Talk:Iran/Archive 7

message: We see almost everyday comments about news on the main article about Iran (i.e. Iran-USA relations, Iran's role in the M.E., Iran's nuclear program, Iran's alleged support for terrorism, etc.) 
I would like to know if there is a more efficient way to direct people to the sub-article concerning those specific subjects. It seems to me that people use the article about Iran to express their personal views or to report news (and WP is NOT for that: See also WP:NOT). 
Also, may I suggest to place a banner on the top of the article to direct readers to those sub-articles or to Wikinews for that kind of information and reports (I just don't know how to do that). It should read something like this: "This article is about the country Iran. Please direct any pertinent information and news relating to Iran's nuclear program or any political developments to Nuclear program of Iran, United States-Iran relations,  Politics of Iran and Wikinews respectively ". 
Unless something is done about it, I think it will only get worse with time, given the political climate surrounding Iran's current situation in the world.
Please feel free to comment if you disagree.
69.116.234.208 22:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to improve the quality of the article about [[Iran]] 

message: The text "Iran is labelled by the U.S. State Department as an active sponsor of terrorism, and is believed by many nations to be attempting to develop nuclear weapons." is both sourced and of great interest to readers.  It belongs in the Intro.  I do not see where above any "consensus" was actually reached.  Simesa 22:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before accusing someone of vandalism in an edit comment, you should actually read WP:Vandalism -- my inclusions are proper, but your deletions of sourced material clearly border on vandalism.  I didn't find Discussion or Archive sections labelled “history of Iran” or “How to improve the quality of the article about Iran” -- I did find "History section" and "Suggestion to improve the quality of the article about Iran", neither of which had anything like a consensus.  The article and its See Also nowhere link to Iran and weapons of mass destruction -- you have to go through Nuclear Program under "Energy" to find it.  The link to United States-Iran relations is there but the article has exactly one sentence relating to Iran's support of terrrorism and no cite (clearly needs work).  You may think I'm picking on Iran; my viewpoint is that the most important information about Iran is basically completely shunted aside.  Yes, I think the paragraph is needed.  I'm probably going to file an RfC on it. Simesa 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not contest the validity of the fact about the UNSC vote but the unbalanced representation of the factual developments relating to this sensitive subject, specifically by your censuring of other facts and the focus on how to represent the chain of events. Regarding the talk page article, you are again playing with words and I do know you have the intelligence to realize yourself: Those articles are right above on this same page. Regarding Iran and weapons of mass destruction, it is mentioned at the TOP of the article Nuclear Program. Again, your report of those facts is evidently inaccurate.69.116.234.208 17:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Alain10 has proposed a resolution below. Simesa 17:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of references to Terrorism and WMD programs 

message: This is a dispute about whether to mention Iran's alleged support of terrorism and/or the article Iran and weapons of mass destruction in the Intro or elsewhere in the article text. 01:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read your comments and maintain what I said above. I can only wish that you adopted a balanced point of view when you mention the recent UN Security Council decision (15 countries in total). Specially, when you objected me to report in the same section of the article the vote of 118 UN member countries (only 3 months before) regarding the very same subject: Iran's nuclear program. Honestly doubt of your good faith now, given your behavior towards me and others on Wikipedia today.69.116.234.208 01:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Struck out Simesa 18:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to argue that anyone using the search term 'Iran' in Wikipedia is probably more after an historical overview of a nation which clearly offers so much to learn about the history of human civilisation. I feel mention terrorism at all, especially in the introduction would overpower this fact. I feel the topic of terrorism should be kept in a seperate article, or relegated to a subheading lower down in this article titled "Iranian Foreign Relations" or somesuch, and this section could outline Irans relationship with Hizbollah, etc. I think with 4000 years of history to offer, we can do better than referencing something in the opening paragraph which only covers such a small percentage of that 4000 years, yet has potential to overpower the rest of the article and create an edit-war.--60.240.197.199 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment: Mention of terrorism and/or weapons of mass destruction in Intro

message: I'll make you a compromise deal -- we put the Terrorism/WMD paragraph in the Intro of this article and the NAM paragraph in the Intro of the other two articles (even though it is already in the text of at least one of those articles). Simesa 09:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the problem is that there are many issues regarding Iran. This is why I created a page : Iran international crisis which objective is to group all issues concerning Iran. Therefore the page "Iran and weapons and mass destruction" does not have to discuss terrorism. Alain10 11:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree, also I believe this can be found in all the articles mentionned above already. I have added a link under "See also" on Iran's page to this page. People can cast their vote now, with the understanding that no more addition will be accepted in the main page of Iran later on.69.116.234.208 04:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have a message on my Talk page (diff ) saying this is acceptable, so the issue is resolved and I'll withdraw the RfC.  Thank you Alain. Simesa 18:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise proposal 

message: Please refrain from insering too many images in the article especially those irrelevant to Iran. 
Including too many details about each subject will also reduce the quality of the article, excessive details belong to separate articles. Refrain from inserting irrelevant data in the article, for example construction of a mosque in China is definitely not relevant to history of Iran. 
Act according to WP:NPOV and do not insert your own POV in the article.
Happy new year,
-Marmoulak 19:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much Siamak. I'm trying to do this for weeks, and then the same images pop up again. The details in some sections are excessive as you said and the images such as Rumsfeld with Saddam has nothing to do with Iran article (although it's good for Iran-Iraq war). Or the Iranian soldiers in the war also it not appropriate for this article. For example, we don't see an image of German soldiers in the Garmany article. Also, please limit the portrait of important people in this article to those who are really significant in Iran's history. For example, Cyrus, the founder of the Persian Empire, Mohammad Reza Shah, as the last shah of Iran, Mossadegh as an important opposition to Shah, and Khomeini, the leader of the revolutions are the most significant people we need currently. Thank again Marmoulak and happy new year to you too. --Arad 16:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thx Arad. I will try to request semi-protection for this page if the situation doesnt get better. - Marmoulak 18:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  prevent the deterioration of quality! 

