Talk:Iranian peoples/Archive 5

message: I think the article is fine and defines the group clearly. It does mention on top that it is about speakers of Iranian languages. Therefore I don’ think Azeri people are left out. It is mentioned in the top section how this group is primary defined by their usage of Iranian languages. Also the section when the groups are listed, clearly says “languages”
I am an Iranian and I know very well the importance of Azeri contribution to Iranian history and culture but I don’t think it is unfair that they are not included in this article as it is not about nation of Iran rather about Iranian speakers. Azeris might not be Turks, I personally think of them as 100% Iranic, but their language is and this article’s primary focus is on language. Also we can not merge this with Iranian languages since this article is not about those languages but the speakers of those languages. I think Ethnic and cultural assimilation section takes care of the issue of culture and explains that there are groups whose language is not Iranian but everything else about them is. Also, I would love to know the opinion of Azeri Iranians on this issue. thanks Gol 06:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Dear Gol, firstly, welcome back. Secondly, Most of the Iranian Azeris voted above have both academic and Iranian concerns about the wrong use of the term "Iranian peoples" as in this article. The editors, wanted to create something of a linguistic importance, the same as Germanic and Turkic peoples. But we do not have such a thing in established academic texts. So they borrowed a term, which already has a meaning by itself, i.e. "Iranian peoples" and used it. I am not sure what else they could use. But definitely, not "Iranian peoples" which means not the same. We can not invent a meaning here for a term. We really have to look into known university textbooks and see what they use for this grouping of people. Or else, we have to define the way "Iranian peoples" is understood by all. That includes Iranian Turks. I am still waiting for the opposing parties to inclusion of Azeris to come up with some reliable university references where exact term of "Iranian peoples", and not anciant Iranian peoples and no debatable indications, as we are talking about anciant and contemporary people here. None has been provided yet. I shall be convince as well as other Iranian Azeris if we have a number of those texts presented to us using the exact terminology as defined here. No internet back links as it seems that a trend of many interenet info pages using Wikipedia and that will be self referencing. 203.48.45.194 09:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian people 

message: Editors,
This is a friendly request in order, to at least convince myself, for all who think the article is defining the term right, please list all reliable references that use the exact term of Iranian peoples with at least one example with full sentence that indicate the definition explained in this article and in this context, i.e. in a linguistic terms, from academia here. Please only list from univeristy text books and well established encyclopedias like Britanica. I am sure you will have plenty as you are fighting so hard to keep the name of the article as is. To me it is simply wrong, Iranian peoples are not only speakers of Iranian languages and has a much broader meaning. 
If you have any comments or discussions, or like some you think the matter is too obvious (either way) for all but to me, please add an extra section and do not mix this section with discussion. However, if you think one listed is not as reliable, you could strike it  like this, with a very short comment next to it. 
Links are fine so long as they are links to reliable sources as above. Also, please not cite any internet encyclopedias as they mostly copy from Wikipedia and it is self referencing to mention them. And Gee how many of them... 
Thanks
203.48.45.194 01:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please list all references to the usage of the term "Iranian Peoples"  

message: See this: "The Azeri (Azerbaijani), a Turkic-speaking, Shiite Muslim people of Persian culture, make up about 90% of the republic’s population" --ManiF 06:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So? It’s still Turkic-speaking people, isn’t it? Grandmaster 07:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Other Encyclopedias have similar definitions for Azerbaijani people. So it should mentioned in the article that Azerbaijani people are a Turkic-speaking people of Persian culture. --ManiF 07:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But it is already there. Please see  Grandmaster 07:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It should be stated more boldly. Shervink 10:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 10:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columbia Encyclopedia entry on Azerbaijani people 

message: The maps provided in the article only shows geographical extent of Iranic languages but has a wrong impression that the only languages spoken in this geographical area were/are Iranic. It is in no way true. Both in ancient times and even now there have been/are many non-Iranic languages spoken by large populations in this area. For example in the modern map of Iranic languiages both Azeri and Arabic areas are shown as Iranic-speaking area. No mention of non-Iranics. It is highly misleading. It should be corrected or clarified.Togrol 12:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unverifiable claims? And this from someone who claims that the Medes were Turkic people!!! Shervink 13:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I added the term empires so that a reader can understand that this is the extent of Iranian peoples (which is accurate as the map is pretty good) including empires so that should take care of that hopefully. Tombseye 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps and hidden ancient/contemporary non-Iranic languages

