Talk:Iranian peoples/Archive 2

message: AucamanTalk 14:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

message: Really Aucaman? Please explain :) Smitz 11:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, really. This is the first source in the Aryan article. See how it says the phrase is "no longer in technical use"? That's what I was referring to. Even when it was used in the technical sense (which is no longer acceptable), the term was used to refer to the ethnicity of the Proto-Indo-Iranians (even this by itself is controversial). The Proto-Indo-Iranians lived more than 4,000 years ago. The modern Iranians have very little to do with the Proto-Indo-Iranians in terms race or ethnicity. To somehow try to re-introduce the word Aryan as the race or ethnicity of the modern Iranians is neither acceptable nor accurate. Where are the sources for this anyway? AucamanTalk 13:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think we are supporting racism by writing pages about Aryans or Iranian people. see above for my viewpoints. --Gorbeh15:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I just want to know why people are throwing around the word "Aryan" without knowing what it means. AucamanTalk 16:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About the word Aryan: I think it is a victim of politics. The word did exist before Hitler. And it did not carry with itself anything indicating that such people are nice or beautiful or have high quality genes! Inversely there were a lot of sources saying that they were dark skin people. However Hitler abused the word. and when Iranian recieved his ideas they were surprised how nice this race was and they were unaware of it. Anyway, I think the reason that the word is not used is simply political and to suppress neo-Nazis. If there were not these neo-nazis in europe, the word would come back to academia.--Gorbeh17:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read what I said. The word has nothing to do with modern "Iranians". It is used to refer to people who lived MORE THAN 4,000 years ago. There's no genetic or ethnic relation. Even if the word hadn't been corrupted by Nazis, it still wouldn't apply to the modern Iranians. The point I'm trying to make is that most of this article is personal opinion and research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. AucamanTalk 19:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also take a look at these ., and maybe also the references therein. The word is still in academic use. It is related to the words Iran and Iranian, but of course there is not necessarily an ethnic relation to all Iranians of today. Shervink 19:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  To Aucaman: Who defines academia ? When we are talking on a subject e.g. Persian literature, american universities or encyclopedia britannica are not in a position to say what should be in use and what not. We should see whether the term is also in use in our academia or not. I also did not say that modern Iranians are or are not aryans. I am just saying that the word is out of in the west due to political issues and nazism. The word Iran literary means "land of Aryan". So discussing such issue is completely relevant here. --Gorbeh20:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It means land of Aryans, but who said Aryan is an ethnicity? Aryan means "noble". Is "noble" an ethnicity or people? And no, you have not produced any paper by any academic source that says Aryan is an ethnic group. Aryan is a self-designation meaning "noble". Your insistence to use this word in other contexts without much reason only further proves your bias. Read WP:NOR. Where are the sources of your information? You're supposed to do your research first then cite them here, not the other way around. AucamanTalk 02:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I never said Aryan refers to an ethnic group (a well defined genetic pool). I am not at expert in the field. I personally think this is a very difficult subject (or even impossible) for today's researchers to investigate this issue genetically. I have only said it is not about racism in our context. Today the word "Aryan" is only a name like "OXFORD" or "KURD" for instance. When you are using the word "Kurd" or "Oxford", you do not have even in mind what is the literary meaning of the words. Today, the words are only names. When an iranian uses the word aryan, it does not bring to mind its very original meaning. It is just a name. --Gorbeh08:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Aryan' is a racist word? 

message: A search in the Encyclopaedia Iranica about the word Iranian people brings up several pages. The first one is an article on the roots of the word Arya (pp. 681-683) under the entry 
Arya. On page 682, after discussing the roots of the word Arya, it says :
No decision has yet been reached regarding the earlier meaning of the Iranian and Indian words. No evidence for such an Indo-European ethnic name has been found.
The other articles that contain Iranian people in this Encyclopaedia are  articles related to Buddhism , ,  and . But the term Iranian people just appears in the title of those articles, and the author does not specify what he/she means by the term. So Encyclopaedia Iranica does not support the claims in this article. I suggest a merge with Iranian Demographics or Iranian languages, and removing all ethnic references. Heja Helweda 02:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopaedia Iranica and "Iranian people" 

