Talk:Iran/Archive 4

message: Didn't know where Scouting in Iran belonged in that box, just that it is an applicable topic.  Please put it in the categorization you think it belongs in Chris 00:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scouting in Iran

message: I dont agree with GMotamedi. I think it is appropriate to use both English/Persian names such as "Iranian Parliament" and "Majles". Or "Supreme Leader" and "Rahbar". Obviously words like Die Fuhrer, Bundestag, Duma of Russia, Diet of Japan, etc..., are part of the English vocabulary. The "Majlis" of Iran isnt any different. It is a unique assembly of power in the world.--Zereshk 02:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *There's nothing wrong with calling it the Majles. It also doesn't have anything to do with history. The Iranian Majles is definitely older than the Israeli Knesset, but I've never heard anyone try to avoid using the term "Knesset" just because it's not English. But whether or not you call it the Majles depends on the context. "Rahbar" is totally different. I think its use should be limited. AucamanTalk 16:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iranian names are OK

message: Part of Iran is in the Middle East, but the other half is in Central Asia. Shouldn't we describe it as both a Middle Eastern and Central Asian state? SouthernComfort 06:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Iran is usually included in Southwest Asia, not Central Asia. Having it be both in Southwest Asia and Central Asia would be confusing to the reader. AucamanTalk 07:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Middle East

message: Can anyone help me gather all the information on some of the important foods of Iran ;) , I will start gathering information... But is it okay with other users? Oh and what are the rules? --Sassan 10:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to check out Cuisine of Iran and Persian cuisine. In fact we need to add a great deal more information on all the various regional cuisines to Cuisine of Iran, which i still lacking in that area. SouthernComfort 07:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Food

message: Being a poetry crazed people, the page seriously needed a verse or two to reflect on that character of Iran.
As some of you can tell, I translated the verses in the culture section myself. If you think you can do a better job of translating them WITH RHYMES, go for it.--Zereshk 23:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Culture section

message: Ive finished filling in all article gaps for Pahlavi era section of List of Prime Ministers of Iran (except for Morteza Gholi Bayat). Please feel free to edit my hasty edits in those articles.
I have made a template for UT people. Please use.
And also, I made the badly needed doogh template. (How can yall live without it for crying out loud??)--Zereshk 09:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates to Iranian pages

message: Ive finished working on the Iranian art pages. Please feel free to add.--Zereshk 05:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Finished art pages

message: In the future I'd love to see a map showing Azerbaijan as an entity unto itself...this region is clearly not Persian, and the only thing that makes it Iranian is the border on Araz Chayi (Aras River).  Perhaps Christian Armenia would like to join "Islamic" Iran in a federal union of sorts, given the fact that the Tehran regime is Armenia's number one trading partner, supplier of oil and natural gas, protector, and ally.
:::This is not a political forum of false Pan-Turkish ideals. But I do agree with you on one point I would like to see the Azerbaijani Republic as an whole within the boundaries of Iran. Azeris are ethnic Iranians and proud.
:::Indeed Iran was forced under threat of Russian military invasion to sign the Turkmanchai treaty and Gulistan Treaty, which separated the Republic of Azerbaijan from Iran.--Zereshk 16:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran 

message: I dont think we really need the milad tower image on the front page. (especially that it still isnt finished.) It already appears on the Tehran page.
Anyone?--Zereshk 21:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's not a particularly good picture as it's hazy.  Maybe a picture of agriculture or oil instead? -- Jeff3000 21:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Milad Tower image

message: I am surprised to see that there is no mention of meaning or root word description for the term "Iran". Somebody could contribute. 67.81.174.200 02:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The etymology may be found in history of Iran. It could be mentioned here as well. —Charles P._(Mirv) 03:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology of "Iran"

message: Now we're talkin. :)
Please feel free to add info to the new accompanying Iranian rock page I just made.
mer30!--Zereshk 00:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Check it out people!

