Talk:Iran/Archive 8

message: There are great maps of religions, langauges and provinces of Iran on 
http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/maps.shtml
Does thats not true them here on the Iran pages? The CIA maps that are already there are really bad--usually simply wrong!
HAVE A HAPPY NOROUZ--Zereshk 22:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you! Happy nowruz to all of u! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.217.115.92 (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hamegee...

message: Previous discussion is archived here:  Talk:Iran/Archive_7#Vote_on_trimming_the_History_Section.  External parties were invited to opine on adequate size of the history section.  Myself and one other editor responded, and we both agreed that the history section should be reduced, so that remains on the todo list.  (It's not a question of removing the material, but what the appropriate balance is between the subsection on the main Iran article page, and the detailed history page(s).) --Psm 01:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  Unfortunately previous attempts to do so were thwarted.  The Behnam 01:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The history section cannot be reduced, as it is already very very short. You are talking about a nation with 3000+ years of history (and this is excluding Irans pre-Iranic history, the region of Iran has 7000 years of history...), how are you going to shorten it any further? Each part of Irans history that is dealt with in this article is very very short.Azerbaijani 03:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There was a clear consensus that the history section should be not reduced for reasons explained in the previous discussion. --Mardavich 04:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  History section needs to be expanded.  --alidoostzadeh 04:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The section about the Greco-Persian Wars is ludicrously loaded, as it stands.  I dare not edit it right now as I can see this article and section is in the middle of much discussion.  FWIW I also think the history section is way too long given that it has an article of its own. People seem to be getting quite emotional about this, but it's not about dismissing or inflating the importance of Iran's history, it's about breaking up the information into manageable pages.Thermaland 12:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I tried editing the first sub section of the history of Iran. Not much of a change though. I only rewrote some sentences, and took out some redundant passages that were repeated in the text. See if yall approve. I'll go thru the rest as time permits me.--Zereshk 20:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for trying size reduction.  The Behnam 16:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section needs to be reduced (significantly) 

message: 1. Isn't it worth mentioning that Iran is considered a state-sponsor of terror?  I mean, seriously, it's not even mentioned in the wikipedia article?  
2. What about the fact that Iranian officials have explicitly and publicly threatened to "wipe Israel off the map"?  This is not worth mentioning?  
3. In the US article, the author mentions some BBC poll that found 51% of those surveyed believed the US had a primarily negative influence in the world.  Why doesn't the article on Iran mention that 54% of those surveyed in the same BBC poll believe that Iran had a primarily negative influence in the world.  
4. The bias is baffling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stewstew03 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  State Sponsors of Terror 

message: Persian is not a language.  The people of Iran are Persians, but they speak Farsi. HikageMaru 04:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is.  I don't know where you got that idea from, but "Persian" is the English word for the language, while "Farsi" is the native word.  It is sort of like "Italian" versus "Italiano."  In general, colleges refer to the program for that language as "Persian" and not Farsi.  The Behnam 10:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a common mistake that all of the media are commiting. It's like "German" vs. "Deutsch". The Academy of Persian Language and Literature, which is the highest body in matters of Persian language and literature, calls it "Persian" when conversing in English, as well.--Zereshk 21:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is, of course, Persian. Calling it Farsi when speaking English is a very new phenomenon, and most if not all scholars of Persian studies discourage it as far as I know. Shervink 22:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Persian Language? 

message: I edited the Sassanid section. It was shortened, but improved, I think. Here is what I did:
*I took out the names of all the lands conquered by the Sassanids, because the map there actually shows the extent of the empire and the lands that formed the empire.
*I deleted the daily details of how the Arabs defeated the Sassanid army. I think that detail is not needed on the main page.
*Instead, I inserted a paragraph of some of the cultural accomplishments of the Sassanids during that era. I think a bit more could be added there.--Zereshk 17:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did the same for "From the fall of the Sassanian Dynasty to the Mongol invasion" section.--Zereshk 16:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sectional edit

message: I looked up Iran to find the spelling for Ahmadinejad and was curious to find that his name is not mentioned anywhere in the article.  I have found several other countries' listings that have their current leader mentioned somewhere.  Should not this one?
Cogknight 14:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just another sign that this article is too much a 'history of Iran' article.  The Behnam 23:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mamoud Ahmadinejad 