message: #Firstly, the very fact that E.I. decides to use the term "Iranian people" in its title 5 times is enough by itself to discredit your claims.
#You didnt read E.I. carefully. It doesnt say evidence for the word Aryan does not exist. It says evidence of the "earlier meaning" and "IndoEuropean meaning" does not exist. Youre quoting out of context. On the contrary, the start of the same paragraph reads "these facts are undisputed". Which facts?....the facts above it about the name Aryan and its usage.
#The very first sentence when defining "Arya" on p681 says: "Arya: An ethnic epithet". Paragraph 4 starts: "The same ethnic concept was later used..."
#Even (and that's a far cry) if you were to prove that it is not an ethnic term, so what? The article says "cultural" and "linguistic" traits define the Iranian people. You cant ignore the cultural traits in favor of the linguistic ones. That's POV. Because Frye argues exactly against that.
#And even if that's not enough, Heja, Diyako, and Aucaman are outnumbered. Wikipedia's policy specifically mention "consensus" as a yardstick in disputes.
Look. Im sorry. But you just cant erase something like "Iranian people". It's too well established to expunge.--Zereshk 05:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Heja misquotes E.I. (psst..it's called lying)

message: http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/pages/I/R/Iranianpeoples.htm
—Preceding unsigned comment added by ManiF (talk • contribs) 
:::Thank you for your help.
The east Aryan group of peoples of the Indo-European family that today inhabit Iran, Soviet Central Asia and Transcaucasia, Afghanistan, and parts of Pakistan, Turkey, and Iraq. In ancient times they also inhabited southeastern Europe.
::It almost claims the same definition which i had suggsted except use of the word of Aryan that currently there is a dipute ongoing for this word by some other  user.
::Diyako Talk + 14:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, its from the Aryan invasion theory.. Indo referring to Indo-Iranian (which may be called East Aryan) and European (e.g. Scandinavians). --Kash 20:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian peoples 

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 00:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one denies the "mix" of Arabs, Turks, Indians, Persians, and so forth. But the numbers you have posted are NOTHING compared to the large Persian nation that already existed. Even if you put the number of Arabs in Khorasan to 1.000.000, it would be still very very small. Tajik 23:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Mixing of Persians and Arabs   

message: Due to the extensive inter-marriage and mix of Arabs and Persians, at least one paragraph must be devoted to these ethnic mixing.Heja Helweda 00:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You posted the exact thing on the Persians article and now here. This is getting extremley annoying and soon we will confront it much quickly. 
In short: These quotes which you spent your time getting, about Arab soldiers who stayed in Iran after the conquest, they do not bring in any evidence about the extensive inter-marriage of Arabs and Persians. Basically, there are 3% Arab ethnic in Iran, and sure I agree there have been some inter-marriages, but if this is so it does not bring any significant and useful information to the article, because there were also many Greek, Mongol, Turkish, Indian, Russian, and even American and British!, etc etc soldiers who also stayed in Iran after their wars and invasions and settled down and inter-married with Iranians.
If you would like, I suggest you start an article about these intermarriages, and use genetic studies to support your claims, however these would be original research and will not be acceptable in Wikipedia. --Kash 16:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Why is "mating behaviour" relevant? --Cool CatTalk|@ 23:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not. It is only because these Anti-Iranians who are trying their best to include these unrelevant information as well as many attempts to stop Iranians contributing to their articles. It is quite funny actually how they claim all Iranian wikipedians who contribute are 'nationalists - EXTREMISTS'!! it is dissapointing to see how much time is wasted because of 3 or 4 people on so many different Iranian articles, but they can't change history, and Iranians will fight back to keep things accurate. Shame its got to this --Kash 01:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persians and Arabs 

message: I'm leaving this discussion, probably Wikipedia as a whole, for a while. I think the current dispute is the best demonstration of the inherent problems of an open encyclopedia. Discussing with these anti-Iranians is simply not worth my time. I'd rather forget about the idea of relying on something like Wikipedia as a source of information. It was a worthwhile experience, and I might get back to it now and then. But I think we can see here that an open encyclopedia is simply a lousy idea. Whenever it gets to a topic which is a little sensitive, for political, religious, cultural, or whatever other reasons, such a medium can simply not be trusted. That is what I take as my Wikipedia experience's conclusion. Wikipedia is turning from a source of information to a medium for people who are too uneducated to be taken seriously elsewhere. As you can see on my page, I believe in the motto Truth is strongest. My conclusion today is that this does not hold for Wikipedia. Shervink 19:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Leaving