message: Prior to Dbachmann's recent edit , this article used BCE consistently. Please at least make an attempt to observe WP guidelines instead of making such a change. SouthernComfort 14:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it so that it corresponds to the rest of the article. Tombseye 16:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BC/BCE

message: I wanted to replace the picture collage with something that is symbolic of the Iranian peoples such as something from Zoroastrianism, the Fravashi. The picture collage, in my opinion is pointless as we have pictures that are more relevant in the various sections and it clashes with the intent of the article, which is not to depict an ethnic group. A symbol would help the article maintain an encyclopedic (rather than a people magazine) presentation. Just wanted to bring it up here first before doing it though. The Fravashi is good symbol of ancient Iranic culture (as many, if not most Iranic peoples have ancestors who were Zoroastrian, even among the fringes such as the Kurds and Pashtuns) and can't be misconstrued as solely 'Persian' since Zoroastrianism most likely developed in Afghanistan anyway. Just wanted to put that forward. Cheers. Tombseye 14:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I totally agree ... maybe we should include quite a few typical "Iranic" symbols ... Tajik 15:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, whatever you can think of. Right now, with the picture replaced, the article will take on a cleaner and more encyclopedic look and avoid the controversy of the picture that inevitably will come up. Tombseye 17:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two thumbs up but we can use the picture down below can't we? -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 19:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean the Iranian model wearing traditional attire, yes it's a good one and relevant to the subject matter under the culture section so I'm in favor of it and hopefully everyone else will concur. Tombseye 21:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not to create any controversy, but I wanted to replace the picture collage

message: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v74n5/40813/fg1.h.jpg
Additionally...there is this genetic evidence under your noses. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v74n5/40813/40813.html?erFrom=-1568565869309167708Guest
It shows that the populations of Azarbaijan and Turkey are not Turkic. Notice the makeup is WEST EURASIAN and not EAST ASIAN. WEST ASIAN IS IRANO-CAUCASIAN. EAST ASIAN IS TURKIC/ORIENTAL. SOUTH ASIAN IS INDIC. AFRO-ASIATIC IS IS NOT MENTIONED. 72.57.230.179 08:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GENETIC PROOF THAT AZERIS ARE IRANIANS

message: All,
The Map Image:Moderniranianlanguagesmap21.PNG which has been presented in this article as fact, is an original research work by User:Imperial78. It needs to be specified that the map is not necessarily objective, and is instead a user-created illustration.--Zereshk 02:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Map is original research

message: This page is the thousandth featured article on the English Wikipedia. A special thank you to Tombseye, Khoikhoi, Zmmz and the hundreds of other users who made this a reality.
Let's see what #2000 will bring... --Slgrandson 15:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article milestone 

message: Not only did everyone help in making this article a Featured Article, it is the milestone in the featured articles! I want to say congrats to all the people who contributed to this article and hope you guys continue your great work!
Go wikipedians! Go Iranian People!
--(Aytakin) | Talk 15:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A job well done everyone! 

message: Everyone was banging on about putting some kind of plaque dedicating Wikipedia at the site of the millionth article, Jordanhill railway station, but where is the plaque going to go this time? Maybe we can hang one around the neck of every Iranian person? . Good work everyone... hopefully I can get an FA myself sometime between 1000 and 2000... SteveRwanda 19:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your ironic interpretation Mr. Rwanda. I'm also aiming for the coveted 1003 spot myself. ;) Tombseye 20:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commemorative Plaque 

