Talk:Persians/Archive 2

message: The large number of disambiguation links at the top of this article are not needed, because Persian is the disambiguation page for all the terms.  Persian links to this article, Parsis, and Persian Empire, which is why I removed those links - unneeded links are not needed, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation.  The link to Tajiks is appropriate to stay in, since it is not linked to at Persian.  However, I see the reason for linking to the other pages, but it might be better to link directly to Persian instead, which both reduces the number of unneeded links and gives a wider range of alternate meanings.  Thoughts? -- Natalya 17:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation links 

message: Both sides could you please tell me your point of view (with no personal attack to other) I couldn't get it from your comments, I've had an extensive study in Iranian history and if I wasn't a computer engineering I definitely would have been a Iranologist ! , jokes aside, I might be a help if you guys let me see your POV's. Amir86 18:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Mani and Aucaman 

message: what is the matter with the picture on this page? every time I visit it has changed and now it is totally gone!!
what is wrong with it?
Gol 02:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture which was up previously contained copyrighted elements which are not licensed for use on Wikipedia. Because our use here is merely decorative we can not claim fair use. A new collage which features only free images would be welcome. --Gmaxwell 03:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but that is by far the most volatile and uneducated comment I have ever read. The ethnicity and culture of the persians of from the time of the Achaemenids still exist to-day in Iran. Although it is true that many roots of Indo-Iranians exist in parts of europe, Asia, and Africa, it is even more true that Iran by far has the most connections to its past (PERSIA). --(Aytakin) | Talk 19:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture 

message: #In 651-671, Ziad settled a permanant garrison of 50,000 Arabs of Tamim and Bakr from Basrah and Kufa at Merv, which became the main center for defense and expansion on the north-eastern frontier (in Khorasan) Encyclopaedia Iranica, p.208, under Arab Conquest of Iran.
#Whereas Arab settlement in western and southren Iran tended to be relatively small, the colonization of eastern Iran (Khorasan) was both extensive and systematic. Tribesmen of Bakr bin Wael were established in Qohestan and garrisons of troops were certainly quartered at Nishapur and Merv.This policy can be explained in part as an effort to relieve the surplus population pressures in the Iraqi camp cities (Encyclopaedia Iranica, p.213). 
#In 730 CE, Jonayd bin Abd-al-Rahman sent 20,000 Arabs (half from Basrah and half from Kufa) to Khorasan. At the time of Qotayba bin Moslem governorship (early 8th century), there were 40,000 Basran, 7,000 Kufan troops in Khorasan, the Arabs coming from the tribes of Bakr, Tamim, Abd-al-Qays and Azd.
#Because of the distance from Iraq and the attractiveness of the country, large numbers of these soldiers acquired lands in villages throughout Khorasan, married local women or brought their families from Iraq, and settled permanently in the province. This implies that the Arab population in Khorasan must have been huge in comparison to that in western Iran. Even if the primary component of the Arab colony in Khorasan was limited to just the 50,000 families settled there by Rabi bin Ziad, the total Arab population would have to be estimated at close to a quarter of a million people.(Encyclopaedia Iranica, under Arab settlements in Iran,p.213).
#Because of the common danger on the Khorasani frontie, Iranians and Arabs overcame their initial antipathy and cooperated extensivle in military operations. In addition to military garrisons, the Arabs included merchants, artisans, religious scholars, landlords, peasants, beggards, vagabonds and badits. It was natural that in time these groups blended in with their Khorasani counterparts. These speacial circumstances in Khorasan, which integrated Arabs and Iranians into a common social fabric, facilitated the assimilation of Iranian culture by the Arabs and the gradual acceptance of much of Arab culture(above all the religion), by their Iranian subjects and peers..(Encyclopaedia Iranica, under Arab settlements in Iran,p.214). Heja Helweda 22:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this information under "mixing" of arabs and Persians? All it says is that there are Arab tribes, and they were in Iran at one point or another. There is no argument over the fact that Arabs exist in Iran. According to CIA worldbook, 3% of Iran is of Arab ethnicity. Now you can have all the wet dreams you want about some arabs and Iranians mixing, however it does not belong to Persian people article, I also recommend finding something else to do in your life beside wasting time. Thanks, --Kash 09:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Mixing of Persians and Arabs  and complete refutation 