message: :: Quarter of a million is 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 20% of the population of Persians, i.e., almost 20% of Persians have Arab ancestry. Heja Helweda 00:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estmation of number of Persian people of Arab ancestry 

message: The last version by Dbachmann was fine as it was well organized and explained everything necessary to understand about the IRanian peoples. What can still be disputed at this point? It states all of the various types of Iranian peoples and within what context and specifies the primary linguistic link. Its fine the way it is. Tombseye 02:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Tombseye. These users think people are their enemies. Here this uncited section which I disagreed with  Thus, not unlike the previous example of Germanic peoples involving the English, who are of mixed Germanic and Celtic origin, Iranian is an ethno-linguistic group and the Iranian peoples display varying degrees of common ancestry and/or cultural traits that denote their respective identities. and the other one the section which Heja helweda added and was well-cited but this user reverted the first one and remove the other one. I add dispute tag removes! Please help! Thanks you.
Diyako Talk + 02:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to see that you're back Tombseye. The Iranian editors have been having a huge dispute with Diyako, Heja, and Aucaman recently. It's a really long story, with one group calling the others anti-Iranian, and...well it's a really long story. See the huge discussion on Talk:Persian people for example. --Khoikhoi 02:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is everyone still arguing over this page?

message: However, the use of the word Ārya or Aryan to designate the speakers of all Indo-
European (IE) languages or as the designation of a particular "race" is an aberration of many
writers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and should be avoided .Heja Helweda 04:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aryan should not be used as a racial term 

message: Can somebody outline what is really disputed in the article, can lessed tags be used (as , , , , etc. be used (see Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes)? Please outline the dispute matter using the section bellow. Please avoid personal attacks and also forget the conflicts you could help in the past or over the other articles. Here we want to improve the article Iranian people
We did not need the tag, and every single info is factual in there.Zmmz 04:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do we really need '''Totally disputed''' tag?

message: ===The article should be labelled Totally Disputed because:===
# It uses the term Aryan in a racial sense, which according to recent academic sources should be avoided (, p.3, last paragraph). The term Aryan is now used in linguistics only in the sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages Encyclopaedia Britannica.Heja Helweda 04:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not an expert on the matter, but Wikipedia used Aryan and Indo-Aryans as the main title for the ancient people. Proto-Indo-Iranian is just a redirect to Proto-Indo-Iranian language. I would think we should use the main title of the correspondent articles unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. abakharev 05:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately Alex, you're only hearing one side of the story. Diyako doesn't believe that the term "Iranian peoples" exists, something that is disputed by virtually all the Iranian editors here. They resent the fact that he has tried to get this page deleted in the past, and they even more resent what they see as an "anti-Iranian" campaign by Diyako, User:Heja Helweda, and User:Aucaman. Remember, I'm trying to remain neutral, but I'm also just trying to explain the Iranian editors' point of view. Anyways, another issue is with Aucaman and the Iranian editors. Aucaman believes that the word Aryan, because of its Nazi connections, should not be used on Wikipedia. However, the Iranian and Indian editors point out that although the word is racist in Europe and America, it isn't in the Middle East and India, it's a part of their culture. See the Aryan article for more details. It's something similar to the swastika. In places like Korea you can find it all over the place above Buddhist temples. Anyways, that's my explanation on the the Iranian editors' side, and I hope that you'll understand that this situation is a lot more complicated than it looks. See Talk:Kurdish people for example. --Khoikhoi 05:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Khoikhoi, I am listening everybody who care to tell their position and to not attack the others. I am possibly the least knowledgeble on the matter of all the other invlolved editors, but at least I think I am neutral. Thanks for the background. abakharev 06:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Dear Aucaman, The word Aryan has been used by Iranians since ancient times. Hehe have you confused yourself? The words are similar in meaning, Iran is only a short from Iran-Shahr or Land of Aryans. The words Iran and Aryan are similar in meaning. I think where the name comes from is extremley important in this case, so people like you would learn and understand the importance of Aryanism in Iran. --Kash 10:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ongoing Dispute

message: # It uses the term Aryan in a racial sense, which according to recent academic sources should be avoided (, p.3, last paragraph). The term Aryan is now used in linguistics only in the sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages Encyclopaedia Britannica.Heja Helweda 04:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The article should be labelled '''Totally Disputed''' because:

