Talk:Iranian peoples/Archive 1

message: The infobox is useless as the Iranian peoples aren't an ethnic group, but a series of ethnic groups sometimes only linked by language and sometimes by other factors. Tombseye 05:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  is only supposed to be used in articles about ethnic groups. The Iranian peoples are a group of ethnic groups. Khoikhoi 02:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, but why do I get the feeling that resistance and controversy is on its way?! Tombseye 02:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it always is. ;-) Khoikhoi 02:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *sigh* Khoikhoi 03:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all Azeri's are Iranians my friend. There are several ethnic groups who speak Azeri today, but their origins are all different. For example, Iranian Azeri's are Iranian, while those from the Caucasus are Caucasians, and the ones in Iraq are called Turkomans.Azerbaijani 17:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The infobox needs to go 

message: This is definitely not the place to discuss whether today's Macedonians originated from Bulgarians or ancient Macedonians, so making any connection between them and Iranian people is quite inappropriate.Scheludko (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavic Macedonians and Iranians 

message: Why is Wikipedia being replaced by the term "Iranian Peoples"? The following statement does not do any help either: "As Iranian people are not confined to the borders of the current state of Iran, the term Iranic peoples is sometimes used to avoid confusion with the citizens of Iran."
In most languages the correct term is "Pesian" and Iranian refers strictly to people of the country of Iran. As a Persian I am deeply offended when everything related to Greater Persia is simply called Iranian or Iranic. The modern Iran was only a small fraction of the various kingdoms and empires of Persia. It seems that people from Iran are leading a campaign to "miseducate" people that everything Persian is really Iranian. It is not! How would you feel if the term "British" got replaced by "Welsh" or "Scottish"? It is just as inaccurate to refer to everything Persian as Iranian, even if you try to clarify what you mean.  Iranians are Persian, but not all Persians are Iranian.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.44.102 (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian vs Persian 

message: I put it up for dispution. It is weak, inaccurate and incomplete. It is based on bunch of a certain hypothesis of Indo-Iranian origin that are not well supported, it only talks about two isolated Tajik population without mentioning any other Iranian population what so ever (Please check below "49-Iranian genetic"for my arguments against this section). I tried making changes, but my changes were reverted twice as a user finds it a case of POV. Since I was not trusted with making a change I put it up for an expert opinion.  
I also propose that we eliminate genetic section all together. There are no other Indo-European nation that have R1a mentioned as their origin ( check Indo-Aryans, Italians, German).--Ddd0dd (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetic section

message: here did a s/Iranian/Iranic/, without as much as an edit summary, let alone a coherent proposal or explanation on the talkpage. This is not acceptable and should have resulted in a revert.
Yes, "Iranic" is sometimes used, but with a usage at least an order of magnitude smaller than that of "Iranian". See also WP:NAME. --dab (𒁳) 12:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Iranic

message: The owner of following picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Persian-Iranian_girl_with_green_eyes,_rural_Iran,_09-07-2007.jpg which is actually http://www.flickr.com/photos/kargadan/ is not willing to give the rights to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Le_Behnam to use her photo on wikipedia, since It's an identifiable photo. I tried editing the page and and it was "Locked". tell me what else is needed to remove the photo ? any e-mail from the owner or something ? 
THE PHOTO HASE BEEN ILLEGALY USED BY SOME OTHER PERSON ON FACE-BOOK, And it is causing some touble, 
Please help me solve this problem, I'm not wanting the people who is responsible or something to sue, The copyright holder only wants the removal of the photo.
Soso freak (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reporting a violation of personality rights 

message: The previous version of this article was far better than this one. I read that version 1 year ago and I do remember it was a featured article with SATAR but look at this article ! I am persian, but I have to say this article is ignoring other Iranic people.
Please bring-back the previous version. 
جون مادرتون هر کی گند زده به مقاله قبلی یک لطفی کنه و مقاله قبلی را برگرداند من خودم فارس زبان هستم ولی در این مقاله با فارس فارس  کردن فقط حساسیت بیخودی ایجاد می کنید
اگر اول ایرانی هستید بعد فارس (مثل من) که باید تکیه مقاله بر مفهوم ایرانیک باشد و در غیر اینصورت اگر اول خود را فارس می دانید و بعد ایرانی که به عقیده شخصی من به درد لای جرز دیوار میخورید ولی آنچه مسلم است این است که جای افاضات شما لااقل در این مقاله انگلیسی نیست بروید در یک جای دیگر گندتان را بزنید  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.163.40.237 (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please restore the previous featured article instead of this version 

