to Peshawar and if they are largely South Asian, I don't see it.  They more closely resemble the Persians I've met in LA. Tombseye 21:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More proof 

message: This is the third time I'm repeating this. Take a look a the map here. You can find the table of codes here. Pashtuns are denotes as PT (for Pathan). It looks to me like they're more than half South Asian. AucamanTalk 21:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am also referring to that map which places that group in the Punjab in eastern Pakistan. That is not where the Pashtuns mostly live. In addition, they surveyed a tiny group and the usage of Pathan tells me that they didn't use an actual Pakhtun or Pashtun as natives do not call themselves Pathans. Regardless, other surveys conflict as with Cavalli-Sforza who cluster Pashtuns with West Eurasians correctly, while the Punjabi Pathans would be the group that ovelaps 50-50 with South Asian and WEster Eurasian groups. Tombseye 22:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I'll take a look and see where the samples are coming from. But even if you're right then some of the discrepencies have to be mentioned in the article. Pashtuns are Pashtuns. There's no "right" group of Pashtuns. If there are conflicting studies then this is a good indication that they're more diverse than some people have been claiming. What's that other study you're referring to? AucamanTalk 22:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Pashtuns aren't all Pashtuns is the problem. There is a group, some say sub-group, called Pathans who are of mixed Pashtun and Punjabi/Indian origin and I suspect that the group surveyed is what is shown in this survey and as result are half and half as to be expected. Cavalli-Sforza's various books including the History and Geography of Human Genes place Pashtuns in Western Asia genetically. In fact, to many Pashtuns, if you don't speak the lanaguage of Pashto, then you aren't considered a Pashtun. They have a great deal of criteria, but let's say we go with the academic view of those who live in close geographic proximity to each other and speak Pashto as the criteria. This article was also what I was talking about: A Study of the Greek Ancestry of Northern Pakistani Ethnic Groups Using 115 Microsatellite Markers. A. Mansoor, Q. Ayub, et al.Am. J. Human Genetics, Oct 2001. Also, having encountered the Brahui, I find it hard to believe that they are more Iranian than the Pashtuns. Either way there is a major discrepency. The diversity is that the Pashtuns are genetically varied from the Pathans and since the Pathans tend to not speak Pashto, they can't really be considered an Iranic people either, but perhaps some tranisitional group. That's my point here. Tombseye 22:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to investigate all of this, but if what you're saying is correct you should probably make some changes to Pashtun people first (it's asserted that Pathan is another name for a Pashtun). In any case it's pretty clear to me that Iranian peoples (as a linguistic group) do not form some sort of a homogeneous race, but are genetically diverse. (Take a look at Baluchis and some of the other people in that map I showed you.) The problem is that most of this article was written before it was sourced - and that's not how you write an encyclopedia. AucamanTalk 22:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, here's another problem though, to people from outside Pashtun/Pakhtun areas, they are called Pathans (as by people in eastern Pakistan as that's their varied way of saying Pashtun) which is also sometimes applied to all Afghans regardless of their ethno-linguistic background. The article should point to some genetic links (as even the 'Pathans' and Baluch are roughly half West Eurasian for example) between Iranian-speaking peoples, but yes it needs to clarify that there are variations. Also, it may not be surprising that even within groups there is diversity as Kurds living near Persians may have mixed more with Persians and Kurds in Turkey with other groups etc. Perhaps the genetic section for this larger linguistic group makes less sense than for smaller groups since there does not appear to any one 'race' as you say. I say this even as the guy who added the section in the first place. Also, some of the studies seem to be quite scant (meaning the surveys only take into account small groups or even 1 individual for a survey). Hopefully, this conversation won't devolve into some argument as in the past though. Tombseye 23:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Not a guess on my part as the Germanic peoples page and Slavic peoples page are rendered with an emphasis upon language and then some partial common ancestries that vary. That is easily applicable to the Iranian peoples as well as they are in a similar situation. And the differences between the Iranian peoples aren't that great as even the Hazaras show some West Eurasian ancestry for example. I think the emphasis should be upon language though, yes. Tombseye 03:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, 'race' as such is somewhat more pliable here. Although if we put a typical Hazara next to a Pashtun from some remote mountain village they'll look clearly different, but then there are Hazaras who show significant admixture as well. We're talking about general genetic variations, but also commonalities here. Iranian peoples should emphasize the language and certain cultural traits, common histories (they do have that in most cases) etc. until we have more genetic tests of all peoples concerned as the question of Kurdish variation is a valid one as is the variations amongst the Azeris who may vary from north to south more than we now believe.  Tombseye 03:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got a copy of this book and it seems to contain a lot of archeological discussions about the origins Iranian peoples (as far as linguistics is concerned). I agree that there are a lot more things to talk about besides "race". But first I want to see some materials directly discussing Iranian peoples. AucamanTalk 03:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've skimmed that book in a library before. Please let us all know whatever relevant info. you find. Tombseye 23:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pashtuns