message: Greetings,
I'd like to propose that we vote on this issue (otherwise, the picture will keep changing as different users have different tastes):
Which of the following pics do you deem most befitting for the Template:History of Iran Template, which is used everywhere on Iranian history pages?
#Image 1 to make it look like this
#Image 2 to make it look as it is.
If I am correct (by WP guidelines), this vote ballot will endure for one week. Thanx.--Zereshk 00:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vote is now over. Thank You all for voting.
I think both are excellent. The first, however, has a more specific symbolic meaning, and can be dated back to older times than the second. I would also prefer that one. Just a suggestion: Isn't it possible to put a picture of the Cyrus cylinder instead? Shervink 12:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the second one (probably from "Persepolis"(Takht-e Jamshid)) is better since it refers to some historical event, which has taken place, while the first one is a religious figure (an angle) which can not be considered a historical one and it does not refer to any historical event. It is more appropriate for pages about the ancient Iranian religions (Zoroasterianism). Cyrus Cylinder is also a very good choice. Heja Helweda 04:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, First one can hardly be seen..--Kash 22:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote on picture

message: *--Zereshk 00:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image 1

message: *Heja Helweda 04:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vote is now over. Thank You all for voting.
</div>
I think both are excellent. The first, however, has a more specific symbolic meaning, and can be dated back to older times than the second. I would also prefer that one. Just a suggestion: Isn't it possible to put a picture of the Cyrus cylinder instead? Shervink 12:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the second one (probably from "Persepolis"(Takht-e Jamshid)) is better since it refers to some historical event, which has taken place, while the first one is a religious figure (an angle) which can not be considered a historical one and it does not refer to any historical event. It is more appropriate for pages about the ancient Iranian religions (Zoroasterianism). Cyrus Cylinder is also a very good choice. Heja Helweda 04:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, First one can hardly be seen..--Kash 22:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image 2

message: Someone had vandalized the article by placing a pornographic picture in a section labeled "miscellaneous topics." I deleted it, but I'm not a proper member of Wikipedia so I thought I'd better drop a note here to let you know. (69.81.51.96 01:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: looks like the image was on Template:Portal. It's been fixed. —Charles P._(Mirv) 02:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Miscellaneous topics" deleted

message: Misrepresenting one of the most glorious and influential times in Iranian history, and for that matter world history, the dynasty of Achaemenids, Ashkanian, and Sassanids in all called the Persian Empire--the first global empire; the largest the world had seen yet--the empire that gave humanity for the first time the ideas of monotheism, the "Wise Men from the East" in the Bible, which in English, the term may refer to a shaman, sorcerer, or wizard; it is the origin of the English words magic and magician, angelology, demonology, eschatological teachings, apocalyptical notions , that would later be transferred to their newly freed Jewish subjects that in return would adapt these ideas, that would in turn enormously influence Judaism and later Christianity should not be encouraged.  Misrepresenting the second Iranian dynasty, the Ashkanian, or Parthian Empire who reunited Iran and made it into a global power again, and who have had tremendous impact on the Iranian culture, should not be an aim of yours, just because it is simply more ``convenient`` for Western literature to do so.
From its birth, Iran was called Iran (land of Aryans) by Cyrus the Great, not Persia, which is simply a province in Iran, yet so much inaccuracies have risen that the West thinks Persia is extinct, and the modern nation of Iran is different, which is false, in fact--from 525 BC up to 1979 AD, the country was called `Kingdom of Iran`; there is archeological proof of that.  After the 1979 revolution, the country is now called `The Islamic Republic of Iran`.  There are numerous articles and books that state Parthia was a country in Asia, or that the second Persian, i.e., Iranian dynasty was the Sassanid, or even more erroneously, and shockingly, that Parthian were foreign rulers of Persia.  That is absurd; it is very much like saying Yankees in Boston in the north rose to power and formed Bostonia, later native Texans took back their land, and were the second American dynasty.  
Ashkanian, who came from the north of Iran and were from the ancient Iranian tribe of Ashkuzi (Scythians), reunited Iran, and revitalized Persian customs.  Macedonia that was not even part of Greece, is under Ancient Greece, yet, people seem to have separated Persia, Parthia, and Iran.  As such, because Wikepedia gives people a chance to make wrongs right, it is essential that right in the beginning of the sentence, the empire’s real name be embedded in there, so when a reader studies it for the first time, he or she would know the origin of the empire.  Calling that era of Iran, Persia and Parthia is absolutely confusing, and above all false.  The correct name for the country was, and is simply, Iran.Zmmz 22:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what we are working on here: trying to accurately represent Iran. You can help us out by contributing! Thanx!--Zereshk 08:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Persia, Parthia, or Iran?

