Talk:Persian Jews/Archive 1

message: This article from 2 July in the Jerusalem Post contradicts much of this section and should be included at least that they themselves express that they are not mistreated.
Iran's Jews don't recognize Israel:
:"Foreign journalists usually think that our comments on the good condition of religious minorities in Iran are false" and "expressed on the call and under pressure of Iranian officials." According to the report, Yashai said this belief was "wrong," and added that Jews were free to react to some government policies and even to write to government officials on the issues
—Deadman1848 06:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Status

message: I remember seeing a news peice on CNN that said there were TWO jews in Afghanistan, not one. I could be wrong seeing as how this was a couple of years ago, but if anyone has the time to track it down it might be worth looking into.
:At least one has since died (it was in the news)... if not both of them... they were both quite elderly.  Tomertalk 07:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not a lot of money or organized commerce in Afghanistan because it is still largely rural and agrarian.  Jews tend to gather in cities, but there aren't many cities there, mostly just small towns and village.  Therefore, you will not find a lot of Jews in Afghanistan because of the lack of money and an organized economy.  --172.135.133.62 07:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 not 1 Jews in Afghanistan 

message: Some recent edits have been rather disturbing:
*Some here tend to think any Jew living in the Persian Empire is a Persian Jew. Unfortunately that's not true. For example Egypt used be part of the Persian Empire, so Egyptinan Jews are Persian Jews? That's why it's important to note that they must speak Persian to be Persian Jews. 
*Some also like to suggest that there has been substantial interbreeding between local Persians and Persian Jews, to the effect that one cannot tell the difference between Persian Jews and local Persians. This is also wrong. Although there has been interbreeding, most Persian Jews tend to have certain (linguistic as well as physical) characteristics that distinguishes them from the local populations. In beginning of the 20th century (parallel to the rise of Nazism in Germany), there was widespread Persian literature about these characteristics which classified Persian Jews as "Semites" and not "Aryans"--hence not "real Iranians". AucamanTalk 04:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are Persian Jews ethnically Semitic? Are they not Semitic? Has there been "substanstial interbreeding" ("intermarriage" would be a better choice of words) with non-Jews? Mass conversions of non-Jews to Judaism in previous eras? There is no evidence to back any of this up, and it's irrelevant either way. I am, however, curious about this allegedly "widespread" Persian literature classifying Persian Jews as Semites, which I personally find doubtful. There were a few Nazi sympathizers during the 1930s in Iran who bought into their racist propaganda, but they were most definitely fringe. SouthernComfort 15:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the page history, you'd see that people have been trying to add what I explained to be wrong information to the article. That's all I was trying to say. I'm not going to add any of the things I said to the article, so there's no point asking me for evidence. Those who add new information to the article are responsible for providing evidence. AucamanTalk 07:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This was one of my points.AucamanTalk 03:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well the use of the word "race" is controversial in any case. What you're saying is not relevant to this article. We're not having a discussion about a "Jewish race" - I'm not even sure what you're talking about. AucamanTalk 11:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: This article barely has any information concerning the contemporary life of Persian Jews in Iran. Also, why the inclusion of information and links to Jews in India and Pakistan? Are they related to Persian Jews? The sentence about Aghanistan is also misleading - the vast majority of the Jewish community there fled due to the Soviet invasion (obviously along with many other Afghans). By the time of the Taliban, most were already gone. This same information was in the Afghanistan article until I corrected it with a link to a Washington Post article  (primarily revolving around the issue of the single Afghan Jew left there). SouthernComfort 01:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion required

message: What is the source of this information? SouthernComfort 02:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find anything, so I'm going to take it out. AucamanTalk 11:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Forced conversions in Pakistan

message: The article's wording makes it appear that Persian Jews are an ethnic group distinct from other Persians, rather than simply a religious community. What is the source for this claim? SouthernComfort 07:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jews are an ethnic group. If you have a problem with that you should go to the article on Jews. I'm sure they'll give you a full explanation. AucamanTalk 11:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Where are your sources that claim they are an ethnic group? They're a religious community like the Zoroastrians. If a Persian converts to Judaism, that makes that person a Persian Jew. Therefore even the title of this article is POV since it is not inclusive of converts. SouthernComfort 02:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: And by the way, we're talking about the Jews of Iran - not Jews of other backgrounds (Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Ethiopian, etc) or Jewish peoples in general. SouthernComfort 03:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a historical term. It has nothing to do with modern Persians or the country of Iran. The only reason they're called Persian Jews is because they lived under the Persian Empire (or they spoke Persian). For example, Mordechai, a Persian Jew, was a Benjamite - definitely not Persian. And by the way, most Jewish traditions don't accept converts, so I'm not sure which converts you're talking about. Judaism is more than just a religion. Persian Jews share the same roots, closely identify with one another, and they have their own culture and language. This is why they form an ethnic group. See the ethnic group article. AucamanTalk 06:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're dodging my question. Where are your sources that they are an ethnic group distinct from Persians? As far as anyone is concerned, they are Persians of Jewish religion. Please provide sources that state otherwise. SouthernComfort 07:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, the article on Mordechai does not identify him as a Persian Jew. How do you know that the Jews of Iran are descended from the ancient Jews who were freed by Cyrus? How do you know that they are not actually descended from later converts to Judaism? Sources please. SouthernComfort 07:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If you think it is problematic, the historical information which does not directly relate to the Jews of Iran may be moved to a separate article, but I don't think its necessary at this point. SouthernComfort 07:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Persian Jews: Ethnicity or religious community