message: :Image:Iranian people2.jpg is a derivative work of another image (:Image:Lily afshar.jpg) that we are using under the fair use guidelines. We do not have a license to use this image, so we cannot make derivative works from it. I have tagged the image as no license. If someone wanted to remove the single non-free image and make a new collage the remaining image would be ok to use. - cohesion 07:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Choose a picture that is not fair use. AucamanTalk 07:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean the other images in that collage, or the other images on the page? There is nothing wrong with the other images in the collage. - cohesion 17:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Iranian people2.jpg 

message: Hopefully, I've made some changes for the better including adding a lot more information with references provided. Tombseye 20:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an improvement, but it still seems to me to gloss over recent work showing that there isn't common descent, just common language. The genetic tests don't show a common heritage, they show that the western and eastern populations of the Iranian plateau are different. The eastern ones have the M17 marker, the western ones don't -- they are much more like neighboring Mesopotamia than they are like eastern Iran. I think that should at least be presented as another POV. I'll do it when I have time -- I'm swamped these days. Zora 22:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The genetic information belongs in the genetic section. It is POV to inject that material elsewhere in the article. SouthernComfort 23:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Definitely add it to the Genetics section as it would only help to add more nuance to the article. Tombseye 19:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Made changes and added a lot more information with regards to history and culture

message: I am not sure why some people think it is obvious that Iranian Turks are not Iranian peoples!!! Some of us do not think so. So there is no consensus. 
Therefore, I request protection until we settle this dispute. We need to be clear here. Either we think Iranian peoples is a language based grouping, then fine, merge this article with Iranian languages. Or we think there is more than linguistic link. Then Iranian Turkic people are Iranian peoples.
: I do agree. Azeris and Iranian Turks are as Iranian culturally and ethnically as any Lur, Mazandarani etc. Persian Magi 12:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, again Iranian peoples does not, in the context of this article, mean the country of modern Iran's population as a whole. Iranian peoples refers to people who speak an Iranian language first and foremost and then other factors are discussed. Since the Azeris do not speak an Iranian language they do not qualify as an Iranian or Iranic people. And we've already debated all of these issues ad nauseum. Look up Iranian peoples on the web and you'll find that the Azeris are not included. Their sharing modern Iran or a Persian culture or most aspects is, again, another matter that is discussed in the Azeri people page and on the culture of Iran page. this article is quite specific and the appellation of Iranian peoples is in reference to the various tribes that spoke Iranian languages and their descendents, however putative. Tombseye 19:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The term Iranian is used by academics to denote a group of people as well its modern usage as applied to the people of modern Iran. Terminology changes over millenia and called many names, often those of ruling dynasties. As noted at the top of the article, Iranian peoples is not about the Iranian demographics or Iran itself, but simply parts of its population who speak Iranian languages. I'm talking about the ancient movements of the Iranic peoples as well as their languages, some commonalities and differences and the most common accepted definition that does not include Turkic speaking peoples. I think the only way to resolve this is a vote to see if people think inclusion of Turkic peoples is warranted or not. Tombseye 00:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please clarify who "acadmeics" are. I am guessing you are not refering to internet pages with subjective contents but rather refering to University text books and known scholars using the term exactly the same and for the same meaning. Persian Magi 01:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: I move to do one the following to clear ambiguity of the article's title as per above
discussions between above anonymous editors and Tombseye:
To do one of the following: 
*1) Change the article in one of the following ways to reflect the 
    true meaning of Iranian peoples: 
  *a) Merge the article with Iranian languages as a purely linguistic grouping so that
      leaving Iranian Turkish speaking people is ok. 
  *b) Change the title of the article to Iranic Peoples so that it is not confusing
      and does not imply all Iranian Peoples. 
  *c) Add a phrase to the first line of the paragraph that this article does not include 
      Turkish speaking Iranian peoples. 
2)    Leave the article as is.
If you are voting to item 1, please also specify which option you go for. 
We close this voting in one week time so that everyone catches up. 
Thanks
Persian Magi 00:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: - My vote is 1. and okey with either 1.a, 1.b or 1.c Persian Magi 00:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: - I vote for #1.b and 1.c, but I would have prefered the same name and article, including Iranian Turkic groups (Azeris, Shahsavans and Qashqaeis) in the article. 203.48.45.194 02:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: - I agree with Shervink's below statement. However, between the choices I would rather to have 1.b and/or 1.c. 59.167.12.160 11:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: - This article should be moved to Iranic peoples (like Persians, Tajiks, Balouchs, Pashtuns, etc), because "Iranian peoples" is confusing to many people who do not know the difference between "Islamic Republic Iran" and the historic people of this region. I have no problems with adding other peoples of Iranic origin who do not speak Iranic languages, like Azeris, Croats, etc. On the other hand, the article Iranian peoples should be ONLY about the citizens of the modern Islamic Republic.  Tajik 16:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I vote to keep the article as is, but do not have a problem with the term Iranic peoples since there does appear to be a never ending stream of confusion on the issue, but there would have to be a redirect if someone typed in Iranian peoples would be my condition or at least a disambiguation page. Tombseye 00:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I like #2 - I think the status quo if fine. Besdies, it's already stated at the top that Iranian peoples speak Iranian languages. People like Azeris speak a Turkic language. —Khoikhoi 01:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I vote for #2. --ManiF 01:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I vote for #2. As khoikhoi mentioned, the meaning is defined on the top. I don’t have a problem with term Iranic other than it does not seem to be the academically used term for speakers of Iranian languages. Looks like Iranian is the standard term.Gol 02:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with all choices. I think the name of the article must be kept as it is, and Azeris (Turkic speaking Iranian people) should be included. They might not be linguistically Iranian, but with the broad definition of this article, in many other ways they are.Shervink 06:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Leave it as it is - Although reviewing the situation, I know what you mean. I believe Azeris should be included because Iranian peoples are not strictly Iranian-language speakers. I think that is very true, we should fix the article according and we should vote only on that matter instead of radical changes! -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 16:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Vote  