message: #By 696, Arabs from the tribes of Rabia and Ejl were residing in Hamadan. The population of Qazvin seems to have been mainly Arab in the mid 9th century CE. Qom too became a predominantly Arab town: The Banu Asad moved to the Qom region during the revolt of Mokhtar bin Abi Obayda in 687 CE. Some of the Tamim established themselves in Jay(today Isfahan).
#During the Abbasid period many more Arabs moved into the eastern caliphate, especially into southern Persia.
#By the 10th century CE, most of the population of the town of Mahan, near Kerman had become Arab.
#Following the fall of the Abbasid dynasty, the flow of Arab immigrants into Persia gradually diminished, but nevertheless continued. In 1522, Shah Ismail I, gave lands in Khorasan and Fars province to refugees from the Ottoman Empire, including a group of Ghazali Arabs.
# In present-day Iran, there are still many families and tribes whose Arab origin can be traced. 
#There are several groups of Arabs in central Persia. In the late 1890s, Albert Houtum-Schindler wrote that certain families of Qom and Kashan call themselves Arabs, with very little semitic blood. 
#In his list of the tribes of the Tehran region, M. Kayhan included six of Arab origin: Arab Hajji Agha Soltani(700 families), Arab Koti(600 families), Arab Mishmast(200 families), Arab Halwai(250 families), Arab Shahnani(150 families) and Arab Kushkali.
#According to J.M.Jouanin, in the early 1800s, there was an Arab tribe by the name of Ardestani that lived in the Ardestan area, midway between Kashan and Nain, and comprised some 6,000 individuals. (Encyclopaedia Iranica, under Arab tribes of Iran, pp.215-217).Heja Helweda 23:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of mixing of Persians and Arabs , Part II 

message: #Khorasan has a large Arab population. Many Arabs have settled down near Shahrud, where the inhabitants are designated as Arab o Ajam(Arabs and Iranians). By 1875, they had intermarried so extensively with Iranians and even Turks that the three groups were undistinguishable in feature and language. This tribe was called Bastami and was said to comprise some 12,000 to 15,000 individuals in the early 1800s.
#Further east, there are Arabs in the west of Nishapur, and there is a tribe by the name of Il-e Arab in west of Sarakhs. In 1950s, there were still two villages in that district in which Arabic was spoken.
#There are Arabs around both Kashmar and Torbat-e Jam, most of whom are Arab Mishmat. In the 1890s, the Arabs of Torbat-e Jam totaled some 4,000 families.
#There are also Arabs in the vicinity of Torbat-e Haydari. According to local tradition, they are descendants of some 1,000 Arab families that Nader Shah transplanted to Khorasan.
#Futher south, a large group of Arabs resides in the vicinity of Ferdows. Jouannin estimated their number at upwards to 20,000.
#Finally, most of the inhabitants of the Dehestan of Arabkhana (pop. 10,598 in 1951), southwest of Birjand are Arab.
#G.N. Curzon asserted that the Timuri who lived in northwestern Afghanistan and in the rural districts of Jannatabad, Torbat-e Jam, Tayebad and Khaf on the Persian side of the Afghan border, are of Arab origin.
(Encyclopaedia Iranica, p.217, under Arab tribes of Iran)
Heja Helweda 23:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Mixing of Arabs and Persians, Part III 

message: #There are Arab tribes all along Iran's southern littoral. The most important are the Domuk, Ro'usa, Amrani, Obaydeli, Al-e Haram, Al-e 'Ali, Marzughi and Qawasim. The Domuk inhabit seven villages in Chah Kutah between Borazjan and Bushehr. In the early 1900s, they comprised 150 households. The Ro'usa inhabit 14 villages in an area extending from 11 km northwest of Khormoj(Bushehr province) to the mouth of the Mund river. In the early 1900s, they numbered some 1500 individuals.
#The Al-e Ali tribe live in the small seaports of Tabuna, Charak and Dovvan, on the Qays(Kish) Island, and on the Shibkuh coast west of Bandar Lenga. In the early 1900s, they numbered some 3,500 individuals.
# In the Fars province, there is a large Arab tribe, the Il-e Arab of the Khamsa tribal confederacy. They have their summer quarters in northeast of Shiraz and their winter quarters in Sarvestan, Lar and Furg. In the 1940s, the tribe comprised some 11,100 families.
#Two formerly independent Arab tribes in the Fars province, the Baha-al-dini and the Shiri, have by now absorbed by the larger groups, the first by the Qashqai trbe and the second by the Arab Khumsa tribe. 
#Jouanin mentions an Arab tribe by the name of Aghakhani which in the early 1800s, comprised some 20,000 individuals. Encyclopaedia Iranica, under Arab tribes of Iran, p.218-219). Heja Helweda 23:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of mixing of Persians and Arabs, Part IV 