message: Hi, can people make comments about whether it is advisable to delete almost entirely the Iranian etiquette article. Some people (mostly one) keep arguing that we should delete the article (also they talk about "merger") but I think the article makes sense completely as it is, with minor improvements needed may be. Please comment on the Taarof talk page. Thanks.69.116.234.208 19:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Iranian etiquette]] and [[Taarof]] merger (RfC)

message: why is there no mention of the mass executions that took place in the months of 1988. (thousands of people were killed without any trails)
:This is the country's general article.  While the Revolution and War affected the entire nation, the 1988 executions generally targeted only MKO, Tudeh, and similar leftist groups.  We do have an article for this event if you interested, see 1988 executions of Iranian prisoners.  Thank you for your concern and feel free to ask more questions.  The Behnam 23:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamic Revolution and Iran-Iraq War

message: I read the history of Iran section in the main article a few days ago and found it well written and balanced in its views. I learned a lot of FACTS. I also removed a few sentences recently added (apparently) at a place where it was like responding to the movie "300" instead of simply narrating the story of Iran. All in all, a good article and I enjoy watching the pictures also. The more I look at this article, the more I see how close Americans and Iranians are. SSZ 07:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh come off it...
John 07:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History of Iran

message: I don't think we actually need to quote lines of poetry in this article.  How about we just mention who the important guys are and leave it at that? It seems a waste of space and I generally don't see if much elsewhere.  Now don't find one article, like Rock of Ages, and say that because of it having lyrics, it is OK to have poetry.  I think that the article will be improved and shortened by removing the poetry regardless of what the other articles are doing.  Anyway, how exactly do we decide from all of the poetry in the first place? Best just avoid the issue by getting rid of it.  Maybe we can link them under 'further reading' to books of poetry translated into English.  The Behnam 10:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a reflection of the Iranian characteristic. If you ask an Iranian one thing theyre proud about today, most if not all would probably mention their literature and poetry (i.e. culture). Put simply, poetry is not such a big part of the life of an American, or say, a German, as it is for an Iranian. And that's what we're trying to reflect here. As for the selection criteria, the verses selected (except for that Rumi one) all have one thing in common: they are about "Iran", whioch is the topic of the article. It's very difficult to find such verses. And as for the Sa'di verse, it is probably the most popular verse of Persian poetry. Though there are probably other popular verses too.--Zereshk 11:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you insist upon having actual lines in the article, perhaps we could at least limit it to one? Then the problem is which one.  Should we add more? The section needs trimming in any case.  The Behnam 03:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree with reducing. How about ditching the Rumi lines? I dont see how any large significance those particular lines carry.--Zereshk 12:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with that.  Unfortunately not knowing much Persian, I can't really appreciate the poetry, so I'll leave it to you Persian fluent people to choose the most significant. But I agree that those particular Rumi lines don't seem particularly significant, so they should probably be removed.  The Behnam 19:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, I am not sure. Rumi is the most famous and significant Persian poet in the English-speaking world. --Mardavich 19:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying he is insignificant, but rather that those particular lines aren't very special. Personally I'd rather not have actual lines of poetry arbitrarily placed in the article, but people here seem keen to it, so I'm trying to figure out what is the best way to cut down on size in that section. It really seems unnecessary to post that much poetry into the article.  The Behnam 19:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, but those are the only lines from Rumi in the article. If those particular lines aren't very special, then we should find a better Rumi poem to replace them with. And to cut down on size in that section, we should start by removing Avicenna's poem. Since when is Avicenna known for his poetry anyways? He was a scientist, that's what his best known for. --Mardavich 20:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine.  The Behnam 20:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poetry 

message: Manu kian maheri 13:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science section 

message: Here is what I did today in the changes I made to the History section:
*I rewrote almost half of the Parthian section.
*I think that the new text I put in is much more informative than the previous text we had. It is less pompous, and yet conveys more of the history of the Parthians.
*I sourced the important parts, so that some editors wont accuse us of "nationalism" and "anti-semitism" (!) again.
*I switched 2 pictures: One was the Parthian coin picture, because there were two pictures related to Phraates. If anything, the most important Parthian king was Mehrdad (Mithradates), not Farhad. The other pic I replaced was the Sassanid relief. It doesnt show much detail, and gives a war like imagery to the Sassanids, not an accurate depiction. The Shapur II bust on the other hand focuses on artistic prowess and grandeur.--Zereshk 18:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History revision update