message: There seems to still be a lot left to improve in this article. The history sections are vey thorough (though a bit confusing as a narrative, partly due to the complexity and broadness), but the culture, religion, and demographics section are relatively disappointing in their shortness; it looks like a typical case of "more time spent on the higher sections than the lower ones", a common malady of longer articles.
I mainly made this post, though, because I'm confused about the distinction between the second section, "Roots and classification", and the third, "History and settlement". Don't both sections actually cover "History and settlement"? I don't understand why the lengthy analysis of Sarmatian spread is considered part of "Roots and classification", whereas the other cultures go in "History and settlement". Shouldn't we really have both sections under a single "History" header, and then simply create more specific subsections for the various historical topics that are discussed? (This would not only integrate the article better, but would also make it a lot easier to read through the history section than is currently the case, since a lack of specific headers describing what each part of the historical account is about makes it difficult to ground the readers.)
Also, as pfctdayelise mentioned above, the images are a huge deal; I'm very surprised, too, that this got through FAC without more rigorous evaluation of the images. People used to be so good at that. Also, as a slightly longer-term goal, if this page is going to be getting a lot of attention we may want to tidy it up a bit by upgrading the quality of the :Image:Moderniranianlanguagesmap24.PNG image; as-is, it's the most crudely-drawn map I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and I know there are some amazing map-creators on Wikipedia who could make it more neat, readable, and professional-looking. But that's not as important as the other issues, of course; the map, at least, has no copyright issues and serves its basic function. -Silence 07:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I like your suggestions with regards to reorganizing History and Roots. I initially wrote it with different things to be discussed in each section, but I realize that they do somewhat run together. I will change it and if you can add sub-sections. As for the pictures, they were in use in other articles and others were inserted by a user who insisted on having as many pictures of people as possible. The map is a bit crude, but very informative. If it can be given a more slick presentation all the better. Also, I just noticed that Pakistan doesn't include its line of control in Kashmir which is odd since most maps denote its line of control. Otherwise though, the distribution of languages in the map are pretty good. Cheers. Tombseye 16:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History sections?

message: This paragraph is simply racist. What is meant by being pure?. It promotes racial purity which is totally absurd.
Moreover, the Iraqi Kurds are an eclectic Iranian people who, although displaying numerous ethnolinguistic ties to other Iranian peoples (particular in their Iranian language, and some cultural traits), are believed to have mixed with Caucasian and Semitic peoples, while the Iranian Kurds are of more pure Iranian stock..Heja Helweda 15:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't add anything about Iraqi Kurds. Ever since this article became a featured article and then was put on the main page, a lot of people (often anon) are making arbitrary edits with nationalist sentiments and without citations as well. It's a shame since I think the article was pretty much okay before all this attention and had citations and references for everything. Now it's become a tug of war as people act as if they can put in and delete whatever they feel like. Tombseye 16:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I totally agree with Heja Helweda. I had removed that sentence, but it was reverted into the article again. This parts HAS to be rewritten. Right now, it's clearly POV. Tajik 17:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  If the information is to be kept, it needs a citation, and probably an NPOV rewording. Sonething like "relatively unmixed" or "less culturally integrated", or similar, is preferable to potentially offensive wordings like "more pure". -Silence 17:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cited the info. in the article in 2 different sections already. It's just that people don't actually read the article, they read one part and decide to mess with it so the only solution is to put the references everywhere. I fixed the problem though. Tombseye 17:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: We have a concensus view on this page that I mostly wrote myself. Your indignation aside, we've all agreed to render the article from a neutral point of view and those who have helped with the editing and criticism of this article included Iranians, Americans, 1 Afghan, some Kurds, and probably a few Europeans. And I'm the one who put in the genetic study as well. I've read other studies that show variations and further testing may contradict the results so we're not holding up the preliminary results as the end of the discussion. The current wording does not require any further reiteration in the article as that merely leads to useless redundancy. As for your deletion of parts of the article, they are back and with citations from where they are discussed. Tombseye 09:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put away your pride and indignation. We all appreciate that you helped the article achieve FA but many others have been involved here, but only two people receive credit. That said I have removed your POV sentence once again since it is too convenient for you to add refs when you did not do so before. Provide proof that those sources say what you want to say. And do not remove my sentence from the genetics. It seems as though you have a POV that the Iranian peoples are only "modern" and have no connection to the past but history and genetics disagree with you. Kouroush 13:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me? You claim that I'm jeopardizing the article I wrote most of the article and nominated it and worked with others to fix it. You, on the other hand, are acting alone. You want to make changes to the article, you discuss them here first and we'll see if the people who worked on this article agree or not. That's how this works. Tombseye 17:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racial Purity? Again?!!! 