message: #There are several Arab tribes in Kerman province. In the Sirjan region dwell the Ataallahi. Once numerous, they totaled some 6,000 individuals in the early 1800s. Also there are Arabkhani Sorkhi (250 families in 1930s), and Badui tribes (300 families in the 1930s). In the Pariz region are the Arab-e Hajji Hosayni who in 1920s numbered some 200 families.
#Jouannin cites an Arab tribe by the name of Kermani that comprised some 7,000 or 8,000 individuals in the early 1800s.
#Sedentary peasants and some 19th century travelers have given the name Araba to the majority of semi-nomadic tribes in the Tehran region. The Arabs seem to have established themselves long ago near the capital, Tehran, as is shown by the existence of a dehestan(village) to the south of Varamin named Behnam-e Arab. They were formerly numerous in the upper valleys of Karaj and Jajrud up to 1965. Their present summer quarters are in the high valley of Taleghan, in Larijan and in the mountains of Damavand.
#There is also another Arabic-speaking tribe inthe region of Tehran that of the Koti, originating from Shiraz. Some 300 families still move to the summer pastures in the upper valley of Lar. Several families have settled down on hill slopes in Damavand.(Encyclopaedia Iranica, under Arab tribes of Iran, pp. 219-220). Heja Helweda 23:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of mixing of Persians and Arabs, Part V 

message: Heja Helweda 23:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this information under "mixing" of arabs and Persians? All it says is that there are Arab tribes, and they were in Iran at one point or another. There is no argument over the fact that Arabs exist in Iran. According to CIA worldbook, 3% of Iran is of Arab ethnicity. Now you can have all the wet dreams you want about some arabs and Iranians mixing, however it does not belong to Persian people article, I also recommend finding something else to do in your life beside wasting time. Thanks, --Kash 09:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All these extensive mixing of Arabs and Persians deserve some mention in the article. 

message: If you found materials from credible sources who oppose these information please inform me. Amir85 6:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are you addressing and what are you talking about? AucamanTalk 11:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourced information 

message: Heja Helweda, Aucun, or other users; your Encyclopedia Iranica source is unverifiable.  I clicked on it, and an Adobe file opens.  A saved Adobe file is not a reliable source.  Do you have any authoritative sources like Encyclopedia Britannica, or the Columbia Encyclopedia?   Unfortunately I have to say, as to your statement that “Persians are mixed racially with Arabs” is inaccurate, as a matter of fact, it is false.  I am not sure which books and references you are reading, but they are certainly far from main stream beliefs.  Actually, out of all the invaders of Iran (Greeks etc.), it was [only] the Arabs that did not racially mix with Persians.  The reason for that is Islam strictly prohibits mixing racially with gentiles (non-Muslims).  Keep in mind, during the invasion Islam was at its beginning, so the fevers of fundamentalism must have been high, and Islamic laws more strictly followed.  This is actually one of the main reasons that the ancient land of Babylon slowly became an Arab country; Iraq.  Basically, the Caliphs and the rest stayed within the borders of Iran; mostly ruling from there.  This fact is mentioned in many Islamic literatures and along with the fact that even today, the over-whelming majority of Iranians ARE of their original ancestral roots: Persian, Gilaki, Tajik, Baluchi, Azari, and Kurds etc.  Even in the south, in cities like Khuzestan, they are mostly Persians.  So, I am not sure what gives when you imply they are many Arabs mixed with Iranians, and it [needs] to be mentioned in an article named `Persian People`?  
I also don’t get it that you and some others are actively trying to undermine the Indo-Aryan lineage of Iranians.  Good, or bad, and with all these different sub-ethnicities in Iran, the Aryans (Medes and others), nevertheless, [are] the ancestors of this country.  So, why do you feel you need to erase and rewrite this article? Zmmz 03:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  When some source does not suit our personal views, it is not appropriate to accuse the source. Instead think for a moment and try to make the article neutral.Heja Helweda 04:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for that is Islam strictly prohibits mixing racially with gentiles (non-Muslims). That's wrong. The third Imam, Imam Hussein married a Sassanids princess named Shahrbanou. Her shrine is around Tehran (Bibi Shahrbanou). The Arabs did mix both at the highest levels and also at the local level.Heja Helweda 04:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your source is fine, but you are quoting it out of context trying to imply something that is not true. Persians were not genetically changed by Arabs or anyone else. --ManiF 04:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where did I say they were genetically changed. I just said they mixed with Arabs, i.e., they intermarried, and it was the Arabs who were eventually assimilated in the Persian population not the other way around. (for the basic reason that Persians were the majority)Heja Helweda 04:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Adobe file is not a good reason to throw away a scholarly source.Heja Helweda 04:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem with defining Persians as a race is that you then have to genetically define them. Are Balochis part of the Persian "race"? It is a moot issue. Ahwazi Arabs of Khuzestan have some history of inter-marriage with Persian tribes such as the Bakhtiari who are also indigenous to that province. Are they Persian or Arab? Persian is a cultural and linguistic category, but Persia/Iran has always been multi-racial and more than just Pars.Insert formula here
They are identified first and foremost as Iranians; Persian is an English word causing slight confusions.Zmmz 19:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persians: No Evidence of Being Racially Mixed with Arabs 