message: # I propose to remove the word Aryan as the ethnic/racial origin of these people, and explain in one or two lines that the term Aryan is used only as a linguistics classification.Heja Helweda 05:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not an expert on the matter, but Wikipedia used Aryan and Indo-Aryans as the main title for the ancient people. Proto-Indo-Iranian is just a redirect to Proto-Indo-Iranian language. I would think we should use the main title of the correspondent articles unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. abakharev 05:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Solutions

message: I searched under [Iran], and invite everyone to check out the links.  The results are; in the Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries, Columbia Encyclopedia, and Encyclopedia Britannica, they all said the same thing; they never mention the term is outdated here, not even a footnote.  By the way Iran means `Land of Aryans`.  Should they change that too, because you are sensitive to the word Aryan?  Under Aryan, Encyclopedia Britannica says,  “(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…...”.  But, know your limits, and [do not try] to come up with new names telling a race what to call itself.Zmmz 04:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately Alex, you're only hearing one side of the story. Diyako doesn't believe that the term "Iranian peoples" exists, something that is disputed by virtually all the Iranian editors here. They resent the fact that he has tried to get this page deleted in the past, and they even more resent what they see as an "anti-Iranian" campaign by Diyako, User:Heja Helweda, and User:Aucaman. Remember, I'm trying to remain neutral, but I'm also just trying to explain the Iranian editors' point of view. Anyways, another issue is with Aucaman and the Iranian editors. Aucaman believes that the word Aryan, because of its Nazi connections, should not be used on Wikipedia. However, the Iranian and Indian editors point out that although the word is racist in Europe and America, it isn't in the Middle East and India, it's a part of their culture. See the Aryan article for more details. It's something similar to the swastika. In places like Korea you can find it all over the place above Buddhist temples. Anyways, that's my explanation on the the Iranian editors' side, and I hope that you'll understand that this situation is a lot more complicated than it looks. See Talk:Kurdish people for example. --Khoikhoi 05:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Khoikhoi, I am listening everybody who care to tell their position and to not attack the others. I am possibly the least knowledgeble on the matter of all the other invlolved editors, but at least I think I am neutral. Thanks for the background. abakharev 06:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: This is actually true, but do people here know what "cognate" is referring to? The word "Aryan" is found in the Rig Veda and Indo-Aryans used it a lot. The word Iran is the cognate - i.e., the related word in Iranian languages. I suggest we change the sentence to: "The word Iranian has been used by Iranians since ancient times. It's a self-designation meaning 'noble people'." Any thoughts? The fact that Iran is a cognate of Aryan is not related to this article. It belongs to the Aryan article. AucamanTalk 05:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Aucaman, The word Aryan has been used by Iranians since ancient times. Hehe have you confused yourself? The words are similar in meaning, Iran is only a short from Iran-Shahr or Land of Aryans. The words Iran and Aryan are similar in meaning. I think where the name comes from is extremley important in this case, so people like you would learn and understand the importance of Aryanism in Iran. --Kash 10:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iran is a cognate of Aryan

message: Hopefully everyone considers Britannica to be a legitimate enough. Right?
“The Persians, Kurds, and speakers of other Indo-European languages in Iran are descendants of the Aryan tribes that began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the 2nd millennium BC”
Here is the link
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-230041?query=in%20Iran%20are%20descendants%20of%20the%20Aryan%20tribes&ct=
(With ManiF permission)
Gol 05:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britannica 

message: It appeares that there are a few almost non-related disputes around this article. I will try to outline all of them. Lets correct me if I am wrong. Let us discuss them separately, hear all the arguments, them have a straw poll. If the straw poll will be inconcusive, lets have a formal RfC over the matter. abakharev 13:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute. Continuing