message: However, other common traits have been identified as well, and a stream of common historical events have often linked the southern Iranian peoples, including Hellenistic conquests, the various empires based in Persia, Arab Caliphates, and Turkic invasions.
This paragraph is saying much of nothing. Its interesting that no one complained about this when it was up for FA status because it adds nothing to the article but does push the "Iranians are mixed with Arabs and Turks and Greeks" POV. Kouroush 13:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arnold Toynbee talks about the very thing, common historical currents. Many authors talk about various events shaping the region so it is very factual and stays. Tombseye 17:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Diversity

message: He's saying I'm risking the FA status of the article when I freakin' nominated the article in the first place! Freakin' johnny come lately. You can revert his changes too as he's playing the nationalist game. I'm going to add citations tomorrow though to keep him from messing with the article that he had no part in creating.  
I am amazed at this persons arrogance that he thinks he can attack me this way and that he claims ownership of the article. If you think, Tombseye, that you OWN THE ARTICLE, then you are mistaken. Very mistaken. If you think you can get away with pushing your POV that Iranians are mixed with every group on this planet, then you are also mistaken. And if you think that by calling me a NATIONALIST will get you anywhere, you are also wrong because that is a PERSONAL ATTACK for which you may be sanctioned. I should report you for this violation of policy. Kouroush 13:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm only reverting your work as you keep deleting what is referenced and what contradicts YOUR unsubstantiated beliefs. There is no Iranian purity and for you to push that garbage IS POV. And yeah I am offended when someone says I'm jeopardizing the article I mostly wrote and nominated. Check the record. Mani did start the article with a stub. I wrote just about the entire article and then my fellow editors helped with changes and additions over time. I never said I was the only author, but the record will show that I did write most of the article. No arrogance from me, just reality. And it's rude to delete things in a featured artcle that you frankly had nothing to do with. Kindly bring up your changes on this page before making them in the article as there is no agreement as to your changes. Or are you incapable of working through concensus? Tombseye 17:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tombseye I have to agree to Kouroush to a certain extent. You reverting him seems like just another POV push to me. You have done a great job no doubt, but just because something can be referenced it doesn't mean its necessary NPOV or should not be disputed ever. --K a s h  Talk | email 20:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, BUT his changes were arbitrary and are also POV since he didn't bother to explain HIS references that would be counter to mine. And remember we all agreed to what was in the article. Plus the Kurdish issue was a huge debate and the compromise was reached after a lot of discussion. And how am I doing a POV push when I have references and he's just got his opinion? I think it's the other way around frankly. You of all people should remember how it was with this article and how people kept fighting over the wording until we arrived at a neutral solution. Talk about jeopardizing its FA status. This will merely bring back the same problems and, like I said, let's see his references before we let him add and delete whatever he feels like. Tombseye 20:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol you have become too sensitive over this FA status. It is a great job but there is no reason why it can not be improved. By the way, check your email. --K a s h  Talk | email 20:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tombseye comments against me to Khoikhoi