message: Which part of this article is disputed and why? AucamanTalk 06:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is disputed is your claim that the Jews of Iran are an ethnic group. I've never heard of this before. Persian Jews are a religious community. SouthernComfort 07:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, you've highlighted a potential POV problem with the article title, which is why I have suggested a move to Judaism in Iran or Iranian Jews or Jews of Iran. SouthernComfort 07:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already told you. Most Persian Jews don't live in Iran and have nothing to do with Iran. They're called Persian Jews because of historical reasons. They're no more Iranian than Americans are English. I've asked people involved in the creation of this article to come and tell you exactly where the sources are coming from. AucamanTalk 07:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most have nothing to do with Iran? Do you have a source for that? Obviously there are still many Jews in Iran - somewhere between 25,000 to 40,000. Are you downplaying their significance? BTW, Jews of Persian ancestry in Israel and Los Angeles may no longer have ties to Iran (speculative at best), but they are still of Persian ancestry. And again, you have not provided any sources for the claim that they are ethnically distinct from Persians aside from the issue of religion. For example, in Los Angeles, most Persian Jews are active in the Persian community and celebrate Norooz, right? SouthernComfort 07:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You also contradict yourself in your discussion above with Mani: You don't know what you're talking about. Persian Jews are more than just Persian-speaking. Before the Islamic revolution they were involved in all sort of things Persian. There were Persian Jewish singers, composers, writers, linguists, musicians, etc. There were also Persian converts to Judaism--how can you say they're not Persian? And yet now you claim they are only Persian-speaking and not ethnically Persian. Incredible. SouthernComfort 08:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything I said is correct except that there are Persian converts to Judaism. Persian Jews are Persian, but you and I seem to have a different understanding of who a Persian is (IMO, there's no such thing as a "Persian race"; Persian is a cultural group). AucamanTalk 08:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is talking about a "Persian race"? See ethnic group. SouthernComfort 08:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it helps if you read some of the stuff you revert. Here. You're telling me Jews like Mordechai (a Benjamite!) are descendants of "Aryan tribes"??? AucamanTalk 08:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, do you have a source for the claim that there were not any converts to Judaism? Otherwise, that's just a claim and we have no idea if the Jews of Iran are actually descended from the original Jewish exiles or later converts, and we don't know the pattern of conversion in later centuries up to the modern era. SouthernComfort 08:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You're the one claiming him as a Persian Jew. I don't agree with his inclusion. He's a historical figure who may or may not have been Persian. Do you have a source? Because I don't know. SouthernComfort 08:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Plus, his article doesn't claim him as Persian. SouthernComfort 08:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Historical figure? So historical figures are not supposed to have religions, cultures, or ethnicities? So Mordechai is not a Persian Jew? Maybe you should read the story of Purim? Was Esther a Persian Jew? AucamanTalk 08:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the one connecting them to Persian (or more accurately, Iranian) Jews, not me. You're the one claiming that the Iranian Jews and those Jews of Iranian ancestry today are ethnically descended from those historical figures. Do you have a source for that? Also, you keep avoiding my other points. SouthernComfort 08:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not doing anything. Every source that talks about Purim, Esther, and Mordechai identifies them as Persian Jews. And I did not write this article or come up with a definition for Persian Jews. In fact I'm just going to shut up and let those whose edits you just removed without much reason come here and give you an explanation for why Esther and Mordechai are Persian Jews and why the article is written the way it is. If you want sources you might want to read some of the stuff here before removing sourced information. AucamanTalk 09:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are. You're making a lot of controversial claims without any sources to back them up. I welcome the involvement of other editors because I would really like my concerns to be addressed by serious editors who can provide sources. In addition, I find it unusual that you routinely condemn what you perceive to be "racialism" and yet here you have no problem in promoting the idea that the Jews of Iran are an entirely different race or ethnicity. Isn't that "racialism"? As far as I know, there are no sources which suggest that the Jews of Iran and those of Persian ancestry are not ethnically Persian or ethnically different from other Persians in their respective areas (e.g. are Isfahani Jews ethnically different from other Isfahanis?). SouthernComfort 20:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Why are putting this in the middle of this section? AucamanTalk 04:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but aside from their religion, how are Persian Jews ethnically different from other Persians? Zoroastrians also have their own distinct dialects and yet they are a religious community, not a distinct ethnic group. Similarly, Persian Jews are a religious community, not a distinct ethnic group. Before the Revolution, intermarriage between Persians of different religious backgrounds were not uncommon and it is only after the Revolution that those belonging to minority religions were forced to marry within their own communities unless they converted to Shi'a Islam. As I said, it all comes down to the issue of whether or not Persian Jews are ethnically distinct from other Persians. No sources have so far been provided to prove that they are a separate ethnicity. SouthernComfort 05:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Persian Jews are distinct from other Persians in the same way Assyrians and Armenians are different. They have their own culture and different dialects. And stop making unsourced statements like "intermarriage between Persians of different religious backgrounds were not uncommon" in a closed society that has very limited tolerance of non-Muslims and has been active in their persecution. I will leave this alone for a few days until the original editors of the article come forward an answer some of your questions. AucamanTalk 06:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A "closed society" that has "very limited tolerance for non-Muslims"? You're talking about pre-revolutionary Iran? Where is your source for that contentious and incendiary claim? It sounds like a provocation to me, especially when you can't even distinguish between a government and the populace, and I have no idea what you have against the people of Iran, but such attitudes are not appropriate here on WP. As for Assyrians and Armenians, they are not Persians. Persian Jews, however, are simply Persians who are of the Jewish religion. And I would really like to know your source for claiming that Imperial-era Iran persecuted non-Muslims, and that people in Iran are not tolerant of non-Muslims. SouthernComfort 06:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Persian Jews are NOT distinct from other Persians in the same way Baha'i Persians are not distinct from other Persians. Assyrians and Armenians are an ethnicity, "Persian Jews" or Iranian Jews are not an ethnicity. By the way, intermarriage between Persians of different religious backgrounds has always been common among secular Persians.  --ManiF 06:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Persian Jews before they became Persian Jews had a different background to the rest of Persia. And Judaism is not just a religion. ems 10:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, many would disagree with your statement that "Judaism is not just a religion". Regardless, the argument here is that there is no ethnicity named "Persian Jews". --ManiF 01:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you like online sources, take a look at this from Britannica Encyclopedia: "The Jews trace their heritage in Iran to the Babylonian Exile of the 6th century BC and, like the Armenians, have retained their ethnic, linguistic, and religious identity." Perhaps you should go argue with the editors of Britannica instead. What are you claiming and where are you sources? AucamanTalk 01:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sources is discussing Jews in Iran, it's talking about "Jews in Iran". The term "Persian Jew" is a contradiction in itself. --ManiF 02:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute

message: When did I say Jews form a race? I said an ethnic group. An ethnic group is a group of people who identify close with another and share a common language and culture. Persian Jews form the best example of this. It's funny that you bring up Isfahani Jews because up until a 100 years ago they spoke a special dialect of Judeo-Persian that was totally incomprehensible to the local population of Isfahan. AucamanTalk 04:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but aside from their religion, how are Persian Jews ethnically different from other Persians? Zoroastrians also have their own distinct dialects and yet they are a religious community, not a distinct ethnic group. Similarly, Persian Jews are a religious community, not a distinct ethnic group. Before the Revolution, intermarriage between Persians of different religious backgrounds were not uncommon and it is only after the Revolution that those belonging to minority religions were forced to marry within their own communities unless they converted to Shi'a Islam. As I said, it all comes down to the issue of whether or not Persian Jews are ethnically distinct from other Persians. No sources have so far been provided to prove that they are a separate ethnicity. SouthernComfort 05:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Persian Jews are distinct from other Persians in the same way Assyrians and Armenians are different. They have their own culture and different dialects. And stop making unsourced statements like "intermarriage between Persians of different religious backgrounds were not uncommon" in a closed society that has very limited tolerance of non-Muslims and has been active in their persecution. I will leave this alone for a few days until the original editors of the article come forward an answer some of your questions. AucamanTalk 06:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A "closed society" that has "very limited tolerance for non-Muslims"? You're talking about pre-revolutionary Iran? Where is your source for that contentious and incendiary claim? It sounds like a provocation to me, especially when you can't even distinguish between a government and the populace, and I have no idea what you have against the people of Iran, but such attitudes are not appropriate here on WP. As for Assyrians and Armenians, they are not Persians. Persian Jews, however, are simply Persians who are of the Jewish religion. And I would really like to know your source for claiming that Imperial-era Iran persecuted non-Muslims, and that people in Iran are not tolerant of non-Muslims. SouthernComfort 06:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Persian Jews are NOT distinct from other Persians in the same way Baha'i Persians are not distinct from other Persians. Assyrians and Armenians are an ethnicity, "Persian Jews" or Iranian Jews are not an ethnicity. By the way, intermarriage between Persians of different religious backgrounds has always been common among secular Persians.  --ManiF 06:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Persian Jews before they became Persian Jews had a different background to the rest of Persia. And Judaism is not just a religion. ems 10:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, many would disagree with your statement that "Judaism is not just a religion". Regardless, the argument here is that there is no ethnicity named "Persian Jews". --ManiF 01:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you like online sources, take a look at this from Britannica Encyclopedia: "The Jews trace their heritage in Iran to the Babylonian Exile of the 6th century BC and, like the Armenians, have retained their ethnic, linguistic, and religious identity." Perhaps you should go argue with the editors of Britannica instead. What are you claiming and where are you sources? AucamanTalk 01:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sources is discussing Jews in Iran, it's talking about "Jews in Iran". The term "Persian Jew" is a contradiction in itself. --ManiF 02:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: #The numbers speak for themselves. Why do you think we have 100,000 Persian Jews in Israel and (at least) 45,000 Persian Jews in the United States, but only less than 30,000 in Iran? After all, based on what you're saying, they're Persian Jews, right? 
#You also might want to look into why some of the People now-know as Indian Jews (many of whom are of Middle Eastern background) left places like Iran and Iraq for the more toletant Indian subcontinent.
#Read about events such as the "Allahdad" ("God's Gift") incident of 1839 where Jewish neighborhoods of Mashhad were attacked and the entire Jewish population of Mashhad was forcibly converted to Islam in a single day (Mach 27, 1839). These converts (known as Jadid Al-Islam, "New Muslims") have been the subject of a great number of studies. It turns out they have managed to keep their Jewish identity in private.
#Some sources for you to look at:  
#:*Read "The Jews of Persia, 1795-1940" by Walter Fischell (pp.119-160 outline the persecution of Persian Jews in pre-revolutionary Iran)
#:*For information on Mashhadi Jews and their persecution read "The Jews of Mashhad" by Azaria Levy (pp.3-20)
#:*For information about the details of the Allahdad incident read "Jadid Al-Islam" by Raphael Patai (starts p.249)
#:*Since you like online sources, take a look at this from Britannica Encyclopedia: "The Jews trace their heritage in Iran to the Babylonian Exile of the 6th century BC and, like the Armenians, have retained their ethnic, linguistic, and religious identity."
#I know you're here to promote a positive image of Iran and Iranians, but unless you show at least a minimum degree of self-criticism and openmindedness, it's more likely to just backfire. The labeling of independent ethnic groups with ill-defined racial terms is not only incorrect and unscientific, but directly violates WP:V. You've done it enough times - both in this article and others. And you're by no means a representative of the Iranian people here. Most Iranians don't subscrible to these empty racialist-nationalist views. (I see that the Iranians who wrote the History of Mashhad do not subscribe to your historical revisionist ideas where pre-revolutionary Iran is portrayed as some sort of paradise for Iran's religious minorities.) In fact, the term "Persian" is not even used by Iranians as an ethnic marker. As Iranians understand it, the term is only a linguistic term. Only these rich, young, and immature kids of Iranian descent in United States (most of whom have never even been to Iran and don't even speak Persian) call themselves "Persian" and that's because of messed up psychological/sociological reasons having more to do with the internal politics and history of United States than anything Iranian. Keep your POV out of Wikipedia or starting giving sources for your claims and help in writing articles from a NPOV. AucamanTalk 09:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly who are you responding to and who are you calling a "devils advocate"? Me? It would be appreciated if you stopped making these borderline personal attacks and making all these claims about me - you don't know a single thing about me and you have no right to put me down the way you are doing. I don't speak Persian and have never been to Iran, huh? LOL! Furthermore, on the one hand you claim that Iranians are not tolerant and yet on the other hand you also claim that Iranians don't buy into "racialist-nationalist views" (what "racial-nationalist" views exactly?). On the one hand you claim that you aren't "racialist" and yet you claim that Persian Jews are not Persian, only "Persian-speaking." On the one hand you demand sources in other Iranian articles, and yet here you are quite content to make all sorts of outrageous claims without providing sources. Considering the ArbCom that is at hand (and has not even started), I suggest you calm down, stop making personal attacks, stop creating problems when sources have been provided, and communicate properly, especially if you expect a serious response. SouthernComfort 11:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well those comments were not directed at you personally, but it looks like no matter what people say you always feel "offended". Even when I ask people for sources you accuse me of being "rude and incivil" without any reason whatsoever. You might want to read the devil's advocate article for what it means and how it's used before throwing accusations (there's nothing offensive about the term). Yes Persian Jews are Persian, but our definition of "Persian" is not necessarily the same. I think of Persian as a heterogeneous linguistic/cultural group. You think of it as a racial/ethnic group. And as far as this article is concerned you have provided zero sources for you claims (whereas I've provided a number of sources for my claims), so stop accusing me of "creating problems when sources have been provided" when is exactly what you are doing. AucamanTalk 11:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources have been provided in the other articles that you have been disputing, and yet you continue to tag the article(s), ignore the sources and continue the dispute. And BTW, a cursory examination of this talk and my own comments reveals that your "devils advocate" comment was directed towards me - your comments are obviously directed towards an individual editor. Yes, I am offended. Just as you are offended when someone attacks you, especially without cause or makes an anti-Semitic remark. You continue to make false claims about me, such as that I think "Persian" is a racial term and that I am a "racialist-nationalist" or that I am here to promote an agenda (a positive image of Iran and Iranians) or that I "like" online sources (what is that supposed to mean exactly?) I have only stated that "Persian" is an ethnic group. As for sources here, you provided none up until this recent entry from Britannica and yet you do not even bother assuming good faith when you claim that you provide it because I "like" online sources. I could go on about how you ignore your own behavior and attitudes (especially in regards to rejection of sources) in other sources, and yet here you are quick to judge and condemn, even when I have only requested sources. I am simply appalled. SouthernComfort 12:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a talk page for discussing matters having to do with Persian Jews. I can give an explanation for every single statement I've made but not because you don't want to discuss the real issues. I said you "like online sources" because most of your sources appear to come from (ad hoc) Google searches. In fact you have provided no sources for your claims so far and I doubt Google would be of much help this time around. As you can see I had most of my sources ready before even coming here. As for saying you're here to promote a positive view of Iran and Iranians, I don't think there's anything offensive about that. In fact that's part of the reason I'm here. You're the one not assuming good faith, and I'm not going to feed your trolling from now on until you provide some real sources or I'm asked to give a formal explanation of my behavior here. AucamanTalk 12:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aucaman, perhaps you should read WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and tone down your aggressive behavior - you are driving away users who otherwise might be interested in joining the discussions. --ManiF 01:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I second everyone here - Aucaman, please keep it WP:CIVIL --Kash 03:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, quite an overreaction to someone saying another person is trolling.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RESPONDING TO THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE

message: I have to say I haven't read all the discussions here, but I can tell you're talking about race. No one is talking about race here. Read the article. Where's race being discussed? We're not talking about a Jewish race. We're talking about an ethnic group. Hopefully you know the difference between a race and an ethnic group? An ethnic group is a group of people who closely identify with one-another (sometimes through having common ancestors, but not necessarily so) and share a unique culture and language. Persian Jews definitely fall in this category. They identify closely with one another (for most of their history Persian Jews have been living in secluded "Jewish ghettos") and they most certainly share a unique culture and language. Questioning the ethnicity of Persian Jews is simply absurd. Let me also re-quote this sentence from Britannica Encyclopedia: "The Jews trace their heritage in Iran to the Babylonian Exile of the 6th century BC and, like the Armenians, have retained their ethnic, linguistic, and religious identity." Discussing "race" might not be appropriate here, but discussing ethnicity definitely is. AucamanTalk 18:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Short response

message: These new statements or "sections" added today by user Pecher are non-academic POVs that do not correspond to the alleged sources. See WP:VERIFY. Statements like "Jews couldn't go out in rain during Safavid era" are only unverifiable claims. I'm removing these statements until further verifiable sources have been presented. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a an editorial. --200.118.111.122 01:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You did not remove that passage. But that doesn't matter as all these three new sections by user Pecher, in their entirely, are non-academic POVs and UNVERIFIABLE. Please do not add them back until you can comply with WP:VERIFY. One more and you'll be breaking the 3RR as well. --200.118.111.122 01:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually I wouldn't be because I actually changed the passages, you just reverted the entire article including grammtical mistakes.  And actually I did remove that passage right before you removed the entire thing.  It is up to you to prove that the passages are different from the sources Pecher provdied.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Trust me, undoing another editor's edit is a revert and you have more than three reverts on this article. I'm sorry, but I can't let anyone inject POV into an article. This is an encyclopedia, not the Jerusalem Post. Read WP:VERIFY, the burden of proof is on you. --200.118.111.122 01:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Moshe, it must be beneath you to respond to such ridiculous claims, let alone to try to assuage them. Pecher Talk 21:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverifiable claims 

message: Highly subjective and inappropriate for Wikipedia as it is, as pointed out by other users, loosely based on unverifiable sources. Currently, these new sections are in breach of WP:V, NPOV and WP:OR. I will try to trim/remove some of the controversial claims until sources have been legitimately referenced by citations that meet Verifiability standards as speculations has no place on Wikipedia. However, these new new sections (especially Safavids) need to be rewritten, as the basic interface is far away from being encyclopedic. --ManiF 21:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only person that said they weren't really in the source was a someone who claimed to have a copy of the book in his hand, however if you look at that user's contribution history you can see that in almost every conflict he was involved in, he claimed to have a copy of whichever book would prove him right in his hand.  I think it is fair to say that everything that user said was dubious at best.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All I can say is please read WP:FAITH. Regardless of Verifiability issue, Pecher's "citations" are selective and the tone/language of Pecher's additions is highly subjective and does not meet NPOV requirements. --ManiF 01:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's exceptionally silly to attribute to an author undisputed statements of fact. It's like writing: "According to Copernicus, the Earth revolves around the Sun." Pecher Talk 21:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Double attributions, like "Bernard Lewis reports that a traveller wrote," are follies squared. Pecher Talk 22:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's the problem, your "fact" is actually an assertion by a writer. As sombody pointed out on your talk, "You are assuming that whatever some particular scholar has said is a fact. Instead of writing them as the opinion of some scholar he writes it as a fact." --ManiF 22:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It is the idea of WP:RS that material sourced to reliable sources (and Bernard Lewis and David Littman are reliable sources), there is no need to further qualify that material by further attributing it to the author. If the source is reliable, than material from it is not "an assertion by a writer", but something we can safely transport into an article. If the contrary were true, the whole Wikipedia would read like "A said X", e.g. the article on WWII would not say "In June 1941, Germany invaded the Soviet Union", but rather "according to Martin Gilbert, in June 1941, Germany invaded the Soviet Union", which is silly and unnecessary. The only exception to this rule occurs when there are several conflicting POVs; in this case, we must attribute each POV to its proponent(s). Otherwise, endless attributions of each and every sentence in every article will only disrupt the whole encyclopedia. Pecher Talk 22:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As I had promised earlier, I'm going to trim/remove some of the controversial claims until sources have been properly cited to suupot them. --ManiF 23:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pecher's additions to the artcile - The new sections 

