Talk:Iran/Archive 1

message: I think it would be useful to put more dates into the Solar calender, dates which are traditionally celebrated in osme form , even if they are not part of a government calender, e.g. shab-e yalda or Sizdah-be-dah, but I do not know the Iranian calender well enough to put them in. Refdoc 13:04, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Sizde-be-dar is already in the list. It's the "Nature Day". About Shab-e-Yalda or other occasions like Mehregaan, I really don't know. Other countries don't have them. For example, see USA. It doesn't have Halloween. Roozbeh 16:41, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian Calenders

message: I've expanded an article on Neyshabur (Nishapur); could someone please add the Persian name to the article? -- ChrisO 09:49, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Roozbeh 14:28, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neyshabur 

message: There is a dispute if there exists a national motto of Iran. I could not find any source confirming the existance of a national motto for Iran. Although the motto "Allah-u Akbar" is a part of the official flag according to the Iranian constitution, it is not called the official motto anywhere. I would appreciate if someone could find the original source. Roozbeh 15:22, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: National Motto

message: Why is this page protected, who did it, and why didn't you mention it here?  Are you afraid to let us know who you are? (although you might just be some benign sysop, i've no idea)--naryathegreat 22:19, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
:Sorry for not mentioning it here. I protected the page to stop the massive and biased editing by the anonymous editors (see the history of the article). I guess they would either stop that or take their case here on the discussion page. This has nothing to do with the debate on Iran's government being terrorist, etc. Roozbeh 01:17, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: An anonymous user keeps changing the "and" form double named provinces to "va". I believe the former is preferable for following reason: At least one of the provinces is fairly well known among English readers ('Sistan and Baluchistan' is unfortunately infamous for heroin smuggling) so a change of that particular province's name would make the list less useful. The other "double names" should then fall into line to have a consistent picture. Refdoc 12:43, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "va" vs "and" 

message: " Non-Muslim religious minorities include Bahá'ís and Zoroastrians, both being religions that originated in Iran, as well as Jews and Christians. Only the latter three are officially recognised minority religions."
Three religions? Four are described. I guess it means christians are recognised? Seems odd to me.
CJWilly
:The three offically recognized relgions are Zoroastrians, Jews and Christians.  Baha'is have been persecuted and discriminated against in iran ever since the creation of the faith in Iran.  Although nowadays it is much better than it was 100 years ago, or after the revolution, it still exists.
:It's not recognized because it's officially considered a heretical branch of Islam rather than a religion in its own right.--KASchmidt 05:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear Wording 

message: "Since the revolution of 1979 the Supreme Leader is the rahbar, or in absence of a single leader a council of religious leaders." - What does this sentence mean? It sounds like they are saying that the Supreme Leader is a person with the title "rahbar", and that title literally means "in the absense of a single leader a council of religious leaders". However, that last phrase "in the absense of a single leader a council of religious leaders" doesn't make sense? Jogback 15:55, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomprehensible lead-in 

message: It would be nifty to estimate the religious demographics ("Twelvers", Ishmaelis, etc). Jogback 15:55, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious demographics 

message: i suppose everybody knows that iran is developing nuclear weapons (or at least those are the allegations) and have been busy with the project (iran maintains that the nuclear facility is for civillian purposes only) for some time now. and while america does not accept the project europe is more leniant. china has economic interest to be on irans side too. but im curious to know what other people think...?
**   These allegations come from exactly the same individuals that sold the Iraq invasion to the U.N. with claims that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, which he obviously did not have, and that he had direct ties to Al-Qaeda and 9/11, which we now know he did not have. The IAEA has publicly announced that it has reviewed all of its information and intelligence and that it does not see any evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons technology. I suggest that we take whatever we hear with a grain of salt, and question the motivations of those making claims. Furthermore, even if Iran were secretly pursuing nuclear weapons, I believe that it is any nation's sovereign right to equip itself with whatever is necessary for its own defense, and the United States does not have the right to keep any nation from doing that, including Iran. Israel has repeatedly expressed the desire to see Iran annihilated, and Iran has no reason to believe they are bluffing. Just my thoughts...
***    "Iran is developing nuclear weapons" should definately not be stated as a given fact, as it is a matter of more than a little contention. Personally I'd like to see the whole issue just steered clear of in the article until something historically significant actually happens.
:::: The various back and forth with the IAE(?) should probably been noted in the current affairs column. Given how Iran has been making a big issue over this, I think there's something going on; whether it's nuclear weapons being built, Iran wanting people to think nucelar weapons are being built, or [i]possibly[/i] just general grumpiness over being forced to follow rules much of the rest of the world doesn't remains to be seen. It certainly might be worth a note that the USA and other countries strongly suspect that Iran's goals is weaponary, not power. --Prosfilaes 09:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  yay or nay...?