message: If you don't like Iranians go and find something else to do, you keep coming here and trying to make our life difficult, but we will not give up. The truth is down in history and history will not be 'deleted' so give up, because WE WONT. --Kash 10:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Myself I'm half Kurdish, and I can assure you that I'm ashamed of the fact that the majority of the individuals continuously vandalizing these pages are Kurdish separatists (plus a few more religiously inspired and politically motivated individuals of Arab and Jewish ancestry) seeking to use wikipedia as a platform for their own political/racial/religious agendas. In the end, we have the necessary might and means to defend truth, objectivity, and history, and and we shall never give up. --ManiF 21:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also a lot of Iranians (such as myself) who don't blindly follow nationalistic race origin theories. I've been accused of being "anti-Iranian" here, but I think those self-appointed representatives of Iranians who are misrepresenting them are as anti-Iranian as one can be. Bad news for the real anti-Iranians: most Iranians today don't subscribe to racist theories imposed on them by outsiders. (Most of these theories about the origins the origins of Iranians were brought to Iran by Iranian scholars studying in Germany or German scholars visiting Iran.) AucamanTalk 04:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  STOP with the ANTI-Iranian POV  

message: I dont think there is any reason for having the word Farsi in the article especially in the beginning. The academic and standard name for the language in English is Persian and even if Farsi is to be mentioned it should be as an alternative, in parentheses perhaps, for Persian and not before the correct name. I have not removed it but I strongly suggest we do. 
Gol 04:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farsi  

message: These should have answered this illogic man called Aucaman, so hopefully even if he is not blocked and banned for his attacks, these arguments will not rise again. --Kash 00:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: END

message: Interesting map, based on genetic analysis: . Article is interesting too, if hard reading. Confirms findings of genetic mixing in Central Asia. Zora 00:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, even more interesting. Says that M-17 gene associated with Kurgan culture, spread of Indo-European languages, Iranians in the west of Iran are closer to Middle Eastern norm, low frequency of M-17 gene. Thus adopting language without as much intermarriage as one would expect -- or later admixture? Population profile for eastern Iran very different, suggests that central desert was a barrier to population exchange. Good idea to read Cavalli-Sforza book, if I can get hold of it ... Zora 00:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree that Western Iranian peoples generally tend to be distinct from Eastern Iranians. Some people here, however, are trying to introduce this word "Aryan" as a synonym for an "Iranian race" stretching from Tajikistan (see the Tajik people article) all the way to Turkey (see Kurdish people). This is totally wrong as the term Iranian peoples (whose contents are also highly disputable) is simply a linguistic categorization, not a racial one. AucamanTalk 00:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Please keep your original research out of wikipedia, it does not belong here. Keep your propoganda out. --Kash 00:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: An article  published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States is hardly an invalid source. Nor original research. Preferring a dictionary to an article on population genetics is bizarre reasoning, to say the least. Zora 01:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on ethnic variety  