message: Please study the era of Parthians a bit more, the statement you reverted here is actually inaccurate.  Parthians opposed Hellenism, and their official religion was actually Zoroastrianism, although they did not impose it upon others.  You can do a quick study here.Zmmz 01:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hellenistic Seleucids were not exactly famous for religious toleration (see ).  The Parthians, on the other hand, were. (see  and  - the latter, especially, explains how attaching "Hellenistic" to the Parthians is inappropriate).  Zoroastrian and tolerant they were; thus 'secularism' warrants a revert (not to mention it makes more sense in the context of its sentence; i.e., as a contrast to the intolerant Sassanids, who were as affected by Hellenism as the Parthians). - black thorn of brethil 02:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ad hominem, Moses.  Cite sources, maintain attitude of respect and community, don't confuse message w/messenger, stay on topic, prove point or move along.  Also, Zmmz; be careful in editing discussion page not to delete previous comments. black thorn of brethil 02:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The logic is yours alone, Moshe.  My argument is that the Sassanids were as Hellenistic as the Parthians, and that the contrast between the Parthians and the others (Sassanids AND Seleucids) was their tendency toward civil secularism.  The sentence in which Zmmz used the word makes more sense as it was.  black thorn of brethil 02:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: p.s. I think the 'psuedoscience' Zmmz refers to is the fact of Kazar heritage for some Ashkenazi Jews. black thorn of brethil 02:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the Parthians were a lot more secular than any other persian empire, but it is also widely considered that they were more Helenistic than any other Persian empire as well.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Be careful, the 3RR's have already been broken. It ought to be reverted to secularism, as that is most correct. black thorn of brethil 02:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Unless Moshe can come up with a source demonstrating the claim that the Parthians 'were more Helenistic [sic] than any other Persian empire', and unless Moshe can show why attaching the term 'secularism' to the Parthians as a way of contrasting them with the Sassanids is wrong, the revert will happen presently. black thorn of brethil 03:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Consider the following: "Iran during the Parthian Empire was marked by a growing regionalism in political and cultural affairs. A nobility with strong local bases became the backbone of the military. Aramaic, the common language of the realm, gradually was replaced by regional dialects after the 2nd century BC.  The last century of Parthian rule tended to favor native as opposed to foreign beliefs and traditions —a reaction to the almost constant warfare with the Romans on their western flank and the Greeks and Bactrians on their eastern flank, as well as the religious inroads being made by Christian and Buddhist missionaries.  These challenges stimulated the Parthians to begin collecting the largely oral Zoroastrian heritage as a defense mechanism." () AND "Aristocrats appointed as regents by the Parthian throne ruled the empire on the local level. In the first few centuries of their empire, this Parthian ruling class continued to observe many aspects of Hellenistic culture that had characterized the upper levels of society under the Greco-Bactrian kings. Greek inscriptions and Greek-style portraiture mark early Parthian coins, bearing witness to this "Hellenophilic" stage of the Parthian Empire. Later, the Parthian kings began to redefine themselves as the direct heirs of the Achaemenian Empire; Mithridates II (123-87 BCE) is believe to be the first Parthian ruler to use the old Achaemenian title "King of Kings" on his coins, rather than the corresponding Greek title. From this time on, Parthian culture developed as a synthesis of Greek and Achaemenian culture, with local Iranian patterns gradually supplanting Hellenistic elements." ().  Any comments? black thorn of brethil 03:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say Hellenism wasn't just a spillover from the selucids, as the Parthians empire became weaker then the culture that later defined the Sassanids bagan to become dominant over the previously dominant Greco-Persian culture.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Clearly, the Parthian Empire represented the death of Hellenism in Persia.  Therefore, it is wrong to say that they inclined toward Hellenism, that they cultivated Hellenism, that they were affected by syncretic entropy more than any of their neighbors: in fact, on all counts, it was the opposite.  SEE OPS CITED ABOVE.  In comparison to the Sassanids, the major difference as far as Persian Jews were concerned (which, I might remind, is the topic here) was that the Parthians were more secular-minded in government and law, whilst the Sassanids were rabid fundamentalists. Unless contravening sources are found, this discussion is about exhausted - almost. black thorn of brethil 04:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: We've about turned this discussion page into a chat room.  Let's summarize - Moshe, you have an argument, but you cite no sources.  Zmmz and Black - you have arguments AND you cite (multiple) sources.  That's all that can be said, unless there is something new.black thorn of brethil 04:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: With respect, a non-academic website sponsored by coin collectors is a bit .... spurious.  Please cite sentences you draw upon for support.  Please comment on sentences noted above upon which I drew for support. black thorn of brethil 04:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Zmmz, I reverted your edit because I don't understand what "inclined toward secularism" would mean in this context, and as it's disputed, a source needs to be cited after the sentence, not just on the talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Elaborate, if you will, on the overabundant references to Sassanid intolerance.  The quote was not of a Zoroastrian priest knocking other religions per se, but rather simply declaiming the imposition of the supression of other religions. Your interpretation is pure POV, and I am getting fed up with your unwillingness to acknowledge the distinction.  How many edits is that for you on 29 March?  Couldn't wait 15 minutes to reset your clock? black thorn of brethil 23:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Arbitration?  BTW - yesterday is still today (for a few more seconds, at any rate). black thorn of brethil 23:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's fine.  Next steps? black thorn of brethil 00:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Go for it. black thorn of brethil 00:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In meantime, the deletion has been restored until reason has been established for its removal. black thorn of brethil 00:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parthia and Hellenism

message: Black, I have notified a few neutral admins and asked them to give their opinons, until it is resolved it is customary to kinda go half way between each other, so I reinserted part of the quote, you can add a little more if you think my selection didn't catch the jist of what he was saying, but please don't re-add it in its entireity until we can get the thoughts of others.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moshe, per our external correspondence I recommend the following: "In an inscription from time of King Bahram II (276-293 CE), a Zoroastrian priest went so far as to declare that under Sassanid rule all other religions in the empire (from a list including Judaism, Christianity etc.) had been 'smashed'." Followed by citation. black thorn of brethil 07:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Rather, 'claim' is better than 'declare': so amended. black thorn of brethil 07:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  inclusion of quote by Zorastrian priest 

message: Moshe,
Repeatedly deleting the citation only promotes the idea that youre trying to hide something.
Are you? Are you trying to demonize Iran?
I dont know why youre so desperately persisting on this. It's not going to hurt anyone if the citation is mentioned. Please restore it back and keep everyone happy.--Zereshk 05:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of attacking me, listen to what I have to say. Im not contending the sources. All Im saying is that the article as it currently stands is:
#entirely based on Littman and Bernard Lewis. Therefore it cannot be presented as a universal view, which is what youre doing. At least you can point it out in the text by citing the authors of the claims.
#the author(s) of the article seem to have selectively quoted sources only where Iran has usurped the rights of the Persian Jews. Im not sure if that is the purpose of the article. For example, the article says nothing of where in Iran they live (it doesnt even mention Shiraz, which has a large Jewish population), their major synygogues, their Jewish education, major Jewish shrines, customs, etc. For example, nothing is even mentioned of Daniel's shrine or Esther's shrine in Iran. The article is merely a demonization of Iran and Iranians because of its mistreatment of Jews. I dont think even Jewish Iranians would like their country Iran to be represented as such. We have Jewish editors from Iran passionately contributing to Iran's history articles here on WP.--Zereshk 21:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: deletion of citation

message: I added a few lines about Purim. It is an important Jewish celebration directly related to the history of Jews in Persia during the Achaemenid period.Heja Helweda 21:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purim 