message: An individual with IP address 65.96.234.178 is constantly engaged in vandalizing the Iran article. I have checked his so-called contributions, and it seems that he/she is targeting articles related to Iran. Could anyone do something about his constant childish vandalism? In the meanwhile I believe the best possible course of action is to Revert his edits prior to any new edition. Thanks Persiano 16:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: This is a comment to all working on this page: I came to the page to get a good background on Iran. I left it feeling as though I had to take everything I read with a grain of salt. I don't KNOW that the information is incorrect, but I do know that the cites and the writing style leave your neutral readers doubting. I'll try to come up with some good examples. 
1) Writing Style Issues: constant mention of how "X thing in Iran's history was almost never matched", one of its empires is described, without a good reason for the comparison, as existing "longer than most Eastern Empires"(why did this need to be stated?), that its early religion was the most influential on mankind ever!? (no cite???), etc.  I don't know much about Iran, that's why I'm here. But the writing style varies from defensive to fantastical to downright insisting that I believe the claims. I don't get the same feel of factual reporting that I see on other countries' pages. 
2) The huge section on the 1953 coup has the worst citations I've ever seen. I spent the afternoon reading all of the cites on "Operation Ajax" and I'm still not sure whether it's a real. 
3) Finally, there are a lot of things mentioned without any explanation or reasoning. The second paragraph of the Islamic Persia/Golden Age is a nightmare of confusion. What thing "have its bases" in the Qur'an? Also, why is the period from 900 to 1500 skipped over, only mentioning in passing that Persia was wiped out until 1500? Spell/gramm errors are also a problem. 
I'm not intentionally trying to nitpick. I'm just letting you guys know that, as a neutral observer, the page is a mess--I'm now having to look elsewhere. Usually I use wikipedia to form a base, then evaluate for accuracy with more reputable sites. In this case, I have to start out completely new somewhere else. Sigh. Good luck with it! Kyraven 19:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have pointed out to the author some obvious examples of bias, basically Iranian chauvanism, but the author has refused to even enter into a dialog...Jakob37 10:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias Issue

message: I would like to bring everyone's attention to our first priority which is reducing the size of History section by moving details to History of Iran article and using Wikipedia's Summary style. - Marmoulak 21:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this the reason for taking out the section that was entitled "Iran 1989-Present"? I had thought to make a few spelling and grammar corrections there, but found the whole section removed just a short while later. I know there's already an article about the History of Iran, but why not have a short summary paragraph covering the years since 1988? It may be recent history, but it's still history. -- wacko2 23:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now the user Cyrus111 has added the section back. While I appreciate some detail as to recent years, I would agree the section is too large and should be summarized. -- wacko2 23:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Current events belong to wikinews, not here. The article is too large as it is. --Mardavich 01:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reduce the size of History part 

message: In the context of the Middle East, it is quite controversial to say that Iranian culture is "predominant" (I say this even though I am personally much more familiar with the Persian language and culture than with Arabic) - the Arabs and their language and culture would seem to be quite a bit more wide-spread, an certainly quite influential --- indeed they were once the overlords in Iran, and have left their writing system and vocabulary as basic parts of the modern Farsi language. 
Likewise, there is a lot of traditional Arabic literature that was not derived from Iranian sources - this whole paragraph strikes me as quite chauvanistic in tone. At the very least, such sweeping statements should have clear references to back them up (good luck!). My suggestion: "a dominant culture" or "one of the major cultures" along with the later part to read something like "some of the major works of Arabic literature are in fact translations from Persian sources" Jakob37 09:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed "the" to "a", it sounds fine now. --Mardavich 10:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That's an improvement. May I also suggest that instead of "Nearly all philosophical, scientific, or literary work of the Islamic empires...." it read: 
Much of the philosophical, scientific, or literary work of the Islamic empires.... Such a slight change would make it sound more fair and not like Iranian boasting.
Certainly the Persian cultural influence on Turkey (and the  previous Ottomans) was great, but don't forget that a lot of the ancient Greek scientific and philosophical books were translated from Syriac into Arabic, and then into Latin (much later), so that didn't involve Persian (or Pahlavi).Jakob37 13:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the predominant culture" 