message: All,
I asked for help regarding uploading an excellent 25 Meg video clip of Tehran University. I got no answer so far from any of the admins I consulted.
So I uploaded the video clip file to my own website, and provided links instead. You can see the clip by going to here.
But the bandwidth on my website is limited. IOW, this is a temporary fix.
Does anybody know how to upload a clip to WP? I reckon it must be thru Wikicommons. But Im not sure about the logistical details.--Zereshk 20:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you can upload video files to Commons if they're A: properly-licensed B: in the right format (see Wikipedia:Media#Video) and C: under 20 megabytes in size. the interface is substantially identical to the upload interface here. —Charles P._(Mirv) 21:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Video clip

message: The history section for the Iran page is incomplete and lacks specific information.  The page says that written history in Iran began around 3000BC but when you follow the link provided that page gives the date 3200 BC. The history of Iran has been proven by archeologists and scholars to be much more ancient than what is claimed on Wikipedia. Certain settlements and villages that have been excavated prove that civilizations and permanent settlements have existed in Iran for at least 7000 years. The date on the history page should be corrected to say at least 5000BCE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dariush4444 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 23 February 2006.
:It says "Written history" dates back 3000BC. There's a difference. Excavations do not necessarily imply written history. Besides, the article History of Iran verifies what youre saying anyway (about much older excavations existing). As far as I know, we have settlements dating back to pre-historic times there.--Zereshk 21:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [No Title]

message: These three users are on some sort of anti-Iranian crusade vandalizing all the Iranian and Persian related articles. We need to keep an eye on their " edit activities" as their intentions is not sincere but merely for the purpose of propagating false information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ManiF (talk • contribs) 
:The anti-Iranian edits of these users has led several editors to report the 3 editors above to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please voice your opinions.--Zereshk 21:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They fabricate and manipulate information and I for one 100% agree that these individuals must be complained on. 69.196.139.250 05:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heja Helweda, Diyako, Aucaman 

message: An article on t'aarof appeared on the front page yesterday. Unfortunately, the article contains very little information on t'aarof, but is rather a Marxist criticism of it. If any of the knowledgable editors here would like to go over and add some information on what t'aarof involves , that would be great. Ashmoo 23:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: T'aarof

message: All,
I just finished constructing the following article from scratch. Please feel free to edit, if you see errors:
Iran-Britain relations
Thank you.--Zereshk 11:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New addition to Iranian articles

message: All,
Diyako is trying to delete yet another Iranian related article: See here. Thanks. --Zereshk 00:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Diyako's latest attack on Iranian articles

message: Ruhollah Khomeini is once again being attacked by extreme anti-Khomeinist vandals. SouthernComfort 13:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandal attacks over at Khomeini

message: Someone took off the dispute tag, so I'm going to implement these changes for now. If someone has a problem they should use a dispute tag and then come here and discuss their problems. AucamanTalk 22:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine that you implemented the change, but why did you go further and add back the Nazi reference, which people agreed on non-including.  You don't seem to be helping your own cause of trying to discuss before making changes. -- Jeff3000 00:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: Zmmz, why remove the note? It's true that Iranians/Persians dispute the issue. Is it just because we made a change without your approval? Other people seemed to be fine with the change, which seemed to me to be primarily copyediting, not substance. The only problem some people had was the whole "Nazi name" thing, which we kept out of the main article. Zora 23:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I left him another note on his talk page. He did not respond and just removed the comment. He has a history of just removing my edits without much explanation. AucamanTalk 23:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why remove note saying to see naming dispute article? 