message: I suggest that we use Iranian peoples as a disambiguation page to point to 1) Ethnic groups of Iran (isn't there already a such an article?) 2) Iranian language group and 3) Ancient Iranian peoples (Medes, Persians, Sogdians, Chorasmians, etc.)  Perhaps also a pointer to Greater Iran, with references to the political parties that espouse pan-Iranian irredentism and perhaps an article on the term used by the Encyclopedia Iranica, which is, I believe, "Persian culture continent". 
The disambiguation page could also give something of a history of the term and give cites for the many ways that it has been used in English. (Those many ways being greatly responsible for the "confused armies clashing by night".) Zora 01:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That could count as vote for option 1, as you also favour the change of the contents/title. You could put a comment there as you do agree with change but want a fourth option apart from a,b and c and as the above. Persian Magi 01:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zora, I don't really get what you're trying to say, you're basically saying we should delete this page? There is such thing as the modern Iranian peoples, just as there Turkic peoples, Germanic peoples, and Slavic peoples. They are not limited to just Iran, the Hazara of Afghanistan are in this group for example. Whatever is the case, I think that the hard work of Tombseye and others should not be erased. —Khoikhoi 01:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Iranian peoples are not the same as Germanic or Turkic peoples. Iranian peoples are the same as German and Turkish peoples. That is why the term can not be used as Turkic and Germanic peoples. 203.48.45.194 02:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you like to tell us why you claim such a thing? There is a language group called Iranian just as there is a language group called Germanic. What is the difference? Gol 02:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly.she is basically asking for the article to be deleted and i dont know what is her logic for that. Speakers of Iranian language deserve their own article just as speakers of Germanic and Slavic languages. I also remember how earlier she said we don’t have such a term and she would call Iranian people simply “People who speak an Iranian language”!!!!! funny is that those who speak Germanic languages or Turkic languages deserve to be called Germanic people and Turkic people but rules changes when it comes to Iranian languages? Why? Gol 02:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  I defintely agree and acknowledge hardwork by the editors. Whatever we do, we need to value and keep the valuable contents. I am going for option 1 for the same reason. Persian Magi 02:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The current intro of the article defines what it refers to as 'Iranian peoples' very well, I suggest you have a look. -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 16:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate suggestion 