message: The Iranian cultures that emerged, following conquests by Alexander the Great and the Arabs, were religiously and socially different from those of the ancient Iranians (see Hellenistic civilization, Islamic conquest of Persia and Islamic conquest of Afghanistan). The Cambridge History of Iran: From the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, Vol. 4,, by Richard Frye,  (retrieved 11 June 2006) The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 3, The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanid Periods, Part 1, by Ehsan Yarshater,  (retrieved 11 June 2006) Thundering Zeus : The Making of Hellenistic Bactria (Hellenistic Culture and Society), by Frank L. Holt,  (retrieved 11 June 2006)
This is not true. I have to get this verified. The Iranian culture has been effected definately, however the traits of pre-Islamic culture of Iran is still very apparent in the culture of Iran today. Therefore this has to be removed or reworded or it may give the wrong impression --K a s h  Talk | email 19:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The social organization of Iran was completely changed by the Arabs and Islam. Surely we can all agree to that? In addition, Hellenism left a strong legacy, brief in Iran although the Parthians continued their architectural influences, in particular in Afghanistan (Bactria) as an estimated 10% of the population was at one time Greek or Hellenized (60,000 settlers according to W.W. Tarn). Plus, there were some Arab settlers that became an elite in the country, with the Khurasani Arabs in particular ultimately becoming Persianized themselves. Doesn't all of this constitute changes that most academics agree upon? Perhaps some rewording to explain that SOME Iranian traits remained, but with their religion replaced by Islam and Hellenic influences that, at the time, were substantial, this statement doesn't seem out of line. Tombseye 20:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The social organization, religion and culture of Iran was "completley changed" during hundreds of years, not just in a certain short period of time, and was with influence of Islam as well as influence of old Iranian culture. Thats common sense. --K a s h  Talk | email 20:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with reduced emphasis. Old Iranian culture is not very well known and has many commonalities with Indo-Iranian and even early Indo-European cultures. I mean we don't see ritual sacrifice or a pantheon of deities or their social hierarchy. What has happened is that in the 20th century a return to Aryan nationalist began to shape how people thought with the Pahlavi period onward. Plus, this article is not just about Iran, but about all the other Iranic peoples so as a collective view, let's face it, Pashtun society was most likely pagan whereas today it is vastly different. I think it's unrealistic to link ancient people CULTURALLY to modern people anyway. Remember the Nazis tried that and most of their academics thought it was nonsense (Max Muller for one). Plus, what Old Iranian culture has really survived other than Nouruz? I can't think of much other than the language, which has also changed quite a bit. Tombseye 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You have to remember that Zoroastrianism did more than just effect people's religion, almost all Iranian etiquette and culture was influenced by it, and the most important thing is that it also influenced Islam a lot, especially when practiced by Iranian people. No doubt this needs to be explored further but I would never ever say its nonsense to think culture of old Iranian people and the modern are linked, atleast in a certain way and infact I believe its again, common sense as Iranians only gradually started to adopt Islam when they were introduced by Islamic ideas that were close to Iranian ideas which may have given birth to Sufism (almost all most known Persian poets were Sufis) and also Shia Islam. --K a s h  Talk | email 20:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, those are all things I completely agree with. The problem stems from the Iranian purity thing which is I think nonsense. At the same time we can see discernable traits in language, culture etc. from the Old Iranians (same goes for Indians and Indo-Aryans etc.), we also see some differences and changes. Khouroush seems to think that any mention of changes from invasions is somehow 'wrong' or at least his edits seem to indicate something to that effect. That's what I have a problem with as I don't support notions of purity, his interpretation of the genetic article as there are articles that show strong and possibly huge variations. I don't revert changes by say Tajik, who gave me some good references, for example. Bottom-line, his changes need references since I've already put up mine. Oh and I got nothing in the mail still. Don't worry, I'm not taking offense at your comments or the desire to improve the article at all. No hard feelings. :) Tombseye 20:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: A common mistake is that when someone joins wikipedia and notices something silly and suddenly gets all angry. Sadly there is probably as much incorrect statements in Wikipedia as there are correct ones (if not more).. best way is to discuss them here. I just hope Koroush can go step by step about what the problems are just like I have done here so we can work them out without affecting the quality of the article --K a s h  Talk | email 21:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: We've already discussed this Shervink, we're not including Azeris on the list—the first sentence in this article says ...primarily defined by their usage of Iranian languages. The Azeris don't speak an Iranian language. So please kindly knock it off. —Khoikhoi 15:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you change "some sources" to "a number of sources"? —Khoikhoi 15:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the present way (Note: Azeris are, ...) should be fine for both of us, since it still gives them a separate status apart from the rest of the groups on the list. As for Some and A number of, my understanding of English is that they both have the same meaning, with the second being more formal and more suitable for a serious piece of writing. Shervink 15:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess that's fine with me. If you want to remain consistent you're probably also going to have to add something on the Turkic peoples page. —Khoikhoi 16:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Azeris 

message: Excuse me, is this article which includes several distinct ethnic groups about the Irano-Median (or Mittano-Aryan, If I'm not mistaken in spelling) people groups? We have an Iranian languages but it is solly a language group not their people. Not necessarily in all cases people groups are classified axactly according to their language affiliation. Iranian languages may include some distinct languages but Iranian peoples as i've ever seen does include only Persian speaking family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salios (talk • contribs) 
You removed it? I explained it clearly for you. These peoples you are talking about are called Irano-Median. Themselves are divided into about 10 branches one of them Iranian (also synonymously called Persian group). Not averywhere you can name people groups as their respective language groups, for many reasons such as different backgrounds and assimilations. These peoples are divided into sevral groups according to their background. If you dont trust me, at least make a quote from this universal neutral project Joshua. http://www.joshuaproject.net/affinitybloc.php  (For seeing Irano-median group choose it from the list and click the 'select' button).
:Well, that's the first time I've seen it. Do you have any other sources? (Ones that are academic?) —Khoikhoi 21:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Irano-Median