message: The correct designation for the lingua franca of Iran in English language is Persian and not Farsi. This is an effort to replace the word "Persian" with "Farsi" is not only inappropriate with the history of the Persian language but also creates confusion and misunderstanding. While the use of the word "Farsi" is a political statement for some Islamic republic authorities, for others it may indicate a unawareness about the history of this language. It points towards those who carelessly promote the use of the word Farsi are indeed engaging in an ambiguous representation of this language and may not, by any means, be promoting Iranian culture. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk)  20:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the article about it. In a short summery, because Reza Shah wanted the international community to recognise Iran (Persia) by the name the Iranians recognise themselves. There could be many reason why he done this. But many Iranians still consider using the name Persia, because it does not create confusion with the neighboring Arabs States. --Arad 17:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Persian not Farsi

message: The overwhelming majority of Iranians, even when they speak English, refer to their own language as Farsi. The overwhelming majority of people familiar with Iran or Iranians, when speaking English, refer to the language as Farsi. 
There is a vocal minority - mostly academics, especially historians of ancient history - who would prefer to use the words "Persian" and "Persia" instead of "Farsi" and "Iran." One of the reasons they cite is that Persia is associated in the western mind with many aspects of ancient and medieval Iranian culture, while "Iran" sounds strange and foreign. 
There are three things that ought to be balanced against this opinion:
(1) The overwhelming commonality of contemporary usage.
(2) Respect for the desires of the overwhelming majority of Iranians, including Iranians outside of Iran when they are speaking English, to use the proper (rather than historical) terms to refer to their country and language.
(3) The fact that an accurate reflection of both actual usage and the desires of the people in question is perhaps more important than western-imposed nomenclature and western associations with certain words. For instance, "Cathay" may sound very mystical and appealing to a westerner, much like Persia, but we're not about to start using it instead of "China." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.82.25.114 (talk) 06:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farsi not Persian 

message: Wikipedia Google Earth Geographic Web Layer for Iran appears to be incorrect.  On Google Earth, 4.0.2722, Jan 5 2007.  It shows the Iran Wikipedia icon inside Iraq.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mlnovaaa (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google Earth

message: Wow guys. Someone or some people are going way over the history section. we're having very recent dates as history and each is one paragraph. The least section of history, is way too long. History section stops at Iran-Iraq war. Even the section for the war is too long. I wont erase them until we have a consensus but this is WAYY to loong. --Arad 22:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section is History not current news or BBC station 

message: iv seen in many places that Iran is all persian people or w/e but genetics show that afghanistan has more aryan in them then iran and yet they dont include Afghans in that section. Afghanistan also means "Land of the Aryans" before Afghanistan it was Aryana and before that Khorosan, this is the first time i have seen taht Iran is called Land of the Aryan. some one help me on whats going on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.74.177.116 (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the definition of the word "Iran" (Airiana). See the etymology article.--Nightryder84 02:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The response by Nightryder84 is correct and this meaning has been widely accepted by almost all historians, etymologists, and Linguists. Also to your comment regarding the name of Afghanistan, the name Afghanistan means the "Land of Afghans" and not Land of Aryans. Also to your comment regarding the name of Aryana, what you I think you are referring to is Airyanem Vaejah, which is what Achaemenid Empire was regarded as and not only afghanistan which was part of the persian empire in that time. --(Aytakin) | Talk 02:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LAND OF THE ARYANS?  

message: Eiran is plural form of the "eire" or "eir" with "an" as suffix it also adresses PROPERTY referance to the definition, EIR+AN = ARYAN'S, what belongs to ARYANS!
The definition ARYA is not racially but culturally referance as in India also arya has cultural meaning rather than racial !
AR = Nobel + YA = like..... or ISH as in englISH...nobelish.
Afghanistan too belongs to same cultural haritage but the name of state does not mean ARYA or similar ! true that north Afghanistan encluding part of sentral asian Uzbekistan, tajikistan , turkemenistan were called Aryana but that definition is not used any longer ! so todays geographical situation in that area differs from the time when ARYAN people only lived there ! Afghan is synonymous with Pashtuns and I have spoken to many Pashtuns which are devoted muslims ,, they would rather be assosiated with ARABS than IRAN or ARYANS ! Pashtuns are extremely ARAB-LOVING tribals with many similar cultural codes with Arabs,,,yet IRanians are majority city people and tribal measurements of life or values are lost !
PS:Afghan is an Arabic plural form for Pakhtuns or Pashtuns ! as one says Atrak means the Turks ,,, Akrad ,, the Kurds ,, so naturally Afghan is Arabic and means Pashtuns!
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.109.208.153 (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IRAN the land of Aryans

message: That world without Zionism image has to go. We all know that the presidency in Iran doesnt have any real power. He only has some domestic executive powers. He doesnt control the armed forces, or policy making. IOW, his words are not necessarily representative of Iran.--Nightryder84 02:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: I can't seem to find any mention of the nuclear issue, and the debate between Iran's right to nuclear power and the international community's fear that the nuclear technology and material could be misused. Is there another article on that subject? Isn't it a crucial current event? Scotchorama 16:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: see this Nuclear_program_of_Iran (full of details)--Pejman47 16:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I had found it by searching, but I do think that it's not very visible. But my comment may be a little POV-ish... Scotchorama 16:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: anyway, this article is about a country with atleast 2500 years of history, its cliamte and culture and etc. Putting more than a link to the mentioned event is somehow "currentism"--Pejman47 17:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro mentions "Iran is significant in international politics on account of its large supply of petroleum and influence in the region." While this is true, it should also mention--at least briefly--the debate over the development of Iran's nuclear programme. The 2500 years of history don't mean that one should ignore major current events. The main China article contains information on the current political situation. Omitting the topic completely is POV. Scotchorama 11:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a section on Iran's nuclear energy program and human rights just reflects the U.S. bias against Iran. There is no such paragraph on other countries' main pages. It just reflects U.S. attitudes and prejudices- most non-American people will not associate Iran and nuclear weapons. It's totally POV. Or if you leave them the U.S. human rights situation and the U.S, usage of nuclear weapons should be added to your front page to make it fair. 217.42.82.12 13:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear issue? 