message: Hi, please refrain from edit-warring, and know that the picture of the Turkish woman, is in fact, of an Iranian-Turkic woman.  I was given non-exclusive rights to that picture; its usage is generic.Zmmz 00:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I am not seeing any picture in the page anymore. Have you put the picture back? Persian Magi 00:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He would like you to remove the image of the Turkish woman. The source here, just says "Turk" under her picture. I don't see anything about her being "Iranian-Turkic". —Khoikhoi 01:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hello. Actually, at least 3 of us found the picture to have some problems. First it has an ethnic Turkish woman which falls beyond the parameters of this article regardless of whether she is an "Iranian Turk" or not as that is better suited for the Turko-Iranian page or demographics of Iran etc. Also, the picture is very strangely created in that it is extremely long in the linear sense and distorts the article. If you want to make a collage of various Iranian peoples please make sure they fall within the ethnic groups mentioned and are not Azeris or Uzbeks etc. Next, if the picture could be more compact that would be ideal (such as 3 or 4 pictures stacked on top of each other or something). Thanks. Tombseye 01:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hello, the first one is fine. Please put it in the ethnic section as it is the most appropriate place for it so that the opening is relatively clean. Thanks. Tombseye 21:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The picture

message: These sort of complications occur when the definition is ambiguous. This article is supposed to be about a linguistic group of people and is supposed to cover various archeological and linguistic evidence regarding Iranian peopes (i.e., the speakers of Iranian languages). Ethnic groups are defined regionally. I agree that Iranian ethnic groups are ethnically closer to Iranian Turks than they are, say, to Tajiks. But this article is supposed to be about a linguistic group. AucamanTalk 09:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly the problem here. This article is not about a linguistic group. Most editors do not agree with your view, which you keep repeating for months now. Please see my post below. Shervink 15:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That's debateable though, since many Tajiks would argue to the contrary. 'Ethnic' proximity is tricky here as we are really talking about people moving around a lot and even links between Persians and Arabs for example. The definition is not ambiguous though, it's just not what a lot of people like which is different. As Mani said, he got it and he hadn't heard the term before. The main criteria is language followed by other ascepts, which is the same criteria applied to Turkic, Germanic, Slavic etc. Tombseye 21:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarifying the definition

message: I am modifying the article as the following: 
The term Iranic peoples is sometimes alternately used in order to avoid confusion with the modern people of Iran who include Turkic and Arabic-speaking minorities.
at the end of "Etymology and usage" section, we might move it to the end of first secion where we introduce the term "Iranic peoples". 
I also think, the  wording to change to: 
The term Iranic peoples is sometimes alternately used in order to avoid confusion as this article does not include Iranian Turks.
Iranian Turks have been a part of Iran for a history and not only a minority of modern Iran. So the above can avoid such a misconception. 
Please do not revert back unless consensus says no here.
Persian Magi 08:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think it is very wrong to exclude Azeris from the Iranian peoples. The fact that the current definition seems to exclude them, (which is something I do not agree with, since the definition should not be merely linguistic) is not an excuse. You cannot stick to an improper definition just in order to justify false derivations made from it. Azeris are in many ways Iranian, pretty much to the same extent as many other Iranian groups. The propblem is the definition which - mainly because of the POV-pushing of some Kurds - has become too linguistically-oriented. Once the definition is fixed and balanced, there will be no problem with the inclusion of Azeris or Iranian Arabs. Excluding them from this article seriously reduces the value of the writing. Shervink 09:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we do add them, we’ll have to get rid of the note at the top of the article, which says “this article does not include Iranian Turks”. —Khoikhoi 18:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: We can't add them. This article is not just about the Persians, but about all the Iranic peoples. The Turks will then want to include the Kurds as 'Turks' which the govt. of Turkey has done in the past. This has more to do with modern nationalism than the anything else. The voting will decide the issue, but I do not believe the Azeris or any other Turkic people can be included because they fail the central criteria to qualify, speaking an Iranian language. Tombseye 21:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way adding that the term is distinct regarding Iranian Turks at the beginning is okay by me. Tombseye 21:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranic peoples clarification