message: This word is confused with the modern citizens of Iran the Iranians. Are we going to start calling Turkic peoples Turkish? This needs to be changed to Iranic  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.90.213 (talk) 06:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the page wp:title according to which the article is named correctly as "Iranian peoples": "Generally, article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources call the subject of the article". Xashaiar (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The confusion may have to remain as there is a similar situation with regards to Germanic peoples for example. Mentioning Iranic as an alternative in usage is not a problem though I'd say. LearnerDude (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, "Iranic" is not a neologism but a scholarly term even if not employed as much as "Iranian", and it is more apt as it wont cause as much confusion with citizens of Iran.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scythian Saka (talk • contribs) 11:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to Iranic peoples instead 

message: I agree, the title should be changed to "Iranic people", it's confusing this pan-ethnicity with the citizens of Iran (Iranians).   00:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Im with this too, it will be on par with "Germanic" and "Turkic", rather than German and Turkish respectively which also now refer to a specific ethnicity rather than a pan-ethnicity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scythian Saka (talk • contribs) 18:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of Article 

message: there is a statement in the article that ossetian follow nestorian church. that is false.
those ossetians which are christian, belong to orthodox church, and initially got acquinted
with christianity via bizantium missioners (neither russians nor georgians).
nestorian church was never introduced in Ossetia and in Caucasus in general.
: You've misread the text. It says:
The Christian community is mainly represented by the Armenian Apostolic Church, followed by the Russian Orthodox and Georgian Orthodox Ossetians followed by Nestorians. Judaism is followed mainly by Persian Jews, Kurdish Jews, Bukharian Jews (of Central Asia) and the Mountain Jews (of the Caucasus), most of whom are now found in Israel.
: Here, "followed by" means "the next biggest in size". So "Russian Orthodox and Georgian Orthodox Ossetians followed by Nestorians" means that there are more Russian and Georgian Orthodox Ossetians than there are Nestorians. It does not mean that Ossetians are Nestorians - quite the opposite. As for who converted Christian Ossetians to Christianity, it's not irrelevant. It was Byzantine Greeks who brought Christianity to Russia, but Russians are now mainly Russian orthodox.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  about religion of ossetians 

message: pls edit this page.gorani and zazaki =kurdish languages
greets  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.190.72 (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  gorani and zazaki =kurdish languages 

message: most of you forget about one important aspect of being Iranian... Iranian is not just related to Race " its also related to religion... let me explain my meaning :
Iranic parts of Indo-European or those who labeled by the name " Iranian" can have some sub-branches in inside ( between those who lives in Iranian Plateau ) or out sider like Indian because of the Gods they worshiped.
they distinct in inside because of the Godess they worshiped... 
for example Iranic part of indo-Iranian preyed to Mazda(ahora mazda=ahora=asora=sora=khoda ) and Indian in the another parts worshiped the DIVA.
so they had been seperated in first place because of the God the had... not because of the race(they all have the same ethnic)
-----------------
separations in inside are due some Important facts;
1- distinct God which they had
2- other races that they met
3- immigration due harsh climate
but of course let me admonish you about one single truth... all of sub-branches share same race-culture and myth and of course the same race...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SORENNA (talk • contribs) 12:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  consider these! 

message: Change to Iranic peoples. Any search for Iranian peoples should redirect to 1) Demographics of Iran 2) Iranic peoples.
Let's vote on this and whatever decision is reached anyone wishing to challenge that can hold a future voting option  after further debate has taken place. Iranian peoples is much to confusing and I vote it needs to be switched to Iranic peoples. Iranians should strictly be for peoples originating in modern Iran just as Germanic needs to be distinguished from German or Turkic from Turkish.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.88.146 (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia should not be in the business of reforming the English language. The English language has many words with multiple meanings. "Iranian peoples" is correct. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote proposal 

message: The population numbers mentioned in demographics section need reliable citations.E235 (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody keeps changing the population figure in the infobox. Just in the last few days it's changed several times, generally trending upward. It's now at 500 million. The reference immediately next to that figures has numbers that add up to 134.05 to 140.1 million. The table in the Demographics section (also with references) has figures that add up to 154.746 to 186.746 million. Taking the lowest and high figures, then rounding them to the nearest 5 million, we get 135 - 185 million. I'll just go ahead and change it to that. Zyxwv99 (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Population numbers