message: This article is destroyed by meaning. I can keep up cleaning it. It's the longest article on any country. The Cinema part is far from ridiculous and the history section (present part) is just stupid. Thank you for making this article one of the worst of wiki. (as mentioned before it's also very confusing). --Arad 00:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again: why does the history section end in 1988? At least a link should indicate where information can be found on post Khomeini Iran. Scotchorama 11:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Cyrus111, your massive, undiscussed, often unreferenced and messy additions to the article violates rules of Wikipedia (read WP:NOR, WP:V) as well as reducing the quality of article. I think you have completely misunderstood the purpose of this article. This article is not a collection of copy-pasted information related to Iran, we are not writing a book here. The purpose is to give an overview of the country to the reader and be concise and get-to-the-point. Information that are related but not required to informativeness of the overview and excessive details belong to separate articles. Original research and POV material are not allowed. Current events belong to news section, not here. Please stop disrupting the improvement process of the article and help improve the quality of the article instead. Thank you! - Marmoulak 21:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Marmoulak, I understand why one would tend to keep current events out of main articles, but this current event in question, i.e. Iran's stance in world politics and it's nuclear programme, is one of the major issues in the world today that attracts a lot of attention from everybody. Forget POV: to blatantly ignore it very misleading. Contemporary politics in Iran can be tackled in a very NPOV way. Right now, the history of Iran ends in 1988, according to the article. The article should present a fairly complete comprehensive overview of Iran, its history, culture, geography, and role in the contemporary world. To say that Iran is an important actor in international politics because of petroleum and its influence in the region is incomplete. It is also an important actor because of its declared political stance regarding crucial issues in the Middle East. Furthermore, it is also an important actor because of its stance on the development of nuclear. That's an unbiased fact. See China or the USA. The articles mention briefly current events. Scotchorama 23:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, there already existed a brief present section but the one cyrus111 was trying to insert was a too long and mostly POV. - Marmoulak 00:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Cyrus111, neither wikipedia is a discussion board nor am I willing to participate in a political debate with you. Read my previous post, WP:NOR and WP:V carefully. For every subject there exist and article in wikipedia, stop adding lengthy texts to this article and try editing the main article on subjects instead. - Marmoulak 00:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's makes really angry if anyone says I don't care about Iranians and Iran. The only reason I'm here is wiki is in fact Iran. You're not getting the point. I didn't revert your edits (except some seriously irrelevant ones). As you said we can BRIEFLY talk about current events but not in detail. Cyrus111, you added dozens of paragraphs talking about Zionism, Ahmadinejad, the nuclear issue, etc ,etc. These all have their own respective articles. The article of UK is very much better written than what your writing. All you do it copy paste, without considering this is an overview as marmoulak said. You add images that have nothing to do with this article. We don't need details here, we need overview. We need more sections, yes we have to talk about Iran's culture, but not about every successful movie. Then if that is the case, we should see Titanic, Gladiator, etc etc in the USA article because they are successful movies. This article is not long because it's 84 KB but because it has few section with too many paragraphs (mostly confused, unreferenced, added by one user and too much in detail,  These in formations should be added in Iran's Cinema, history and other article dedicated to them. This article is not about News. Even if USA article talks about news, that doesn't mean it's right. Yes we should talk a bit about the current events, but not 5 paragraphs. And I'll be happy to know, where do you live? From the beginning of history section, for every Empire and link them to their article for more information, but you add so many information for the present Iran, it has nothing to do with history. Make a different section about current events (only one paragraph max) and link it to another article (which we already have) about more current events on Iran. --Arad 18:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now i see some improvements, which is very good. Keep up the good work. (some sectioned are shoretened and now we have more section about Arts and others. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arad (talk • contribs) 18:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you for destroying the article 

message: Is this article a picture gallery? For example, in the Etymology section there are 4 pictures. I remember that a while ago there was only the map! The new military section has 5 pictures. I think many of these pictures can be removed. This is a encyclopedia not a gallery. I think we should have a vote to see what pictures should be removed. Thank you. Wikilo12 18:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many pictures 

message: This news item needs to be on the main page on the news section. Why isn't it?
I dont know why the media is ignoring this. Please spread the word around.--Zereshk 21:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tavajjoh

message: I just finished making this Barnstar. Wikicommons has no National merit barnstar for Iran (which is weird). So I uploaded it there. Please use it to support editors who are taking lots of shit because of their efforts to improve all articles pertaining to Iran. I hope u like my taste.--Zereshk 22:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use this Wiki-Award