message: I edited the relevant section in the list of Iranian peoples as per above talk with Tombseye. I hope that is a fair compromise for everyone. Please discuss it here if you still think the dispute is not over. If no one complains in a day or two, we can safely assume the dispute is over and remove the tag. Persian Magi 04:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: support Tājik 09:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems that some editors (notably Tombseye) are more concerned about keeping the article's featured status rather than improving it. From your previous posts, Tombseye, it seems that you have developed a sense of ownership of this article. While your contributions have been outstanding, still this article is not yours, nor does your background in creating it give you a right to simply reject others' concerns. If your personal satisfaction of having created a featured article overweighs your sound judgement, so be it. I don't have the intention of arguing with would-be specialists which are abundant on wikipedia and most often write about things they know little about. Go ahead and have fun. As for Azaris being classified as Turks by most sources, that is simply not true. Ever heard of Ahmad Kasravi's work for example? Shervink 15:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, look around you and see how many people think you're being reasonable here. I'm not rejecting other peoples concerns, nor am I acting alone as many people have been reverting your edits whereas you're in the minority of people who think the article needs clarifications and your own POV on the Azeris put in. This article is not about Iran. The Scythians are discussed as are the Kurds, Pashtuns, and others. This is about all of them. My sound judgment is based upon my references that back me up. Where are yours? Kasravi's a writer from decades back so I fail to see what bearing he has, since there are modern academics today. It is true that MOST sources do classify them as Turkic. The only place they don't is in Iran and let's face it there's probably a little nationalist bias there so not a lot of objectivity in the matter, which is not unique to Iran as most countries have the same problem. Well, I'll bet I know more about the Iranians of the steppes than you do. Or the Pashtuns, Ossetians, etc. I know enough to write an article obviously. I'm not having fun. I'm irritated that one guy can create so many problems though and act so stubborn when most people think he's being unreasonable. I take it you don't support the compromise or has there been a change of heart? Tombseye 23:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: support. From what I see, Shervink is the only one trying to impose his will and support the tag. --Aldux 16:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: support. I'm okay with it as it was before Shervink changed it. Tombseye 23:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Support It's frustrating that one person can plaster that message on an article and it takes a long dispute (most of the time the arguement has already been done on the site) to settle it again. --Sean WI 04:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the dipute tag 

message: I'd suggest we add pictures of different Iranian people, from Ossetians to Hazaras, as a matter of fact the article is Iranian "people", we better put more images of people. Amir85 16:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a Hazara, but an Ossetian wouldn't be bad. We have room in the genetics section if you can find a picture (without any copyright problems) that would be great. Thanks. Tombseye 23:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new addition 

message: Now that would be a dream come true... who's with me? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 06:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What needs to be done in order to feature this on the main page? 

message: User_talk:SlimVirgin#New_editor_has_a_racial-revisionist.2C_Balkan-separatist_agenda...  Lord Loxley 17:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean here. The Indo-European language theory was all that was discussed. We aren't backing or rendering an Aryanist theory. The Indo-European theory is backed by academic departments including at UCLA and Harvard. I don't understand your complaints and the link you provide doesn't explain anything either. The reference was to LANGUAGE. The groups, such as Germanic and Slavic people speak languages that are linked and there is NO assertion that they are necessarily all related etc. In fact, this article makes it clear that there is no specific ethnic criteria at all as it is langauge that is the main determinant as to who are members of the various Indo-European peoples. Unless you can provide some academic proof that what was in the article is Germanic and Slavic Aryanism I don't see how there is a problem here.Tombseye 17:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the person has a weird misunderstanding. He has also been talking nonsense at Talk:Aryan race. I have no idea what he means by "Aryanisms". He has also threatened me on my talk page. Very rude and inconsiderate. Genomist 17:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the matter of Germanic and Slavic Aryanisms...