message: Broad statement based on speculations shouldn't be included in the article. There is no data of what Iranian think or believe. --ManiF 23:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? If we have an article entitled Naming dispute, isn't that evidence of a dispute? Plus it seems kinda disingenuous to deny that there's a dispute when I've been berated for using Persia and berated for using Iran, right here on Wikipedia. There seems to be some disagreement! Zora 23:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Zora. Surely 'disputes' on WP talk pages don't count as verifiable evidence. It would be good if these reverters did provide more commentary. But the article text states there is debate amongst Iranians themselves, and I think we do need evidence for this. Regards, Ashmoo 00:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No the controversy is pretty much over now. The country is now usually called Iran, although in historical contexts it is sometimes be called Persia. The point that I was trying to make is that the decision was controversial back then because most non-Iranians had never heard the term "Iran". This should be reflected in the article. AucamanTalk 00:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but do you have any evidence that the decision was controversial back then? Ashmoo 00:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the article says that Persian scholars protested the name change. It also says that the decision was later reversed. You don't think the decision was controversial if it was later reversed? When was the last time you heard a monarch reverse his decree on something? AucamanTalk 00:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "There are also many Persians and non-Persians in the West who prefer "Persia" and "Persian" as the English names for the country and nationality ..." 
That's last year. The article was written by an Iranian and published in an Iranian newspaper. Now Aucaman may be right in saying that these are all geriatric scholars and everyone else has adjusted and let's all just move on, folks, there's nothing to see here -- that's the part that we can't decide without a poll -- but it's clear to me that dissent hasn't died completely. Zora 01:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks Zora! Actual evidence! The linked article states that serious debates started in the 1980s, which seems to contradict the 'contraversial back then' claim. Also, the 'Bring Back Persia' linked article states: This strange act met no significant resistance at home, given the totalitarian nature of the regime, widespread illiteracy, and the intelligentsia's lack of insight. Am I understanding this correctly?  Ashmoo 01:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, the article says that Persian scholars protested the name change. It also says that the decision was later reversed. You don't think the decision was controversial if it was later reversed by the same person who advocated it? When was the last time you heard a monarch reverse his decree on something? The evidence is out there; it just requires a small inference. AucamanTalk 01:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I would guess that this debate matters primarily to people who speak languages other than Persian -- which would be academics specializing in Persia/Iran, Iranians in diaspora, and Iranian intellectuals. Yes, this discussion would hold no interest for some guy in a village in Fars who doesn't speak English. It's also clear from the WP article that the dispute started in 1935, with the decree, and has simmered along since then. However, it may have gotten more intense in the 1980s with the vast increase in the Iranian diaspora after the Revolution. Stuff that doesn't matter when you're living in Tehran may matter a lot more when you're living in L.A. Zora 01:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case what's wrong with calling the decision to change the name of the country "controversial"? The person reverting it is not also not participating in these talks. AucamanTalk 01:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anyone can start an article on wiki, this so-called controversy is no controversy to Iranians and certainly not significant enough to be included in this article. Iran has always been named Iran by Iranians and Reza Shah decided that Westerners should use the native name Iran instead of Persia. That's all we know and that's all there is to it. The rest are speculations based on POV. They don't belong on this article, there should only be facts stated not speculations. --ManiF 06:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If everything is a clear-cut as you say, then could you tell me why the decision was reversed in 1959? AucamanTalk 22:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep bringing this up, but I think it is a red herring. As wikipedia editors we aren't allowed to speculate on why historical events happened. We must rely of 3rd party analyses of events and provide cites to them in our edits. Ashmoo 23:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Acuman all your questions and concerns have been addressed, but you insist on going in loops until you can edit the article the WAY YOU ALONE WANT. When facts were presented about Kurds being an ethnic Iranian people you suppressed them based on a so-called, unjust, and hollow consensus, but now when all editors are against your demands you try new tactics! This is obviously wrong. Do you not think your cyber-actions are Self-contradicting? If the discsuusion histories you are in are all read by users they will see you contradict yourself and not consistant in your rational and argument. DO not take this as a personal attack but as observation of the content you push. You are creating a negative atmosphere in the community. 69.196.139.250 01:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I have every right to question different aspects of articles, especially their POV issues. This is part of verifying the NPOV status of articles and is done only in good faith. The fact that I get shot down for even bringing up certain questions that have never been discussed before proves the high level of censorship on some these articles. AucamanTalk 05:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Tell user: Acuman that when high quality proof was presented to him about KUrds being ethnic Iranians hew pushed it aside for unjust consensus or he waited it out and edited whatevcer he pleased. THE KURDISH ARTICLES MUST BE FIXED FIRST. HE BELEIVES HE HAS SECURIED HIS IDEALS IN THAT ARTICLE AND CAN NOW MOVE ON AN EDIT OTHER IRANIAN ARTICLES. 69.196.139.250 18:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming Issue 