message: As I pointed out before, in 8th century there were 250,000 Arabs living only in Khorasan region. Quarter of a million may seem like a small number nowadays, but in that period when the whole population of Iran was just a few million, it was a huge influx of people. Population of the world in 700 A.D. was just around 270 million (see the chart). The percentage of Persian population of Iran(almost 34.68 million ) to the world's population now (6.446 billion) is 34.68/6446= 0.00538008. So around 700 A.D., the Persian population of Middle East should have been around 0.00538008*270=1.453 million. So while there were 1.45 million people living in all of Persia, there were 250,000 Arabs' living only in Khorasan. That's a big chunk of the population. and this is without counting other Arabs living in other regions of Iran, like Qom, Qazvin, Hamadan. So the percentage of Arabs in that period would have been much higher than 250,000. This is something close to 15%-20% of the population of Persians. Heja Helweda 00:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While in general I would agree that was much intermarriage with Arabs, I must point out that any population estimates taken from old chronicles are suspect. Wild guesses in big round numbers that mean "many many". Zora 00:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: These are original research and do not belong to Wikipedia --Kash 00:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estimation of mixed populations  

message: This user has been reported to administrators, do not follow his propoganda and attacks on Iranian articles until it is checked. He removes vandalism reports on his talk page because he is scared that administrators are going to find out about his countless attacks and vandalisms. --Kash 00:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aucaman and his Anti-Iranian actions 

message: I've taken a look at Jayjg's contributions, and from what I've seen, he shares the same political, religious and ethnic interests, and quite possibly the same background, as Aucaman. I welcome Jayjg's opinions and contributions to this discussion as a user, but I think it would be better if the resolution of this conflict was left to other neutral administrations, who are neither sympathetic, nor empathetic to any of the parties involved in the matter.  There's a basic conflict of interests here. --ManiF 02:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that.Zmmz 02:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an admin, but I'm trying my best to help resolve this conflict (see the section above). You don't really need to be an admin to do that. The only difference between normal users and admins is that they have special privileges like the ability to block other users and protect pages. --Khoikhoi 02:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, clearly Jayjg is acting in the capacity of a moderator with the power to direct debate, grant the right to speak.  And I don't think that's appropriate, given my explanation above. --ManiF 02:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not "directed debate", nor "granted" any "rights to speak".  What is "clear" to you is, in reality, utter nonsense. Jayjg (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not a personal attack at all. It's just an observation that Jayjg and Aucaman obviously share a commonalty of interests and views. A mediator should be impartial toward all parties. --ManiF 03:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Administrator 

message: Aside from all the sources that were mentioned here by both groups, I just wanted to mention that the idea that the word “Aryan” is not in use anymore is not true. It is very much in use in Iran even in post revolutionary Iran. Iranians being of Aryan origin is thought in school to all the kids which is why it is hard for any of us to accept that this term is out of use since we have been using it all our lives. It was just last week that Iranian newspaper referred to Iranian soccer players as “the Aryan boys” 
As the result I completely disagree with removing the word Aryan. It can be mentioned in parentheses that what we mean is Indo Iranian or Indo European, which ever is more acceptable, and also a link to the page named “Aryan” so that the reader would know what is the real definition of Aryan but to remove it means removing the name that Iranian people very strongly identify with and consider it to be their race.
some people are afraid that it might sound racist. This is a childish complain. People are here to learn. The real meaning of the word Aryan was never meant to be racist and it has nothing to do with Hitler; readers should learn that. Instead of removing the term lets teach them that its real meaning was not at all about racism.
Gol 04:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of stuff taught in the books in Iran that are not true. (They say that Iran is a true democracy and that United States is a dictatorship ran by Zionists.... You wanna go ahead and add these information into the respective articles?). A lot of stuff were written during the Pahlavi regime to create a sense of nationalism to counterbalance the Mullah's religious beliefs. Some of them still remain today. It doesn't mean they're true. There are also a lot of Iranians (such as myself) who don't blindly follow nationalistic race origin theories. I've been accused of being "anti-Iranian" here, but I think those self-appointed representatives of Iranians are as anti-Iranian as one can be. Bad news for the real anti-Iranians: most Iranians today don't subscribe to racist theories imposed on them by outsiders. (Most of these theories about the origins the origins of Iranians were brought to Iran by Iranian scholars studying in Germany or German scholars visiting Iran.)AucamanTalk 04:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: OK let's forget about the school thing. You brought it up. The new regime has kept the word in the texts because it supports its anti-Israeli agenda. Why do you think Hitler liked the term? And how do you know that the word was used by the ancient kings of Iran? Where do you think that information is coming from? Germans were in charge of the archeological sites of Iran. People didn't know about the term until 19th century the earliest. Before that there were no systematic study of the ancient texts. These texts were then studied by Iranian scholars in the West and glorified as part of a nationalist campaign. As challenge, show me any example of the term being used by Iranians between the 10th century and 19th century. If the use is "widespread" among Persians you should be able to find something, no? The term stopped being used by Iranians after Islam and was re-introduced into the language in a racist-nationist manner. Doesn't belong to Wikipedia. AucamanTalk 05:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the term Aryan 