message: For God's sake, Cyrus111 take a lead of other featured articles on Wikipedia. Do not enlarge the pictures over 200pix and for those that are rectangular 150pix at most. Four freaking pictures for small sections like military and etymology is too many it reduces the quality of the article tremendously, looks more like a picture gallery than an article. Picture of a book doesn't illustrate the content or importance of a book, there are much better choices of images for that section (and it has enough images already). Do something constructive for a change - Marmoulak 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  unconstructive edits 

message: This is somewhat related to the initial bias issue.  There are a few sections that cause the reader to doubt neutrality. For example- 
"It should be noted that Iran as a country has not invaded or committed aggression to any country for centuries and maintains its military doctrine is that of defense.[61]However the country continues to be demonized, and maintains under the threat of military action. [62]"
(1.) The second sentence is not a sentence.  
(2.) Citation 61 is more of a paraphrase that subtly changes the meaning of the citations.  You can check the original source under the subheading Iran is a threat to the stability of the region.
(3.) "Campaign Iran" does not appear to be the most neutral of sources.  Reading through the entire citation leads to some questionable responses that indicates bias.  
I am concerned this page is becoming less of an objective overview and more of a series of questionable articles. I understand if people wish to present countries in the best light possible, but that is not the purpose of Wikipedia.  Sentineneve 06:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that still in there? I thought I saw it get removed recently; probably a revert restored it.  Feel free to remove that particular sentence if you come by it.  It is rather silly; the people like to say that the country has 'always' been called Iran by the natives, yet when it comes to invasions, only IRI counts.  People boast about Achaemenids, Parthians, Sassanians, Safavids, etc., who are all 'Iran', but not when it comes to military action.  The double standard shouldn't be here.  The Behnam 07:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking a look at it, it did say "centuries", which is arguable, but in no way merits the "innocent Iran" idea portrayed by the statement.  The lack of invasions in the last century or two can just as easily be attributed to incompetence on Iran's part.  The whole statement isn't necessary or merited; I think it was just added out of emotional response to Iran being demonized by its enemies.  The Behnam 07:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It looks like it has been removed already. Sentineneve 15:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias issue part II:

message: Image:Canons_of_medicine.JPG|#1
Image:Abuali_Sino_Avicenna.jpg|#2
Image:Babek.jpg|#3
Image:Rostam.jpg|#4
Image:Ferdosi_Tomb.jpg|#6 (New)
Image:Lunar phases al-Biruni.jpg|#7 (New)
* #2, #5 - Marmoulak 16:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we can use one of the pictures of Ferdowsi, or a statue?  The Behnam 16:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: For the Babak picture, right under the part about critical commentary, it also says English Wikipedia.  The Behnam 20:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem, yes. What do you mean? That's an implied "and" between those criteria, it doesn't mean every use on en-wiki is legitimate in addition to any use according to the other criteria. :-) -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see.  I didn't realize that they were connected like that.  In that case, yeah, the second part is not implied by the first part.  The Behnam 20:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: From the fall of the Sassanian Dynasty to 1500 CE

message: Image:Iran.jpg|#1
Image:Darius.jpg|#2
Image:Xerxes-copy.jpg|#3
Image:Prophet Zarathushtra by Shapour Suren-Pahlav.JPG|#4
* #1, #2 - Marmoulak 16:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: In the culture section there is a sentence that is false. The article states: "Equality of the sexes also has a strong historical precedent in Iran: from the Achaemenian to the Sassanian dynasties, women were encouraged to pursue an education and study at universities; they held property, influenced the affairs of state, and worked and received the same compensation as men." From my understanding of the sentence, it is listing the ways women were equal to men during the Achaemenian and Sassanian dynasties. If this is the case, it is saying "women were encouraged to pursue an education and study at universities" during 559 BCE to 651 CE. This cannot be true. The first university in Iran was established in 1851 (Dar ul-Funun). If the universities it is referring to are some type of primitive school unlike modern institutions, it should be noted as such. I propose removing the phrase "women were encouraged to pursue an education and study at universities". Agha Nader 02:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead.  Most people didn't go to "universities" back then, regardless of gender.  The Behnam 02:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Just change the sentencce from "university" to "education". That should work. No need to delete anything.--Zereshk 17:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture 

message: Kindly contribute to this article when you get time, and request others too.
Thanks
Atulsnischal 00:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wildlife of Iran]]

message: Great article, pleasure seeing the pictures! --Striver - talk 08:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good work

message: The vote for the pictures has been up for awhile now, and I think it is time that the tally be acted upon.  Does keeping the two top performers for each section sound good?  The Behnam 18:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would like to keep it as it is now, except for the military section. There, I would move the picture#2 to the history of the Iranian military where it belongs. It's just my opinion.69.116.234.208 22:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to contribute your individual vote to the above section.  The Behnam 22:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus Execution