message: The article thrice mention Aryans as the common ancestors of the Iranian people and twice uses the term Indo-Aryans. Once it put an explanation to the word Aryan as Proto-Indo-Iranians. Some editors state that because of Nazi abused the term Aryan, it should not be used outside the word Indo-Aryan, otherwise it would hurt feelings of Jews. I am personally been a half-Jewish myself don't have  my feelings hurt, but that is probably just me. Can we somehow check if the term hurts feelings? Maybe we should find a reference about it or ask on the Judaica portal?
===Solutions:===
====Leave Aryans in the article====
Pro: 
*Seems to be title of the main article about these people on Wiki
*Used in many references including Brittanica
*Name is used by the ancestors of these people
*Short and understandable
Contra: 
*Encyclopaedia Britannica, Aryan is now used in linguistics only in the sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages.
*(Autochthonous Aryans?, By Michael Witzer, Harvard University, p.3, last paragraph),The use of the word Arya or Aryan to designate the speakers of all Indo- European (IE) languages or as the designation of a particular "race" is an aberration of many writers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and should be avoided.
*Aryan as a race or language, By David Frawley, American Institute of vedic Studies: In Vedic literature, Aryan is not the name of the Vedic people and their descendants. It is a title of honor and respect given to certain groups for good or noble behavior. In this regard even the Buddha calls his teaching Aryan, Arya Dharma; the Jains also call themselves Aryans, as did the ancient Persians. For this reason one should call the Vedic people simply the "Vedic people" and not the Aryans. 
*India through the Ages: It is notable that in the Vedas, the word Arya is never used in a racial or ethnic sense. It is still used by Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Zoroastrians, as to mean "noble" or "spiritual". Heja Helweda 00:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been no Jews showing any interest in the matter at all. This could be because of the fact that it has nothing to do with Nazi Germany (Obivous) --Kash 20:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: what do you mean does not hurt feelings? there are way many more Iranian editors concerned on this topic. On the mediation here majority if not everyone are pro using such term. So basically, it does not have any pro but a victory for a bunch of Anti-Iranians, yes great solution --Kash 20:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aryans

message: ====Leave Aryans in the article====
Pro: 
*Seems to be title of the main article about these people on Wiki
*Used in many references including Brittanica
*Name is used by the ancestors of these people
*Short and understandable
Contra: 
*Encyclopaedia Britannica, Aryan is now used in linguistics only in the sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages.
*(Autochthonous Aryans?, By Michael Witzer, Harvard University, p.3, last paragraph),The use of the word Arya or Aryan to designate the speakers of all Indo- European (IE) languages or as the designation of a particular "race" is an aberration of many writers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and should be avoided.
*Aryan as a race or language, By David Frawley, American Institute of vedic Studies: In Vedic literature, Aryan is not the name of the Vedic people and their descendants. It is a title of honor and respect given to certain groups for good or noble behavior. In this regard even the Buddha calls his teaching Aryan, Arya Dharma; the Jains also call themselves Aryans, as did the ancient Persians. For this reason one should call the Vedic people simply the "Vedic people" and not the Aryans. 
*India through the Ages: It is notable that in the Vedas, the word Arya is never used in a racial or ethnic sense. It is still used by Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Zoroastrians, as to mean "noble" or "spiritual". Heja Helweda 00:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been no Jews showing any interest in the matter at all. This could be because of the fact that it has nothing to do with Nazi Germany (Obivous) --Kash 20:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Solutions:

message: Pro: 
*Seems to be title of the main article about these people on Wiki
*Used in many references including Brittanica
*Name is used by the ancestors of these people
*Short and understandable
Contra: 
*Encyclopaedia Britannica, Aryan is now used in linguistics only in the sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages.
*(Autochthonous Aryans?, By Michael Witzer, Harvard University, p.3, last paragraph),The use of the word Arya or Aryan to designate the speakers of all Indo- European (IE) languages or as the designation of a particular "race" is an aberration of many writers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and should be avoided.
*Aryan as a race or language, By David Frawley, American Institute of vedic Studies: In Vedic literature, Aryan is not the name of the Vedic people and their descendants. It is a title of honor and respect given to certain groups for good or noble behavior. In this regard even the Buddha calls his teaching Aryan, Arya Dharma; the Jains also call themselves Aryans, as did the ancient Persians. For this reason one should call the Vedic people simply the "Vedic people" and not the Aryans. 
*India through the Ages: It is notable that in the Vedas, the word Arya is never used in a racial or ethnic sense. It is still used by Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Zoroastrians, as to mean "noble" or "spiritual". Heja Helweda 00:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been no Jews showing any interest in the matter at all. This could be because of the fact that it has nothing to do with Nazi Germany (Obivous) --Kash 20:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Leave Aryans in the article

message: Pro: 
*Does not hurt feelings 
:what do you mean does not hurt feelings? there are way many more Iranian editors concerned on this topic. On the mediation here majority if not everyone are pro using such term. So basically, it does not have any pro but a victory for a bunch of Anti-Iranians, yes great solution --Kash 20:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change Aryans to [[Proto-Indo-Iranians]]