message: Dear Editors,
I will be appreciated if you would make a link to my Iran's pictures here. The gallery is vastly interested by people around the world and seems to be suitable for here.
Link:
http://www.pbase.com/k_amj/throughout_iran
Also I have gallery about ancien Iran reminders:
http://www.pbase.com/k_amj/persia
Best Regards, 
Ali Majdfar
217.66.214.191 08:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you give your permission, we can upload the pictures here and use them. That'd be a great help. I don't think it's necessary to put a note on his website? as long as he can confirm he is the copyright owner and gives us his permission in whatever way --Rayis 16:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran's Picture 

message: Unless the improvement drive for this article does not become organised, all efforts to make the article more professional are useless.
Either there must be some sort of agreement between the editors about what course of action to take, or the article will always remain sloppy and amateurish.
Here are some problems:
#People, it's "SASSANID", not "SASSANIAN". Check the English dictionary.Cyrus111 keeps reverting back to the latter.
#I get blocked for trying to enforce the poll that we have on images. Then on the other hand, other users just drop by and change pictures left and right. And nobody seems to care. This is stupid. 
#Some users just cant be unbiased. Aghajoon, like it or not, Iranian culture was influenced by Hellenism at some point in time. Why is that a problem for some? Why do some editors keep trying to inject a "yeah but we kicked Greek/Roman asses too" into the article? That's called Oghdeh. And it reduces the article into a high school report.
#The tourist section reads like an advertisement from traveltoiran.com. I suggest we also then give information there about ticket prices to Iran. (ei khoda...)
There must be some sort of strict policing of any changes on this article with some admins involved to semi-protect the article.
If you want me to help as the oldest user involved in this article (since 2004) who is responsible for creating over 50% (if not more) of all Iranian articles, then please first reach an agreement amongst yourselves. Do you want to improve this article? Or does each person want to do his own thing?
I cant help edit this article, and then have people do their own thing. SSZ does his own thing, Cyrus 111 does his own thing, and same for everybody else. And nobody discusses anything about any actual text in the article. 
I can only help when I know my time is not wasted.
Good luck.--Zereshk 00:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the subject of English dictionaries, it is "Azerbaijan" and "Azeri," not "Azarbaijan" and "Azari."  Anyway, I think the best way to go is to get rid of promotional and Iran-exaggerating POV projections and peacock wordings and return to the facts.  I think it is a shame that many of the editors here panned Sunshock's feedback without much consideration, as the criticism addressed many of the article's flaws.  And it is also disappointing that some people are including things specifically to send 'a message' to the world about Iran, as this is a gross violation of the policy of neutrality.  Furthermore, it is shame that you are quitting Zereshk, as you have done a lot of good work.  The Behnam 01:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, stop your non-sense Behman ;-) NOBODY is quiting here. Guys, I have seen this website today and it is fun because it allows to view a summary of the contributions for each Wikipedians with the details. SSZ 06:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I quit

message: Thank you for destroying the article everybody! Everyone goes their own way and adds the most nonsense.I know that we want people that look at the Iran page to learn and think differently about Iran. But now, the article is biased, long, and full of nonsense. This is wikipedia and we are editing an encyclopedia article!! Not a book!!! 
Wikilo12 06:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Wikipedia' neutrality policy we shouldn't be trying to send 'a message' about Iran to the readers.  This should just be facts.  The Behnam 06:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Facts? This article seems to have been written by the Iranian Government themselves. Armyrifle 10:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is ruined. 