message: For those of you who read French (and I think some of you do), I would strongly suggest that you look at the article and take it as a good example of what Iran's article should be (with minor modifications). They (the French editors) have copied/translated many articles from us/English into French Wikipedia before and I think it is a good think to do a bit of the reverse now (specially for the main Iran article). It's a healthy competition in my opinion aiming at improving both articles (French and English). Besides the french version is now considered "a good article" on WP.
*Specifically I think the education section is better in the French article (and could be translated in the main article in English.) 
*Wildelife/Fauna and flora (now in geography of Iran) can also be expanded taking the French version as a good source.
*Their Iranian calendar is also good and could be taken as a model (couldn't find this essential information in the English version except many details.)
*Social security system information could also be expanded by using the French version and be included with the Health section (in the English version) may be.
*Finally, I would say that the French version is more detailed and well documented (with references). It also gives a comprehensive overview of each sub-articles at the same time.
Given the above, I would strongly suggest having a group OVERHAUL the English version/article (which is good), section by section to improve the quality further.
69.116.234.208 22:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, those sections seem pretty good, though I don't advocate using the French article in general.  Some things were surprising; for example, the page pictured Khatami instead of Khomeini for the Revolution section.  Of course, I don't know French so I can't check for biased passages, but I am curious about the coverage of the political system.  There continues to be a big POV problem involving that on English Wikipedia where the opposition and their terminology are given dominance in the articles.  First I ran into "vicious circle," now I've joined the discussion over "mullahcracy."  Can you confirm if there is a similar problem in the French pages involving POV and OR about the government of Iran?  The Behnam 23:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First I must concur that there is a general, real problem with POV on Wikipedia Iran (english version). Why? Biased media reports and also malicious intention to defame some Iran related subjects. The problem is that you have communication agencies (including some special interest group) who have the JOB to write biased articles for publication on Wikipedia - as acknowledged by Wikipedia itself (See Wikipedia#Criticism and controversy) and people should be aware of it. That's also why it is always good to have a point of comparision (like the French version of the same article). Regrading your specific questions, I did not find an apparent bias in the recent history section of the French version for Iran, which does not mean it cannot happen in the future (the picture of Mr. Khatami is under that section and I don't see a problem with that either). Generally, I tend to agree that the political sections would be well served by this comparison (between the French and English version) and a possible revision as well. 69.116.234.208 23:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran Suggestion to improve the quality: French Version of Wikipedia-Iran]

message: This states "The ancient Iranian religion of Wisdom is the first monotheistic religion, founded by the Prophet Zarathushtra over 3000 years ago. It has had a profound influence on Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Western and Eastern culture." While I don't doubt that the Imperialist Western Zionist Media Swine-dogs would be behind any hoax regarding Judaism being the first monotheistic religion, I WAS under the impression that Judaism is the first documented monotheistic religion. I recommend that the mistake is fixed to "is one of the first monotheistic religions". Splitting hairs? Perhaps, but we should strive to make every article, especially this one, more accurate. 68.7.70.9 07:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose "one of" would make it more neutral.  For some reason the possibly syncretic monotheistic designation is favored here, perhaps because of a modern majority(?).  Aside from that, I'll change the caption to say "one of."  Thanks for pointing that out.  The Behnam 21:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Zoroastrian image of Faravahar 

message: I've read that there's an Iranian Revolutionary Guard organization called Al Quds. What is confusing is that there seem to be others by the same name. I haven't seen any mention of Al Qud in the Iran article. Reportedly, they are smuggling explosives from Iran, among other activities. Brian Pearson 18:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: not every thing, you see in the western media about the current events (or propagandas) must be mentioned here. --Pejman47 18:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: And not all of it's necessarily true either. For example, everybody seems to be forgetting that it is the Saudi backed Sunni insurgency groups that are responsible for the majority of US troop's deaths in Iraq. But they are called "allies". Ah, the power of the petrodollar.--Zereshk 01:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al Quds 

message: Is it just me, or is the history section of this article way too long?  Why is half the article dedicated to the pre-history of the region, even before the establishment of modern day Iran?  I think a brief mention of the prior empires which included modern day Iran + links to those respective wiki pages would help shorten the article. 
:: I concur 69.116.234.208 17:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you mean we should just talk very briefly about anciant empires of iran? They are most of the history of Iran, how can we eliminate them? Modern day Iran is the same country that Cyrus the Great founded. It's still called Persia. And it's already VERY brief. We didn't mention dozens and Empires who ruled over Iran. As you can see it's very very brief for such a long history. I think the last section is a bit too long, considering it only covers 30 years of Iran's history. --Arad 15:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would disagree. Look at the opening sentence of the article.  The article deals with the Islamic Republic of Iran specifically, which is modern day Iran.  This is NOT an article about the history of the Persian people, which is what it's basically become.  Though it's appropriate to mention how modern day Iran occupies portions of the old Parthian empire, etc..., it's not appropriate to have those histories take more than half the article.  It's also not appropriate to claim that everything from the Medes to the Parthians were Iranian empires.  They were conglomerate empires of many peoples, not just Persians. Djma12 18:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Iranians are a "conglomerate" of different people not just Persians. That's why we call anyone living in Iran, Iranian. Iranian people are those living on Iranian plateau and they contain Persians, Medes, Parths, Kurds, Lurs, Turks, etc, etc. It is the same case for Iran or Persia. If the name is Persia it doesn't mean it only contains Persians. I don't know if you're Iranian or not. If you are, then this is sad for Iranians. If you're not please read some history books. Iran IS NOT a portion of Persia it IS Persia. This article deals with Iran, and the offical name of Iran currently is Islamic Republic of Iran. It's just a name that is changed. Same as Persia changed to Iran. --Arad 19:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Very good example. If this is what will happen to this article, then I surely agree that we can make an article called Iran, putting most of the history section there and another one called Islamic Republic of Iran, contaning the economy, etc ,etc. --Arad 19:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But still the title of the article is Iran. So we should actually move the other things for Islamic Republic. --Arad 19:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That might actually be a good suggestion.  Though we'd have to move the government, military, science, culture, etc... sections as well.  Also, please feel free to contribute on the discussion on article splitting that I've just started. Djma12 19:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section way too long 