message: The article has 8 inline references and 11 External links. Seems to be not bad but allegedly many info are either not referenced or referenced to dubious sources.
===Solution===
Please outline dubious places in the text, so we can look for the sources abakharev 13:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiability

message: Please outline dubious places in the text, so we can look for the sources abakharev 13:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Solution

message: The article formatted as an article for an ethnic group, including the infobox. Potentially it may be considered as some endorsement to the Greater Iran idea or as a call for the separatism, etc.
I have looked on Wikipedia for the similar language group like Arab, Slavic peoples, Turkic peoples, Germanic people. The last article is missing all together, Arab is formatted very similar to the Iranian people (including the controversial infobox)), Slavic and Turkic peoples are formatted without the infobox.abakharev 13:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Impression that Iranian people is a nation, not a language group

message: Pro:
*That info box does not belong here. Iranian peoples are not an ethnic group. They are several different ethnicities speaking different languages. Also the article Arabs is not a good example, The correct example is Semitic peoples. Diyako Talk + 20:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: =Removing the infobox 

message: SEE AND COMMENT HERE.
THERE IS NO POINT TO DO THIS OVER AND OVER. IF YOU HAVE ANY ARGUMENT AGAINST THE USE OF THE WORD ARYAN IN THE FORM OF RACE OR ANY OTHER, PLEASE STATE IT THERE. '''
 
Thanks! --Kash 01:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WE SHALL NOT REPEAT OUR SELVES 

message: *Encyclopaedia Britannica, which clearly says: Aryan is now used in linguistics only in the sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages.
*(Autochthonous Aryans?, By Michael Witzer, Harvard University, p.3, last paragraph), which says:The use of the word Arya or Aryan to designate the speakers of all Indo- European (IE) languages or as the designation of a particular "race" is an aberration of many writers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and should be avoided.
*Aryan as a race or language, By David Frawley, American Institute of vedic Studies: In Vedic literature, Aryan is not the name of the Vedic people and their descendants. It is a title of honor and respect given to certain groups for good or noble behavior. In this regard even the Buddha calls his teaching Aryan, Arya Dharma; the Jains also call themselves Aryans, as did the ancient Persians. For this reason one should call the Vedic people simply the "Vedic people" and not the Aryans. 
*India through the Ages: It is notable that in the Vedas, the word Arya is never used in a racial or ethnic sense. It is still used by Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Zoroastrians, as to mean "noble" or "spiritual". Heja Helweda 06:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And this is the clarification of aryan in the artice: Aryan is a linguistic term that refers to an ancient language group that was ancestral to the Indo-European family of languages.   Diyako Talk + 06:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Aryans came about 2000 B.C. and split into two main groups, the Medes and the Persians. . That's from the Columbia Encyclopedia. There's plenty more where that came from. SouthernComfort 06:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright, let's be clear on this - you agree that the Iranian peoples are descended from the ancient Aryan tribes? Nevermind. It's fine, Diyako, you don't have to agree with anything and I'm not going to try to convince you. But many academic sources are available that clearly state that the Iranian peoples are primarily descended from the ancient Aryan tribes and indigenous peoples of the Iranian plateau. SouthernComfort 06:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Southerncomfort. Those sources as far as I know are on country of Iran and its people. an ethnic group who has unknown ethnic origins can easily named Iranian origin. but it does not mean it has the same ancestors as persians do Diyako Talk + 07:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry ZmmZ your comment belongs to talk page of Persian people not here please move it.Diyako Talk + 07:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, This is your POV please have a look at my sourcesDiyako Talk + 07:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, Here we need mediation. I ask all admins judge. Your sources are about Iran and people living in Iran, only a small minority of Kurds live in Iran. Mine are directly on Kurds. We need medoationDiyako Talk + 07:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not say Kurds are pure. I say ethnically they are not Iranian. their ethnic origins are unknown and they are close to Iranians not completely Iranian as article claims now. I just want it be clarified in the article. I could do it without this long discussion but did not. and please do not change the matter, I discuss people from Fars in the article persian people not here.Diyako Talk + 08:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "dispute" is politically motivated, the current version of "history" is based on facts and should remain the way it is. --ManiF 20:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence against ethnic use of the term Aryan