message: Sorry Iranian Jews are both an ethnic group and a religious group. In this regard they're similar to the Parsi ethnic group. See the article on Jews for more information. AucamanTalk 05:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly Iranian Jews are not an ethnic group and Jews are not an ethnic group. A ethnic group is almost homogenous. There are Asian Jews, Arab Jews, Iranian Jews, Black Jews, German Jews, Slavic Jews, etc. They are not a an ethnic group. I was the user who added them to the list of ethnic groups but realized I made a mistake becuase in Iran's population consensus they are not listed under ethnic groups but under religious. I put it there by mistake and I was fixing my mistake. Anyway you look at it they must be taken offf. If they are even kept there it would go against the mathamatical figures making all the stats wrong. SO I will remove them. Once again you have made a comment that distroys your credibility on these subjects. Assume good faith. You can not jump the gun. You have also made outrageous statments that Iranian Jews were in Iran before Armenians which is totally wrong once again. See the Persian Jew discussion. Iranian Jews are no different from other Iranian but in faith. No racial differences. I would also like to point something out the group that is the object of this discussion is labelled Iranian Jews which is what 'I' added becuase you always try and push just Persian Jew to create division amongst various ethncicities of Iranian background. Why don't you go make an article for Iranian Jews, which is a union of Jewish Tats, Kurdish Jews, and Perisan Jews, but you wont because you do not want Kurds to be recognized as Iranians even though they are.....the Kurdish Jews even claim Ester (a Persian) as there mother. 69.196.139.250 17:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "They are not an ethnic group" is a highly contentious claim. Straight away, the opening paragraphs of the articles on Jew and ethnic group contradict that assertion. People can associate with more than one ethnic group, and can (and do) identify as culturally & hereditarily Jewish, even if they don't actively practice Judaism. The fact that you included "Black" in your list of examples and said there are "no racial differences" among Jews in Iran indicates that you're conflating ethnicity and race, which is a separate topic. The only point you make that is on-target is that "Iranian Jews" is a general term for Jews geographically in Iran, a population that consists of people who identify themselves as ethnically Tat, Kurdish, or Persian. But you seem unwilling to concede that they also identify themselves as ethnically Jewish. Please debate this over in the talk pages for Non-exclusive ethnic group, List of ethnic groups, and especially Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups before declaring that the article on Iran mustn't include Jews in its list of Iranian ethnicities.—mjb 19:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iranian Jews

message: It has come to my attention that it would be a splendid task if we could get Norouz featured on March 21st. But we dont have much time. Please peruse the article and enhance all that can be improved. Thanx. Anyone willing to take the lead for this?--Zereshk 00:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Diyako's latest effort: He has created separate pages for Newroz and Nevruz.--Zereshk 21:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Norouz

message: Happy Norouz!!!
To all our Kurdish, Afghan, Indian, Azeri, Turkish, Tajik, Uzbek, Asian brothers:
To all our friends worldwide:
To all life:
Have a happy Norouz.--Zereshk 04:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that, Happy Norouz to everyone. May you have a great year.-- Jeff3000 04:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Norouzetan Piruz

message: To the Iran editors, please do not take my recent edits as being against the people of Iran.  I love the Iranian culture, people, history and country; it is my heritage, and I owe a lot to it.  So please don't take my statements here against Iran in anyway.  The only thing is that I don't appreciate the actions of the current administration to intice hatred towards the Baha'is. -- Jeff3000 13:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  my recent addition 