message: What a great article!! This one made me proud of my country. I think it's every Iranian's duty to read this.
Thanks a LOT!!
;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.218.71.250 (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Thanks To Wikipedia 

message: Guys I already moved most of History of Iran to its main article: History of Iran with a new template only for the article. It's true that the main article had less detail than Iran article. So we can start clean up the details from history of Iran. Anyone intrested in details can go to the main article. --Arad 17:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Iran 

message: Using the word "re-instated" is wrong when talking about the 1953 events that led to Mossadegh's deposition from power. The shah officially had never been removed from office, and Mossadegh never stopped to regard him as the legal monarch, which is why he did not attempt to declare a republic. So the shah was technically never removed from power to be then "re-instated".
By the same token, it is completely wrong to say that Mossadegh was "replaced" by the Shah. Mossadegh was the prime minister, and was replaced by Fazlollah Zahedi. The shah was the monarch, before, during, and after Mossadegh. He did not "replace" Mossadegh.
Another wrong assertion in the article is the claim that Mossadegh "founded" the first democratic Iranian government. Mossadegh did not found anything, the democratic system in Iran was introduced in 1906 during the Persian constitutional revolution. Mossadegh was simply one of the prime ministers within that system, but he was not the first one.Shervink 11:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Youre right. Perhaps you can replace those terms with more proper wording? I dont think anybody would object.--Zereshk 04:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The word "re-instated" as applied to the Shah

message: Just a heads up.  There is a common misinformation that "Aryanam" is a known Achaemenian description of their domain.  This is not true.  Please see this Encyclopaedia Iranica article .  The asterisk in their Old Persian description "*Arya@na@m" indicates that the term in unattested; aka not a known usage.  Basically, Aryanam is the hypothetical OP word based upon linguistics, but has not been used in actual Old Persian findings.  So, I will remove the statement that Aryanam was indeed the name of the Achaemenian domain.  The Behnam 05:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its in the avesta though from the same time.  --alidoostzadeh 12:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, use of words containing Airya are definitely in the Avesta.  While I imagine this helped linguists determine the unattested OP form, it doesn't indicate that *Aryanam was a term for the Achaemenian domain.  Also, it is important to note that the Avesta doesn't actually talk about the Achaemenians; oddly enough, they don't exist in genuine Iranian tradition.  The most I've seen is some speculation identifying Husravah with Cyrus (and hence Kai Khosrow with Cyrus), but it didn't even approach being solid.  This should be obvious seeing that they don't really share anything.  Basically, this article (& elsewhere on WP) portrayed Aryanam as just 'the' earlier form of Iran, but this is not known to be the case.  The Behnam 13:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Ariana is mentioned by Strabo during Parthian era.  I agree in Old Persian *Aryanam is a hypothetical OP word based on linguistic sound laws although mentioned by scholars of linguistics.  As per Avesta and Achaemenids you might be suprised but there is a lot of connection.  See the article (Avesta quotations in Old Persian) by Oktor Skjærvø.  If you google it, you'll find the actual article.  --alidoostzadeh 02:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't think it will change the highly prevalent unattested designation, I'm quite interested.  I'm having some trouble searching it out; I see plenty of references to it but not the article itself.  Mind proving a specific link?  The Behnam 02:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I found it here: .  As per Aryanam its various form is in the Avesta which is the ultimate source for the word Iran.  But the first western attestion we have for Iran is Ariania in Strabo quoting another greek historian.  --alidoostzadeh 03:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is the origin, but not known to be used by Achaemenians.  It should be noted that much of the Zoroastrian influence comes with the Sassanians.  Thanks for the link.  The Behnam 03:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Avesta was widely available during Achaemenid times.  It pre-dates Achaemenid times.  Actually Ariana was for sure used in parthian times (Strabo).  --alidoostzadeh 16:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aryanam 

message: As part of reducing the article size, I think it is worth it to try to execute the image consensus.  The voting has been open for a long time now, and eventually should be acted upon; now is a good time.  I propose that the top two performers for each section be used in those section, and the others be taken out.  The Behnam 16:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: go ahead. but I think most of it already has been executed.--Pejman47 17:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already done. Long time ago. Plus Images don't add much to article size. But too many images make article too busy. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arad (talk • contribs) 18:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Consensus Execution Proposal 

message: I don't see why there should be a section on Iran's nuclear energy program, it just reflects anti-Iranian bias and the American bias of Wikipedia. There isn't such a section on the main page of other countries (USA, France or UK). The same goes for the "human rights" section. If you want to make the article shorter then the obvious thing is to be fair and delete those sections. It's blatant prejudice.217.42.82.12 13:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the same point of view. i dont know why there should be so much stuff on current things. baba yekam ghairat dashte bashim. this wikipedia is too americanized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.70.24.167 (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a lot on wikipedia about US, French, and UK nuclear technology/ nuclear weapons programs and testing systems.  There is also a lot about atomic energy.  Its just listed on their own pages.  If anything happens the info on Iran's nuclear program should just me moved to its own page.  Stating that its not important or notable enough to be on wikipedia is rather short sighted. Drsocc 06:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone who agrees please say so here. Actually, If the article is to be made shorter then really the obvious thing is two remove these two large paragraphs and just have a link to the main articles on those issues as a compromise. 217.42.82.12 18:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is fairly common to include a little bit on nuclear stuff.  The main concern here is keeping it NPOV in spite of the current Western campaign against Iran over the matter.  The Behnam 06:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While NPOV is important - just having a section exist about an emerging nuclear program isn't a violation.Drsocc 07:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me clarify that I think the section should stay.  The Behnam 07:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there a section on Iran's nuclear energy program? 