message: (from Sanskrit arya, noble), a people who, in prehistoric times, settled in Iran and northern India. From their language, also called Aryan, the Indo-European languages of South Asia are descended. In the 19th century the term was used as a synonym for “Indo-European” and also, more restrictively, to refer to the Indo-Iranian languages (q.v.). It is now used in linguistics only in the sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages (q.v.) . Heja Helweda 04:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indo-European is not an ethnicity. This term and Indo-Aryan should be used only for the language classification.Heja Helweda 04:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No, Iran means "land of Aryans" but the word Aryan here means "noble people". It has nothing to do with your interpretation of Aryan meaning Indo-Iranian. Two different things. I have no problem keeping the former one. AucamanTalk 04:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're trying to point to valid interpretations of the word "Aryan" to somehow justify its racist interpretation. Not going to work. AucamanTalk 04:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aryan in Encyclopaedia Britannica 

message: in the second paragrah it says Iran (Persian: land of Aryans).
This is wrong since Persia does not mean land of Aryans . Iran does. please remove that.
thank you
Gol 05:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's saying that "Iran" in the Persian language means "land of Aryans". --Khoikhoi 05:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Mistake 

message: All these talks are irrelevant. My problems are totally different from what you're discussing here. AucamanTalk 02:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop

message: the term aryan has no racist conotation in these countries, infact, it is a celebrated fact!  this article should mention the aryan origin of these people. there is nothing wrong with it.  kurds, tajiks, persians, talysh's, balouchi's, pashtuns, etc... are all iranic and therefore of aryan lineage.  in iran, the term has never been used to discriminate against non iranic peoples. iran has always been tolerant. we are not nazi germany! aryanism has never been used to put others down. we are of aryan origin, but none of us believe we are superior to others! as long as the article mentions that aryanism has not racial conotation to iranic peoples then everything should be fine. --Iranian Patriot.
:This is irrelevant to the discussions here. I'm claiming that the "Aryan" meaning "Indo-European" is no longer in technical use and I've provided plenty of evidence for it. AucamanTalk 01:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No you have not. You have provided two dictionaries, its WE who have provded many many clear evidence. --Kash 01:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've provided evidence for what? That Aryan means Indo-European? AucamanTalk 01:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aryan has no racist meaning in Iran or Tajikistan or any other places where Iranic People live 

message: My basic question is still not answered. Do you have any scholarly sources (even if it's Persian) that say Aryan means Indo-Iranian? Internet websites don't count as scholarly sources. All the sources I have provided are also available in print and are well-known. I can find you websites on the internet that say all Aryan people have blue eyes and blond hair. You want to add this in also??? Only scholarly sources please. AucamanTalk 05:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Refer to the quotes from Encyclopedia Britannica, below this section. --ManiF 05:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: --I apologies, I must have pressed a button on accident. I was typing a message and then the next thing I saw was a blank page. What button did I press? I was wondering what happened myself. Like I have said before, I am new here and dont know how everything works, that is why I have refrained from editing any articles.  Again I apologise, it was not done on purpose. --Iranian Patriot.
:No problem. AucamanTalk 05:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My apologies 

message: Because of the controversy over the ethnic/racial meaning of the word Aryan and conflicting sources, I suggest to include both sides of the argument in the article. So the old sentences implying ethnic/racial origin of Persians and Iranians can stay, but sources that negate this argument should also be mentioned. In this way, the average reader will know that there is controversy around the issue.Heja Helweda 23:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the argument is not wether the aryan origin is correct or not. the argument is that acuman says that it is outdated and racist, while we are telling him that it is not. Iranian Patriot 00:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the most valid and up-to-date sources which clearly argue persians be decendant of any Aryan (linguistic term) speaking tribes. In fact persians with majority of peoples of Middle East are decendant of a very ancient various large group (maybe tens thousands years) before arrival of the mythical aryan invasion. The Aryan invasion in ancient Iran is was a lie. there only was small immigrations wich due to its reasons caused a language replacement/heavily influence.Diyako Talk + 01:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Kurds are a mixed people. That has already been addressed in the Kurds article.Heja Helweda 20:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't worry, you'll get used to this sort of patronizing and condescending attitude. Most people on WP aren't like that though. I'm an American, born and raised, third generation, most everything that I've learned about the history of Iran came from my university education and Western texts, and yet, according to her paragraph above, "authority figures" with "nationalistic political reasons" in my life must have brainwashed me. It's all very bizarre and surreal, to be sure, but in time it all just goes through one ear and out the other. SouthernComfort 06:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I suggest to include both sides of the argument 