message: Pecher has not clearly identified the sources he is using. For such contentious claims that Reza Shah sympathized with Nazi Germany, the author and his work should be clearly identified so that opposing references can be provided to counter such claims. SouthernComfort 21:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, this book from Abbas Milani  (The Persian Sphinx) offers a well-sourced history of the situation between Reza Shah and Nazi Germany. I don't have it on hand at the moment but I'll try to visit the library when I have a chance. I'm not sure if Elton Daniel's "History of Iran" also covers this material. SouthernComfort 22:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that removing sourced material because "you don't think so" is a violation of WP:OR. The editor who inserted "fact" templates all over the article, sometimes right before the references, may also want to consider the appropriateness of such actions. Pecher Talk 07:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Adding selective materials, highlighting negative stories, mostly rumors and urban legends, that you can't even verfy, based on an Author's opinions, is a violation of WP:NPOV. --ManiF 07:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's the justification used by the British invade Iran during WW2. It's not a fact, unless you have a citation of Reza Shah saying that he supports Nazi Germany. --ManiF 07:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pecher's edits and sources

message: This article is on Persian Jews, an ethnic group. It should discuss their history, culture, status, and language. Comparative studies (as with Zoroastrianism, for example) and other irrelevant details  should probably be put in a different article (Judaism in Iran or History of Judaism in Iran depending how you write it). AucamanTalk 07:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of selective material that are POV, not encyclopedic, and mostly irrelevant have been added to the article over the last few days. They should all be moved to a different article. --ManiF 07:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry but how could the history, culture, and status of Persian Jews be irrelevent to an article on Persian Jews, this article is already overly focused on Persia instead of the Jews residing there.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: It even says on the Wikipedia entry for Bernard Lewis:
"Lewis coined the term "clash of civilizations" to describe the relations between the Muslim world and the West in a 1990 issue of the Atlantic Monthly." 
What a shame. You guys (Pecher, Moshe) could have avoided this mess by simply adding the names of Lewis and Littman to parts of the article. Now how hard was that?
User:Aminz and User:ManiF, Thanx for the info. The Lankarani link was very enlightening.--Zereshk 08:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From a logical point of view, this issue is altogether irrelevant to the content of this article. Ah, sorry, I forgot: some editors here are trying to poison the well. Pecher Talk 10:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yawn...--Zereshk 11:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes your right, it is easier to act arrogant than it is to actually address another person's argument.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we've been addressing your points for quite awhile now. You continue to ignore them, and no one is in the mood to talk to a brick wall. It gets tiresome after awhile, and that you cannot see the bias in wanting to present Lewis and Littman's claims as "fact" is very sad and disheartening. SouthernComfort 04:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: EXACTLY. It's turned into a one way discourse. And that's sad.--Zereshk 21:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lewis and "Clash of civilization"

message: This whole page protection thing is getting boring.  Can we summarize the basic arguments here and get them settled?  Otherwise, someone is going to need to DO something to get work restarted on this little piece of the Project - and it's possible no one will be happy with the results.  I am starting the list of disputed subjects.  Feel free to add to the list.  Once it seems pretty much done, we can go from there:
:1.  Persian Jews; Persian, Jew or Both?  (sub conflict - nature of 'Persian', nature of 'Jew'; sub-sub conflict - the question of Conversion).
:2.  Bernard Lewis; Reputable, citable (in the standard, minimal way) authority on Jewish life in Iran, or hate-mongering rightist considered by the majority of contemporary history departments to have been co-opted by his extreme values (thus requiring proviso, attachment or disclaimer).
:3.  Mizrahi Jews; Are Persian Jew expats subject to discrimination from Ashkenazi Jews in Israel and the U.S., or is everything Hunky Dory Morning Glory?
:    Anything Else?  black thorn of brethil 00:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slow down with the typing.  Spelling is important.  I don't want to misunderstand you.  A.  Name one issue I laid out above that I 'oppose'.  B.  If there is more, then let's hear it.  black thorn of brethil 06:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It's "that's" (with an apostrophe).  I am not saying that your arguments are affected by your spelling, insofar as it leaves us able to avoid any ambiguity.  I don't want our arguments to be tainted by ambiguity.  This isn't a question of maturity, but rather only of clear communication.  Of course I value your statements, but I value them more when I am sure I understand correctly what you are saying. - black thorn of brethil 01:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit War

message: Is anyone opposed to just unprotecting this page? AucamanTalk 03:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several ongoing unsolved disputes on this page, unprotecting it will mean a resumption of edits wars. --ManiF 05:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What ongoing disputes? How about you create new sections and tell us what the disputes are? AucamanTalk 05:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a list of the ongoing unsolved disputes above this section. --ManiF 05:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Answer the questions below. AucamanTalk 05:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your questions have already been answered over and over again. Read the discussion page again. --ManiF 05:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Waiting. - black thorn of brethil 01:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Holy smokes, Moshe, I never thought I would hear you say such a thing.  I don't even know how to respond.black thorn of brethil 06:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand, Hinduism is not only heterogeneous in the people who practice it, but also in the way they practice it, some cities might primarily worship Shiva, while other cities might concentrate on Vishnu, my remark wasn't disparaging at all.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe the reason is that Islam's and Judaism's world views in terms of their places in the world are different.  The Torah is clear that there are commandments that are incumbant upon Jews, and then even more detaild ones for Jews from a specific family group that are to remain distinct even amongst other Jews.  I.e. the Kohanim and Levites.  So I.e. a Geir can't become a Kohen or a Levite because both are based opon a patrilinical descent.  By like token a Geir can't make themselves blood descendents of Jacob.  This goes as far as to designate a similar status between Benei Yisrael (descendents of Jacob) and those who becomne Geirim (those who join and live exactly like Benei Yisrael).  Now what can happen is that Geirim can live like, live amongst, and marry Benei Yisrael.  When for example a Geir and an Israelite woman married and their children continued to marry other Benei Yisrael this is how the ethnic group still remained an ethnic group even when non-Israelites became Geirim and married into the community.  Legally speaking Benei Yisrael were forbidden to marry non-Israelites and non-Geirim thus restricting the type of outside influences.  The commandments for Israel are not required for the world in order for them to have a part in the World to Come.  The Torah designates other commandments for the non-Jewish world, which the rest of world can choose to follow but there is no need for them to convert to it, and many of which are things that most rational human beings would do and believe without having to have any contact with the Torah.  Essentially, there is no need or push in the Torah sense for the world to become Jewish.  By like token it can be said that Judaism is for Benei Yisrael/Jews and Geirim.  The 7 Noachide Laws are for non-Benei Yisrael/Jews and non-Geirim.  Islam on the other hand is different in that conversion to Islam does not take on the same meaning as mentioned above.  Islam also does not seem to stress the issue of for example all Muslims and those who convert and marry Muslims essentially coming for the family of Muhammid.  This is different than in Judaism where even a convert is seen as a son or daughter of Abraham, and once they marry into a Jewish community their children are part Benei Yisrael and Part Geir.  If said children marry Benei Yisrael/Jews they are in turn 2/3 Benei Yisrael and 1/3 Geir.  If you keep going down the line with lets say 80% Benei Yisrael/Jews marrying into those children and maybe 20% Geirim you still have a majority Benei Yisrael ethnicity because Geirim take on the culture of the community of Benei Yisrael/Jews they married into.  A similar way to look at is the laws used in America at one time for African Americans who had mixed descent.  I don't know f Muslims who consider the entire Muslim world to be an ethnic group from the same source, if they do then maybe they are in a sense. I hope that I haven't made the above too complicated, but it is somewhat detailed in nature.--EhavEliyahu 17:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotection

message: This is not an article on Bernard Lewis. Which specific passages do people have problems with? AucamanTalk 01:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any statement of fact that rests upon a citation of Bernard Lewis' work is suspect and requires qualification.  For established, academic proofs of this assertion, please see above noted citations.  Please read the articles so linked. black thorn of brethil 01:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not talking about Bernard Lewis in general. For that you can go to this article. We're talking about Persian Jews and history of their persecution. Now which specific statements do people have problems with? AucamanTalk 02:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any statement of fact about Persian Jews and the history of their persecution  that rests upon a citation of Bernard Lewis' work is suspect and requires qualification.  For established academic proofs of this assertion, please see above noted citations.  Please read the articles so linked. - black thorn of brethil 06:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: We've gone over this many times, I don't fund it neccessary to repeat ourselves.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well then; consider it suttled. - black thorn of brethil 20:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: As a parting shot, consider the following: "The biases of western culture found in Lewis led to descriptions of the Orient that, in Said’s view, grossly distorted its complex and living reality."  "Said alluded then to Lewis’s execrable methods—'the lazy generalizations, the reckless distortions of history, the wholesale demotion of civilizations into categories like irrational and enraged.'" (my italics, taken from  ) - black thorn of brethil 21:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Evey single scholar as well-known and high-profile as Lewis has to deal with the same criticism, especially one that writes about controversial subjects. It's funny that you quote Edward Said, because the criticism levied against Lewis is infinitesimal compared to what has been said about Said.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I asked for specific passages

message: Settle your following disputes here. 69.235.239.168 21:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why hasn't the article been unprotected yet? 

message: When the page is again editable, please change links to "Persian" to "Persian language," "Persian people," or some other pertinent page. "Persian" is a disambiguation page. --Iggle 05:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Persian" links 

message: Pecher made quite a number of deletions (of sourced data, at that) and POV edits without discussion, nor without leaving a proper edit summary. I have reverted and made some additional edits. The anon IP is me, BTW, since for some reason WP keeps logging me out. SouthernComfort 04:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pecher's deletions

message: This source doesn't seem reputable, it has ads all over it, and seems rather low quality and amatuerish.  I was unable to find any information that suggested otherwise.  So all we have left is the website's claim that it comes from the library of Congress.  If a more reputable source can be provided, or my conlusion and obervations of the website are shown to be erroneous then feel free to re-add the passage.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I Can't believe you are edit warring over this. Go to http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/ and select Iran and verify it for yourself. A direct link to LOC's own website can't be made since the links keep changing there, which is why I put the alternate site. SouthernComfort 05:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SC, I'm not sure, I might have left out your edits while editing the article. Pecher keeps deleting everything, and so it's hard to keep track of what is what. Sorry if I did. Same for ManiF.--Zereshk 14:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New source at bottom of History section introduction. 

message: I've protected because there seems to be a lot of reverting. Please try to find a compromise on talk and let me know when you're ready to start editing again, or if I'm not around put a request on WP:RfPP. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: Pecher insists on the inclusion of the Biblical fairy tale concerning Haman and Esther. Give me a break. Passing off religious beliefs as historical fact is not appropriate. In case there needs to be further clarification, the Bible is not a valid historical document and no one else except Pecher has been insisting on this. Furthermore, this brief section was not even in the article until Heja introduced it - need I say more? This is nothing but POV-warring for the sake of POV-warring. SouthernComfort 09:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was an agagite.  The point that the agagites were amlaqim is never made in the megila, instead it's extrapolated by looking at genealogies elsewhere in the Bible, and all sorts of homilies are made about how Haman is what happens if we don't obey Hashem (Haman is supposed to be a descendant of an Amalekite king, Agag, whom Shmuel neglected to execute as he was supposed to, if I recall correctly...and therefore, if we don't excise evil eventually it will grow to the point where it's in a position to destroy us, etc.)... Tomertalk 20:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Haman and the Jews

message: Could the editors who were reverting please discuss the issue here and let me know when you're ready to edit again? Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As there's no response and no discussion, I'm going to unprotect. Please don't start reverting again. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not object to the page being unprotected. Pecher Talk 11:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: I think Pecher should give us a reason for mass censoring my (and everyone else's) additions. I would like to know how a sourced material is "original research" according to Pecher et al? Please pinpoint the specific cases. I dont want to hear any mere accusations. Just give us the specifics on which parts are "original research". I'll be waiting for an answer.--Zereshk 22:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zereshk, it sounds like you are declaring an edit war.Timothy Usher 01:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im not the one who mass deleted everything. I contribute. Pecher censors everyone else's edits. Im still waiting for an answer.--Zereshk 14:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not the first time I have seen Pecher reverting other users' contributions  categorically labeling them as "original research" even though the material is sourced. I'm beginning to think an RFC might be needed as the next step. --ManiF 05:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pecher has initiated an edit war

message: It is unclear if the source is reputable or not. It states at the bottom that it is "based" on the library of congress, and provides links to reputable sources, but also looks very unporfessional and if it was actually rund byt the library of congress it wouldn't have google ads in the beginning of the article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue was already discussed and the source was verified here --ManiF 13:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  paragraph about Jews being indistinguishable from.... 