message: Until a sufficient explanation for why the change should be reverted has been supplied, I see no reason why it should be made. The article, prior to my modification, had used the term "Persian" synonymously with the term "Iranian". The Ossetians call their land Iron, they do not however call it Persia. The very simple explanation is that Persian is an ethnic term, and Persians are an Iranian people, whereas not all, not even MOST Iranians are Persians. Not ethnically, nor linguistically. In no case should the two terms be conflated. This is inexcusable. All Persians are Iranian, but not all Iranians are Persian. Very simple concept to grasp, I would have thought.
If you disagree, please provide an adequate explanation before reverting the change.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.202.26 (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just want to say thanks for making the change. Someone added the Persian synonym a few days ago, I reverted it, then they changed it again. I didn't want to get into an edit war, so I left it alone, hoping someone else would change it back, which you have done. Thanks. Zyxwv99 (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equating the term Persian with Iranian 

message: Geographic distribution of Iranian languages IS FAKE! zaza are kurds! PLS remove it.
thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.179.206 (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Zazaki and Kurdish are Iranian/Iranic languages. Both languages and ethnic groups are also Iranic. Read the current article and Iranian languages. And for further study: Indo-Iranian languages and Indo-European languages. Winter Gaze (talk) 09:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Hazara people is mentioned in the Demographics section. See the table. Zheek (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographic distribution of Iranian languages IS FAKE! zaza are kurds! 

message: Why is it named Iranian peoples? shouldn't it be named Iranian people, without the last s. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because it covers all Iranian peoples. — kwami (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the article. 

message: Surprised these two aren't up on the notable list of Persian ppl......they shoulda been one of the first--172.250.18.130 (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xerxes the Great and Darius the Great/Administrator 

message: The title of this article should be changed to Iranic People because people confuse Iranic people with iranian poeple(people from Iran)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasani2 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian People Title 

message: Why don't you add some images of ancient Iranic peoples on the article? I mean Sarmatians, Medes, Scytians and so on.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.174.135.250 (talk) 07:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Iranian Peoples 

message: Some users've added Pakistanis on the article. Pakistanis are Indid, not Iranid.BBBAAACCC (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What's this, you're now complaining? Wasn't it you who did that?--Fareed30 (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've explained you in your message page. I think you have a problem with understanding! I am not going to arguing with you. It is just waste of time. BBBAAACCC (talk) 07:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kindergarden! 

message: I don't understand why my edit was reverted. Pashtuns here are considered to be Iranian people as well. Pashto is a north-eastern Iranian language.  The article didn't say that an Iranian person had to born in Iran or be Persian. If this article said "Persian people", then I can understand the revert. If this list was to just to include Persians then why are non-Persians people included in this list as well? For example, in the pictures section of famous Iranian people, Saladin was a Kurd born in Tikrit, Mesopotamia (Modern day Iraq) and Veronika Dudarova was an Ossetian born in Baku, Azerbaijan. I don't see what is the problem with adding at least one Pasthun into pictures section? Ninmacer20 (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. You can add famous Pashtuns to the infobox. The infobox can include any famous/notable Iranic person from any country. It's not limited to Iran or Persians. Current infobox revision is not good enough. It needs some works. --Zyma (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding at least one Pasthun in the Pictures section on top.  

message: Are they assimilated Iranians?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medea Mēdeia (talk • contribs) 22:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlikely. The Croatians, like most Balkan peoples, appear to be indigenous and were invaded by various Indo-European peoples emanating out of the Ukraine/southern Russia who brought their various languages. The Slavs were the last major group to invade and their language remains prevalent. What we do know is that the Iranian-speaking Scythians and Sarmatians lived all over Eastern Europe as far west as the Balkans and as far east as Central Asia. So in one sense all the people in this area could have some 'Iranian' ancestors, but the group is a linguistic one as the modern Iranian remnants aren't entirely Ukrainian/southern Russian obviously. The inclusion of the Croatians and others seems tenuous academically. Another movement in areas like Poland called Sarmatism also illustrates a residual influence of 'Iranians' in Eastern Europe, but calling Slavs and others 'Iranian' is not really viable because they don't speak Iranian languages. One can explain that ancient Iranians were once prominent in the region though, but that is again not much more than a side-note given the modern categories we're dealing with. Ultimately, a lot of different peoples are related in numerous ways and pointing that out is fine, but the Croatians, Serbs etc can't be referred to as assimilated Iranians since the Iranian linguistic invaders were one of many who passed through the Balkans with each leaving a little part of themselves in the region. Infodrunk (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Iranian speakers were present in parts of SEE from 600s BC till at least 400s AD. Even in the middle ages , the Brodniki in Moldavia are said by some to be Iranian speakers. However , their direct , specific co tribution to Croats appears negligible within the context of early middle age Dalmatia. The original Croats were a clan of nobility who extended their rule over much of Dalmatia ; and were mostly of local Dalmatian origin mixed with Carpathian populations (Slavs and Avars). Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Croatians 