message: ,, ,, ,  ,, , , ).
Diyako Talk + 06:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you serious? None of those are even academic. At least bother yourself to find an encyclopedia entry or something to back up your use of "Farsi" as an ethnic term. Oh, but I don't think you'll find one, since it's not a standard or common (or proper) usage. So sorry. SouthernComfort 06:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not ask for moving or renaming the page. I just wanted to prove that the native name for your ethnicity in your own language is Fars I 'm not sure why some people refuse that?! Is it a bad word?. Diyako Talk + 20:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In Iran, we are not generally called 'Fars'..we are called 'Irani', thats why. In English, Its 'Persian' as far as most sources e.g CIA-world fact book call the major ethnicity of Iran 'Persian'. --Kash 22:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Fars" native name for Persian people

message: :Would you accept a wording similar to
:: Proto-Indo-Iranians, historically also referred to as Aryan (arya-), a name still in modern use in Iran and India ...
: somewhere in the article?
: see #Mediation --Fasten talk|med 19:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I still don't have an answer to the question I posed above. As for your question, the answer is yes, but I don't see how such a sentence is related to an article on modern Persian people and their culture. In most cases, people all talking about Iranians - not Indo-Iranians in general. AucamanTalk 21:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think saying " Proto-Indo-Iranians, historically also referred to as Aryan (Aryan-), a name still in modern use in Iran and India ... " is really a compromise, as we have provided countless sources that many western dictionaries and encyclopedias use the term "Aryan" in relation to Iran and Iranians. --ManiF 06:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They have to give the older terms because the readers consulting them might be looking up a word they found in an 1830 publication! The terms in use in academia today are Indo-Aryan (for the Sanskrit branch of the language}, PIE (proto-Indo-European) for the ancestral language, and by many scholars, Kurgan culture as the archaeologically verified culture most likely to have spoken PIE and spread to Europe and Central Asia. Not universally agreed, however. Aryan is deprecated in mainstream academic publications. That it is still used in India and Iran has more to do with nationalism as well as the state of academia in those countries. Zora 06:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have already given you numerous refrrences; please refer to the below section.  With all due respect, stop filling these discussion pages with rhetoric, this is not a political platform.  You are driving away some editors that have something legitimate to contribute to Wikipedia.Zmmz 07:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aryan is NOT "deprecated in mainstream academic publications", numerous references have been given that the term is still used by the latest editions of many scholarly sources in reference and relation to Iran and Iranians. --ManiF 10:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You may think that encyclopedias are the last word in wisdom, but academics don't. Please try reading some archaeology, historical linguistics, history, cultural anthropology, and historical population genetics. Zora 00:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Aryan 

message: Stop dodging the question. I'm the one who put in the dispute tag and I'm not going to remove it until my concerns are addressed. AucamanTalk 11:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you have hopelessly confused everything and everyone, please explain again what it is exactly that you are disputing? SouthernComfort 11:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: You're dodging the question

message: Here is one the definitons of the word Aryan by Oxford dictionary, “The restricted use rests on the ground that only the ancient Indian and Iranian members of the family are known on historical evidence to have called themselves Aria, Arya or Ariya; the wider application rests partly on the inference that the name probably belonged in pre-historic times to the whole family, while this still constituted an ethnic and linguistic unity; and partly on the ground that even if it did not, it is now the most convenient and least misleading name for the primitive type of speech from which all the languages above-mentioned have sprung, inasmuch as Indo-Germanic is too narrow, and Indo-European too wide, for the facts, while Japhetic introduces speculations of which science has no cognizance”.Zmmz 03:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of Aryan According to Dictionaries and Encyclopedias

message: Please follow this link to view evidence that are being brough to the attention of the Arbitration Committee.  Than youZmmz 22:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence of Disputed Behaviour by User Aucaman