message: This hanging was not the  first one and does not fit in this section. This should not ever be added again.
:For those who are interested: click here. AucamanTalk 05:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  State repression of homosexuality 

message: Looks awkward in the middle of the article.  Perhaps we should delete, or maybe create a gallery page? PDXblazers 20:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost every major similar article has one. See Texas for example. They have more than one gallery.--Zereshk 23:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallery of city pics

message: Due to vandalisim of calling Iranians terroists and popups of telling people to vadalize this page I am going to put this page on protection by not letting non-admins edit. Thank you and please help to stop vandal attacks. Wikilo12 04:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only admins are supposed to do that. Zora 04:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with Zora. Only admins have the technical capability to protect a page; simply tagging it has no effect and is misleading. Please make a formal request at WP:RFPP to get the page temporarily protected or semi-protected. Thanks. Wikiacc (?) 21:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read WP:NPOV. Thanks. Wikiacc (?) 21:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOO MANY VANDAL  ATTACKS 

message: This gallery contains a large amount of fair use images that cannot be fully justified. I don't want to remove it outright, but that will probably have to happen if this article is to become featured. (All fair use images in featured articles are supposed to have full rationales, and replaced if possible.) A quick search of the Internet finds no encyclopedia-proper Creative Commons images of the cities whose images are currently fair use.
Then again, a number of Wikipedians here are Iranian--could someone perhaps upload self-taken photos to use?
Thanks, Wikiacc (?) 00:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: The three (out of eight) images that are fair use are of Karaj, Qom and Ahvaz. Wikiacc (?) 00:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So I take it that fair-use images are not acceptable, rationale or no rationale?--Zereshk 02:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are acceptable with a good rationale; however, it would be difficult to compose a sufficient rationale for these images, as they are not being discussed at length in the article. Wikiacc (?) 21:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cities photo gallery 

message: Thank God for such congressmen:  Viva Texas.--Zereshk 04:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear. SouthernComfort 05:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iran and a US Republican

message: ::All the beheadings, murder of foreign reporters, mosque bombings, and terrorist activities in Iraq are committed or sanctioned by Anglo-American occupation forces or Israel. Israel is very much so involved in North Iraq that is why there is new claims that Kurds and Jews are one and the same race by Israelis. This has resulte din an alliance between a very small minority of Iraqi Kurds and Israelis. Connect the dots with what is happening from Iraq to Iran.  
Here is proof:
British Special Forces Caught Carrying Out Staged Terror In Iraq?: Media Blackout Shadows Why Black Op Soldiers Were Arrested: USA, Information Liberation
[]
Britain "apologizes" for terrorist act in Basra; Rescue of SAS men who were planning to place bombs in Basra City Square: Global Research.ca, Center for Research on Globalization
[]
The next link is photographic evidence taken by Iraqi Police, before British Military attacked police station and freed the British terrorist operatives.
[]
Caught red-handed: The Raw Story, North America
[]
Troops free SAS men from jail: The Telegraph, United Kingdom
[]
Iran accuses UK of bombing link: BBC, United Kingdom
[]
Basra council severs relations with British: Daily Star, Lebanon
[]
Basra Council Cutting Ties with British: China Radio International (CRI), China
[]
69.196.139.250 04:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anglo-American Forces and Israel are fostering these artificual problems in Iran

message: Nowhere in the article (not even in the political section) is there any mention of the role Iran has played in the tension in the region. Setting aside any animosity with the west, Iran's nuclear aspirations have many nations in the region very uneasy, and for good reason. The ability to conduct nuclear warfare (in other words, the desire to create nuclear weapons) would have drastic ramifications and would completely reshape Iran's position of power in the region. It would stand to reason that SOMETHING should be mentioned in this article regarding such things. 
Iran now has nuclear weapons. Keeping with NPOV (That means not going off and calling people "terrorists", something should be written about this quickly-shifting tide of power. Never Cry Wolf 05:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Tensions? 