message: This article, like most of the other articles of Wikipedia likes to stress on prides of peoples. It seems, Wikipedia don't want to bring the miseries of the nations to their faces, not to offend them!. The introduction is full of historical arrogance that doesn't match the present day, and a while ago, conditions of Iranians.-Raayen (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The misery 

message: 1. I suggest we add him. He is probably the most important Iranian/Persian/Whatever you want to call it who has ever walked on earth.
He is after all the founder of the Achaemenid Empire and a person celebrated to this day by both military historians and regular Persians in Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan etc. I am not sure whom we shall remove though. Darius the Great maybe? 
--90.149.188.205 (talk) 05:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Cyrus The Great to the "Iranian peoples bar" 

message: The ethnicity of Cimmerians is uncertain. They were Iranic OR another Indo-European group (maybe Thracians) ruled by Iranian elites. If there are no strong theories about their Iranic origin, it's better to remove Cimmerians from ancient section OR clarify it. Zyma (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Just clarify. If you have reliable sources about their Iranian origin, add them. Cimmerians article needs some edits too (lead section and origin section). Zyma (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the book of Herodothos. I am going to check the Cimmerian section. Lamedumal (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cimmerians 

message: Well I don't understand at all: how can we say that kurds are iranians or aryans? It's a pseudo-science, because yes kurds speak an iranians languages, but can we say that they are also iranians? Persians refuse them and they allways cooperate with Turkey to assimilate them as yours! --Alsace38 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kurds are  not iranian 

message: I don't know why the users removed Cyrus the Great and added a lot of unknown and not-well-known people (both ancient ones and modern ones) to this infobox?! The current infobox is more similar to a promotional box than an ethnic group infobox. For example, who added Negar Javaherian to this infobox?! I'll edit infobox to represent more famous Iranics from old times to modern time. --Zyma (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In the article there are given two Orthodox Churches - Orthodox Church and Georgian Orthodox; shouldn't the latter one be deleted? As I know both are about the Ossetians and the latter one is just sub-group of the first. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Infobox 

message: Why you have misrepresented the "Ancient Persian Nobility" as "Ancient Mede Nobility" while in its own source, mentioned in the file history, it is clearly cited as "Ancient Persian"? This is an obvious manipulating with the information and sources.
This is the link of its source which is used in Wikipedia:
http://www.siue.edu/COSTUMES/PLATE2BX.HTML
I had changed it back into its right form, again it is now written as "Mede". You should either be honest and loyal to your sources or just abuse them. By the way, the costume of the couple, with Achaemenian hats, is clearly "Ancient Persian", while Medes had round hats and tight fit dresses as depicted in the walls and staircases of Persepolis. Please correct it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.201.106.42 (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: But in the given source the original title under the photo says "Vornehme Meder", which means "Ancient Medes" in German. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

text: The costumes of 2 peoples could be similar as they were related peoples to each other. But the source is the source. Thanks for your unbiased position. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  image 