message: I propose that we move the page to Jews of Iran to be more inclusive, just in case.
What say the editors here?--Zereshk 21:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What means it to 'move' the page?  Does this page as a distinct entity disappear?  That would be a shame. black thorn of brethil 03:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the problem with calling it "Jews of Iran" is that it implies that the article is only about Jews living in Iran, even though this article also includes people of Persian Jewish descent.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: There's also a Kurdish Jews page, so if we wanted to move the page we'd have to re-write it to be just about Jews in Iran in general. —Khoikhoi 04:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer moving it to History of the Jews in Iran to be in line with other articles on Jewish history. Pecher Talk 08:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that kinda has the same problems, since this article has info that really wouldn;t fit into either new title.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well then. It was just a suggestion.--Zereshk 17:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: proposal

message: The mere fact that material has a source does not make it relevant.
*The staged feel-good images are entirely uninformative (if not misinformative) and inappropriate.
*“Persian Jews in Iran have communications with Jewish groups outside of Iran as long as they are not related to zionism...” - Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say they’re not allowed to communicate with “zionist” groups?  I restored your cites here so as to account for this objection.
*The Jerusalem Post story is anecdotal - the “some” in "some Persian Jews" here is trivial.
*The existence of the Farahani documentary (the only thing that can be verified by Zereshk's link) cannot demonstrate what Zereshk's edits claim it does, that “Persian Jews  steadfastly adhere to and support their Iranian identity.”
*As the regime disqualifies over half the parliamentary candidates based on their beliefs, and as dissidents may be arbitrarily jailed in Iran, the election of Maurice Motamed to parliament cannot reasonably be seen an conferring upon him any legitimacy beyond that of the regime itself - not a reliable source on its own treatment of Jews.
*I restored the Persian Jews in Israel section, because I haven’t had time to go through it. went through it, below.Timothy Usher 05:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Sourced material"

message: When I said I removed the paragraph per talk I meant per user talk. The reason was becasue it was brought to light that the newspaper that reported the original story later released another article saying that it probably wasn't true .  So I figured we could either leave the paragraph in and then describe all of the sources saying it wasn't true, or just remove the entire paragraph.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Moshe's deletion, if we kept the paragraph, we would have had to include like five articles disagreeing with it, including the one from the National Post basically retracting the original story. That would come out looking sort of ridiculous. --ManiF 05:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't have said it better myself.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph about yellow stars 

message: Two sentences were added to the "Discrimination section: "However, anti-Semitic acts are rare in Iran. For Iranians, there is a distinction in their mind between Zionism and Judaism." The material is sourced to what was claimed to be "Associated Press", but what actually is http://seattlepi.com/national/1107AP_Irans_Jews.html. There are many things untrue about this edit. First, the cited source is not Associated Press; if the ext is indeed by the AP, then it can be sourced to something reliable. Secondly, the sentence "For Iranians, there is a distinction in their mind between Zionism and Judaism" comes from the mouth of the puppet Jewish member of the Iranian parliament, not from an analyst whose authority could be considered sufficient to make such claims. Pecher Talk 21:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judaism vs. Zionism 

message: Comedian Sacha Baron Cohen is listed under Famous Persian Jews, although he is not of Persian descent. I am deleting his name from that section.
:What are you talking about? His mom's Persian!Valley2city 21:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sacha Baron Cohen 

message: Now, tell me if this is correct:
1) Jews are not a race.
-> This article doesn't even use the word "race" even once. What exactly are people refering to?
2) Persian Jews aren't distinct enough to deserve their own history.
-> Are you kidding me?
3) Persian Jews are really just "Jews of Iran".
-> Considering there are more Persian Jews living outside of Iran then inside of it, I don't understand this arguement.
4) The article to too critical of Iran.
-> This could be possible. It is a matter of opinion, which brings up the factual answerable questions: Is the claims brought upon Iran widely documented? Are these sources third party or first party? How do dispora Persian Jews feel about Iran? These are questions the article should address.
Masterhomer  21:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The major problem I see is the article's heavy reliance on Bernard Lewis's POV assertions  in Jews of Islam, which is for the most part, based on unverifiable third-hand testimonies. (ie an unkown European traveller's accounts of 18th century Persia)  --Mardavich 22:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  UPDATE: Wow, I managed to locate Jewish-written chronicles for Jews in just about every single part of the world (including China), but not Iran. Bad luck?
Masterhomer  23:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of Criticisms based on this Article 

message: You can make this article more NPOV by using this article. Iran's proud but discreet Jews --Sa.vakilian 13:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC tends to be blatantly anti-semitic and strongly biased, sometimes moreso than Al-Jazeera. I don't know if we should use this as a source because of their lack of journalistic integrity when it comes to covering anything relating to Jews.Valley2city 23:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, are you serious? Khoikhoi 06:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Valley2city is absolutely correct. The BBC, for example, refuses to report in Hebrew, the language of Israel and the Bible; notwithstanding that it reports in many obscure languages. The BBC is essentially an advocate for arabist and islamic superstition and mythology.--Lance talk 07:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article may call Iranian Jews "proud" in the title, but buried deep in the text is the fact that most patients and staff of the supposedly Jewish hospital in Tehran are Muslims. Just like the reports of most other MSM, BBC stories must be read carefully. Beit Or 07:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *In Montreal, Canada, there is the Jewish General Hospital. Most staff and patients are not Jewish, but all food in the hospital is kosher. It was established to serve the needs of the Jewish population in Montreal, and provide jobs to Jewish doctors and medical staff who, because of the antisemitism of French Canadians, were not hired in other hospitals.--Lance talk 03:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Despite what your personal views are, the BBC still meets WP:RS. Khoikhoi 03:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Coming into this discussion from another point of view):  As can be seen in Wikipedia talk:reliable sources, no publications "meets" WP:RS, as they all have editorial or "guest" articles or columns which are not fact-checked.  The BBC being antisemitic might make them a less reliable source in articles about Jews.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New source

message: This is sourced information, and according to WP:V, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". If you want to add contradicting information of your own, just cite your sources. However, please do not remove a paragraph backed-up by reliable sources. —Khoikhoi 15:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't, it's about all Persian Jews, not just the ones in Iran. It's not a modern issue, it's about the historical and cultural characteristics of all Persian Jews, therefore it belongs under history or the introductory paragraph. --ManiF 23:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Khoikhoi is introducing original research in an underhanded way. As WP:NOR states, User:Khoikhoi "introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor."--Lance talk 07:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To also quote from the policy, "original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source". Are Britannica and the Library of Congress not reliable sources? Khoikhoi 08:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you cannot use a source, however reliable, to introduce: "an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor."--Lance talk 03:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, yes I can. It's fine to have a source that backs-up my opinion. Am I supposed to only add sources that disagree with me? Khoikhoi 03:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I'm not synthesizing anything. I'm showing two different viewpoints from two different sources. Khoikhoi 03:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You have admitted to violating WP:NPOV; I rest my case.--Lance talk 06:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? Khoikhoi 06:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Library of congress paragraph 

message: This article has been semiprotected to stop vandalism from a banned user using an open proxy. It should be unprotected in a day or so. --InShaneee 23:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semiprotection