message: Ah...Diyako, just as I suspected.  So, that`s what this is all about.  About the Kurds.  Hhmm, well you Diyako have almost entirely devoted your edits to articles involving the Kurds.  Heja Helwelda has almost a 98 percent edit history in articles involving the Kurds.  And, you guys have brought in all these Iranian, and other editors, that are forced to defend all these hypothesis and allegations made against these articles about Iran.  I also noticed that Heja Helwelda had made 3/4 of the history section that you guys are now disputing in this article about a genetics study involving the Kurds.  I personally erased that because it did not belong here, in an article about Iranian people, and it also did not have authoritative refrences---and then after I did that, a war ensued.  NOW, it is all starting to make more sense.Zmmz 08:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have stated my concerns completely. Maybe you do not understand my words. So I'm going to leave the discussion for other neutral wikipedians such as admins who had watched the discussion. It is not guilt to write on your people and homeland.Diyako Talk + 08:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I do not think so. I'm not a nationalist (although being a nationalist does not mean bad thing) but here I never want and never can push my POV. Also in the genetic article we do not claim any thing we only reflex results of some scientific DNA test. Also We never can think like eachother. We are different. All are different. also I'm not from CIA. I'm a young Kurdish man. Diyako Talk + 08:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "correcting the infobox"? What's the problem with it? SouthernComfort 08:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's only for ethnic groups not articles like that for ex Germanic peoples. even if you carefully look at the template will see that. also you can see the talk page of the template.Diyako Talk + 08:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting point. But considering the diversity of the Iranian peoples, I think it helps keep the page organized and makes the links easily accessible to the reader. I'd like to hear what others have to say though before any action is taken. Why do you object to it anyway, other than the reason you already stated? Is it the picture? SouthernComfort 08:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, the genetics section needs some NPOVing - each of the studies in question were limited and cannot be used to make any widescale claims about the Iranian peoples as a whole. SouthernComfort 09:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: .Yes the picture is another problem, either add all other etnicities or remove the picture. Related ethnic groups is also another problem, the correct term is related linguistic groups. Genetic section: we can use text from the source not by ourselves.Diyako Talk + 09:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's not a bad idea - we could put up a collage of something like 20 or 40 images, drawing from all ethnic groups. Well, most of the genetic section includes text not from any source. It needs to be clarified exactly how many people were sampled in each of these studies. SouthernComfort 09:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A comprehensive collage? Good idea.--Zereshk 10:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Reason for This Edit War

message: It looks like one of the main sources of the problems with the articles is that according to some editors it creates an impression that Kurds are just a part of a homogeneous Iranian people. Thus, the article can be seen as politically charged. I think the article already stated the Kurds are special in this group. Maybe it stresses it not strong enough and we should have a special section Kurds and Iranian people, showing the similarities and differences between Kurds and the other Iranian people? If necessary we could add similar sections Pashtuns and Iranian people, Farsi and Iranian people, etc. abakharev 12:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing in the article which claims that the Iranian peoples are "homogenous" - that would be impossible, considering the diverse range of peoples categorized as "Iranian." The article, in fact, goes to great lengths to stress this diversity. And by the way, the use of "Farsi" as an ethnic term is totally absurd and there are no academic sources to back up the usage of that term the way one or two editors have been doing in these discussions. The proper form would be "Persians and Iranian people." SouthernComfort 13:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sound like propaganda. What kind of info. do you want to put at Kurds and Iranian section ? Secondly, Farsi is a Turkish word used for Iranian people. SouthernComfort is correct. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually I was just trying to find a compromise, so that instead of the edit warring all the fine editors here could do productive work. There is already info about the genetic markers been different, but language been very close. A couple of phrases about the most stark similarities in the heritage and history could not hurt. abakharev 23:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Farsi" is actually an Arabic word used for Persians. Arabs do not have the letter "P", therefore they replaced it with an "F". The Turkish word for "Persian/Iranian" is "Tacikler" - that's why Persians in Turkish-dominated Central-Asia are called Tajiks, which is taken from "Tacikler". Tajik 19:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is an interesting piece of info that should go to the article. Please be careful and not state as a fact that Farsi and Tajiks are the same nations, the last thing we need here is a new edit war. abakharev 23:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The version with P, i.e. Parsi, is still very commonly used in Iran in order to refer to the Persian language. Shervink 15:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I second the two comments above. --Kash 00:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kurds and Iranian people