message: Should we insert the name of these two group?
*Irani (India) – The Irani are an ethno-religious community in South Asia; they belong to the Zoroastrians who emigrated from Iran to South Asia 16th to 18th century. They are culturally, linguistically and socially distinct from the Parsis, who — although also Zoroastrians — arrived on the subcontinent over 1,200 years ago from the Pars region of Persia.
*Parsi – A Parsi or Parsee /ˈpɑrsiː/ is a member of one of the two Zoroastrian communities found throughout South Asia. They are legally and ethnically distinct from the Iranis even though both groups descend from Persian Zoroastrians. --Zyma (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course.  Couldn't be more Iranian.  — kwami (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Language does not matter? Parsis speak Gujarati language and it's not Iranian/Iranic. I know both Iranis and Parsis are Iranian in any aspect, but I'm confused which ethnic groups can be categorized/classified as "Iranian peoples". Iranian-speaking peoples? or any ethnic group with Iranian background, culture, and religion? --Zyma (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ethnicity is a matter of self-identification.  Language is only relevant to the extent that it influences people's self-identification.  If people don't feel they're ethnically Iranian, but only Persian or Kurdish or Ossete or whatever, so that we have to rely on language, then there's really no such thing as Iranian people, and this article should be redirected to Iranian languages.  If people feel they are Iranian (and not just Persian), even though they speak Gujarati or Turkish or Arabic, then there is an Iranian ethnicity.  Imagine Kurds in Turkey, who only speak Turkish:  They see themselves as being Kurds, not Turks.  So: do Persians, Parsis, Pashtuns, Kurds, and Ossetes think of themselves as being one people, or part of a coherent group of peoples?  If so, then "Iranian" is a real thing.  If not, it's an invention of linguists or historians.  Compare Indo-Iranian, or Indo-European, which are discoveries of linguistics are not matters of ethnicity.  — kwami (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, then I will add them to this article. --Zyma (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zoroastrians in India 

message: Some Iranian nationalist users (or pro-Iran) started to remove Hazara and Tajik ethnicities from any Persian-related article. They deny Iranian origin of Hazara and Tajik. Just because Hazaras and some Tajiks have Mongoloid or Asian phenotype and don't fit in their so-called Aryan stock! If only Aryans are Iranian, then many of Iranians are not Iranin too, because they are similar to their neighboring Arabs and other Semitic peoples. Hazaras and Tajiks share same language, culture, history with Persians. They're same people. Hazara are a mix of Iranians and Mongols, but every aspect of their ethnicity is Iranian/Persian. Tajiks are just a Central Asian branch of Persians. So why those nationalist user destroy wiki articles? Why good editors allow them to do this? If Hazara and Tajiks are not Iranian (because of Mongolic/Turkic mixes), what about Arabid/Semitic Iranians who use Persian identity? Iranians always attack Afghans and Tajiks, but they don't know that all of these people are same before the creation of these political borders. --69.22.169.254 (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Hazara and Anti-Tajik edits by Pan-Aryan users 

message: According to article's lead sec. Xiongnu's were "probably" iranian/saka. There is no academic consensus on that and also mainstream theory, they were turkic or at least altaic speaking people. It is simply WP:UNDUE and it should be remove.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why added similar "possible" groups (your edit) to Turkic peoples article? Why you don't remove those Huns, Xiongnu, Wusun from that article, but you want to remove similar section from this article? Huh? --188.158.111.41 (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xiongnu? 

message: Can somebody explain to me why we need two different article to explain same people? Shouldn't Iranian people includes Persian people. Mohammed al-Bukhari (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian or Persian People? 

message: Hassan-i Sabbah wasn't Iranian but an Arab, originally from Yemen. User without username (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hassan-i Sabbah was an Arab 

message: This IP has been blocked but made this redundant edit which hasn't been corrected yet.[]
Implying as if Persian and Tajik is interchangeable which it is NOT.
If someone could fix it per the dif I linked, that would be great
- 94.210.203.230 (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocked IP 

message: Balkans? Serbs? Albanians? Italians?... Next time add Croats and Bosniaks too! It's over-laughable content (current revision). Major genetic markers of Iranians are J2 (Greco-Anatolian, Mesopotamian, Near Eastern), G (Caucasian, Alanian [Sarmatian]), and R1a (Aryan). Iranians are close to other Western Asians (Anatolian Turks and some Arabs), people of Caucasus (Armenians, Azeris, Georgians), North Indians and Central Asians. Even the Iranian branch of R1a is not similar to Eastern Europeans (Balts and Slavs), because these groups separated 5000 years ago at least. Iranians do not fit in the European category or Semitic. They're just Mesopotamians with Aryan influences, so they're only close to inhabitants of Historical Greater Iran (Asia Minor, Iraq, Caucasus, Central Asia). --103.41.63.12 (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: An ip from "JAPAN" (among blacklisted ips)...Firstly use your own ip dear proxy abuser sock. lnterestingly, in the past, a Turkish sock master claimed the same things with you (" iranians are mesopotamians") -Tirgil34 again?-  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.219.135.240 (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetics sections needs a complete rewrite/revision