message: The Secretary General condemned Ahmadinejad's comments about its nearby neieghbors, so did the European Union and the United States. The EU ans the US have also recognized Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism. I hope this will change in the future so that all may live in peace.
:: If you put in something about terrorism, make sure that it's in the greater context of the region. Just up and calling a nation of people "terrorists" because of the comments of a single man is extremely POV and doesn't enlighten the reader about the greater conflict creeping into the nation. Never Cry Wolf 05:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism must be noted. 

message: Iran was called a state sponsor long before President Bush was elected to office. So please do not say this is something new!!
Also, please do not delete the fact that UN SG Annan condemned the comments made by Ahmadinejad about its nearby neighbors!
That is just selective history!!!
Wikipedia is truly being taken over by those who want only their opinions expressed, this is not the forum for that.
Wikipedia should be a place to state the facts.
Failure to mention condemnation by the Secretary General in my book is an absolute joke!
Fine, do not have talk of the decades long label of state sponsor of terror, but please don't say that it is a POV that SG Annan stated that the comments made by Ahmadinejad were shocking!
According to the United Nations press release, the Secretary-General was shocked to see the remarks attributed to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in which he reportedly cast doubt on the truth of the Holocaust and suggested that the State of Israel should be moved from the Middle East to Europe. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sgsm10258.doc.htm
It is relevant to state it, but not written in this lopsided manner, not in the introduction section, and perhaps not even in this article, but rather in an article about the politics of Iran-US.  Also, why did you erase every single, factual mention of Iran in the Pashtun article?Zmmz 05:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've taken the relevant portion of the article and created a more NPOV form of it; it is noted that even though the President of Iran has been very hostile, the politicians lower in the chain have been active in portraying Iran as a peaceful nation not interested in conflict. They've repeatedly had to restate his comments so as to avoid escalating tensions in the middle east. I've also restructured the article a slight bit, setting "pre revolution" and "post revolution" sections for easier reference/reading. Cheers! Never Cry Wolf 05:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So don't talk about it at all? Come on!! 

message: As those of you keeping up on all things Iran already know, Mahmoud went out and publicly stated (again) that Israel would be destroyed and that it would happen "soon". Words like "in a single blow" and "the storm" were used.
I'm sure that SOMEONE will attempt to jam a POV into the article and say that his remarks were connected to Iran's nuclear program, so I think it worthwhile to nip it in the bud here on the discussion page.
I think the viewpoint that Iran is preparing a nuclear strike against Israel might be a bit off-base. Let's look at the facts-
Mahmoud knows that Israel already has nukes (A LOT of them, as frightening as that sounds), so a nuclear strike against that nation would certainly result in annhilation of Iran (MAD is a rather frightening thing). He also must know that even if Iran were sucessful in launching a nuclear attack and survived, that instead of liberation, the region would be contaminated with deadly poisons and unliveable for generations to come, and indeed, the fallout would form a cloud that would likely destroy the very Palestine sliver that exists.
Even someone as hot-blooded as Mahmoud isn't going to obliterate both his own nation and the nation he wants to "liberate". Comments? Never Cry Wolf 11:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest remarks from Iran's President 

message: From the Library of Congress Country Study: "Over the centuries the Jews of Iran became physically, culturally, and linguistically indistinguishable from the non-Jewish population. The overwhelming majority of Jews speak Persian as their mother language, and a tiny minority, Kurdish."  SouthernComfort 17:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jews of Iran an ethnic group?

message: Dear editors, 
Aucaman has protected the Page on Persians because he claims that the source of the page is incorrect. Please visit the talk page on Persians and see for yourself. He wont cooperate and is giving bad atitude. Majority of editors on that page claim that the source is right but he just wont stop. SO please help. 
Thank you all,
Wikilo12 19:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Golbez protected it, not Aucaman, firstly. Secondly, I don't think that the Iran talk page is the appropriate place to be discussing his actions- if he's causing an edit war, I would recommend you alert the administrators regarding the matter instead of foffling up an army here. Yes, he's disputing text that came directly from Britannica, but that should be dealt with over there, not over here. Never Cry Wolf 08:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War zone : Persians