message: Does anyone disagree that the information in the Sport section needs to be reduced to a smaller paragraph? What is currently there is a word by word repetition of the main article on sports in Iran so it seems quite redundant to have those details here as well. In fact, anyone who gets to this point in the article can click on the link for the main article on sports and see those details. I don't think it serves much purpose to a general audience other than it makes the article too lengthy.
Shervin moloudi 10:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much agree.  This page needs to be much better aligned with summary style.  Currently I think the good sections are the Economics, Geography and Demographics sections. -- Jeff3000 13:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please restore the cleanup.  The Behnam 18:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree, that section must be reduced and also rewritten.--Pejman47 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: But does that healthy balance require being fat? Too small and too large are both negative.  I see no reason that a reduction should not be made if that is what improves the section.  The Behnam 22:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up in Sports section 

message: Manual of Style (Persian). 
← ← Parthian Shot (Talk)  08:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please add your voice to the following section

message: OK people,
#I cleaned up the sports section. It's shorter now, but more informative. I hope everyone agrees with the edit.
#I merged the two poetry sections, replaced their translations, ordered them, and edited some sentences there. Nothing was really lost there.
#I trimmed out some sentences from the scientific section, and added others. (Having NMR equipment isnt exactly that noteworthy for an article and country such as Iran, as I mentioned above earlier).
#I did a slight trim on the etymology section, cutting out some minor details. I dont think there was any loss of essential information there.
#I erased the Persian verses of Avicenna, because the first line of them was missing, and because the English version there is an excellent translation by itself. It was translated by Edward Fitzgerald.
#I think though that the entire Military section should be deleted, and transferred to its own page Military of Iran. Iran has not invaded any country in the past 300 years, and it spends only 1/10th the budget of its neighbors on its military. Putting a military section in the article gives Iran an inaccurate representation, injecting POV into the article.
#With the trims done tonight by me and SSZ, the article is now down to 91kb. I didnt touch the history, politics, geography, economy, or demography sections, and I wont, until people reach an agreement on them.--Zereshk 05:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I saw the page for USA and it has a military section. Basically, because every country on earth has a military. I see what you mean, but I think we should maintain this section, like for other smaller countries like France or Turkey. (my 2 cents) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.116.234.208 (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The clean-up looked good to me, why did you revert yourself? --Mardavich 09:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, why did you revert?SSZ 09:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bug. Seems it's fixed now.--Zereshk 09:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi, Mardavich. I did not touch the history section. I haven't edited this section for a month or more may be, in the main article (not my area of expertise.) You must be confusing with someone else. SSZ 10:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are referring to my revert because of Zereshk: I just did a quick check to see that no essential information was lost but please feel free to double check.SSZ 10:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My bad, it wasn't you. Apparently, large chunks of the history section were unilaterally  removed by User:Manu_kian_maheri without any comments here and despite the fact that there was no consensus to cut down the section on history. Can one of you please review that user's contributions and restore all the lost paragraphs from the history section? --Mardavich 10:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup update

message: SSZ, the image was actually removed by some anon: . I simply replaced it back. Ive only touched stuff where there is no dispute, at least as far as I know. All the trouble is in the history section.--Zereshk 10:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Zereshk, I am not accusing you of anything (and I know one of the 3 (new) pic was there before, more than a month ago, as you mention). Nevertheless, you should know that the consensus vote on the other pictures happened some time after this specific picture you refer to was removed. Again, I have intentionally left your new calligraphy pic in place. I call this a compromise.SSZ 11:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Mardavich, I wouldn't worry about the history section much since there is a main article with ALL the original content. I think he meant to be constructive in his edits and I see what he did as a +. Others can share they opinion also.SSZ 11:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The votes were not on the art and architecture sections. So I take it that it is your dispute. In that case, we have to put this up for a vote then. Your Farshchian image wont last anyway because it's Fairuse. Admins are quick to delete those.--Zereshk 11:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: HAVE A HAPPY NOROUZ--Zereshk 22:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you! Happy nowruz to all of u! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.217.115.92 (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hamegee...

message: There is a BBC documentary about Iran here: [Rageh Inside Iran]. Maybe it should be added to link about Iran? 86.131.40.23 09:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great documentary. thanks a lot. There is another one on History Channel Engineering an Empire: The Persians. Make a search for it, it's easy to find. (I'm not allowed to show the link, as it will be a link spam). --Arad 20:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it good enough/suitable for the links section? I can't add it myself as the page is locked. 86.131.40.23 04:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC Documentary