message: Here's some ideas and plan of actions, if involved editors really wish to improve the article, and avoid editorial conflict all the time:
#Be careful and make up our minds about what images to use, and once selected, keep them. Example: Is having an image of Karim Khan Zand more important than Shah Ismail Safavi? If so, why or why not? For that matter, did Safavis have more impact on Iran or Zandiyeh? Which image has better significance? Which has better resolution?
#If we want to poll and vote on the images, then at least enforce them!!! Or at least have somebody be in charge of enforcing image agreements. 
#We cant vote on everything. So..... I suggest we appoint specific user(s) that you trust, to edit or even rewrite specific sections. Let him have a free hand. For example, User:Amir85 for before Islam history section (because he is so and so). Then we let him do all the editing. And if we have problems with his edits, or would like to make changes to what he's done, or have something added, or deleted, go through him first, through this talk page.
##So for example, I would suggest text for the subsection on the city of Shiraz to SSZ (assuming that he has been appointed in charge of the section on cities) on this talk page, instead of directly messing with his edits.
#Alternatively, since voting is proving to be so difficult to carry out, we could apply the former item to images as well. i.e. make one person in charge for picking the best images, and work with him, if we think that the (for example) Mongol map should be replaced by an Ilkhanid building. I have alone uploaded 600 images to Wikipedia, and I have 1000 or so more on my Home PC. So we dont have a shortage of images, and we have a free hand there as well. It's just a matter of working together. But if ONE person is in charge and we interact through him, things can get done much easier around here.
#Discuss any major changes you would like to be made, BEFORE making them, here, and to the user who we have nominated to fix that section.
Thats my 2 cents for today. I gotta get back to my lab. Now it's your turn. WHAT DO YOU THINK of all this?--Zereshk 15:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For starters, I've standardized usage to "Sassanid."  The Behnam 17:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sassanid is the proper term in English. Cyrus, please stop changing it back to Sassanian, the actual article is titled Sassanids as well. --Mardavich 17:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On that note, should we use the "search" function to find as many references to "Sassanian" as possible and change them to "Sassanid"? I've take a look and it will require some renaming.  The Behnam 17:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll do that. --Mardavich 18:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I'll see what I can do as well.  Just make sure all of the old names redirect.  The Behnam 18:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Not sure. It's not that hard, just search/replace the text. I already fixed one article. --Mardavich 18:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on tying up Indo-Sassanian right now.  It is just tedious because after the move you have to kill double redirects.  The Behnam 18:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: For the history section layout, I think I did what I could. (putting all portraits on 150 pix and others 200px) and adding sections. And about Sassanids, In French It's Sassanide not Sassanien (Ref: Larousse and Petit Robert) But that's in French, so in English it can be different. --Arad 00:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: If you really want to improve the article

message: I understand that the painting was kept per a recent vote, but some things about it are questionable.  For example, the book with the Farovar on it.  General scholarly opinion has the scriptures being kept by memory so it seems odd that we include a depiction of Zartosht himself carrying around a neat, bound book.  Furthermore, the use of the Faravar seems odd, since the spread-eagle form is a typical symbol of 'kingship', etc, originating in Egypt. It is thought to have passed from Egypt to Hittites (I think) and definitely to Assyrians, and supposedly the Achaemenians borrowed it from them.  While I don't recall the previous civilizations putting a guy in the middle, there is nothing suggesting that the Avestan culture used that particular symbol.  With this in mind, the use of the painting is misleading and probably should be taken from the article.  If we need a picture of Zartosht, perhaps we can use the famous Parsi depiction? I don't really see the need for his picture at all but if we do decide we need one, the standard Parsi picture is definitely more notable than this random painting.  The Behnam 20:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to disagree with you on this. There is a lot of different theories and ideas about the religion that scholars have, for instance there is no consensus that it was only oral tradition and not recorded down. But thats beside the point because the book is not identified as the "Avesta" in the picture. A picture of Zoroaster is definitely important because Zoroastrianism was the most important religion of the Iranian peoples and Persian traditions like the New Year stem from the old religion. I think this picture is more attractive than the common one and fits better with the article. Anyway, I think alot of the concerns on this page are going too far. These things are non-issues and I see no reason to delete what looks to be a good picture and any other pictures or trimming the article down even more. Like I said I think the article looks fine to me. Khorshid 21:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it doesn't say 'Avesta', though you'd hope that it is implied. I mean, otherwise, what the heck is that book? With a farovar on it? It is good to keep improving the article, and that may involve removing or replacing pictures that may be inappropriate. I'm perfectly willing to do it, so you don't have to worry about dealing with non-issues. I'm still leaning towards replace or remove, for if we are going to have a picture of a person of unknown appearance, we may as well use a 'classic' one, like the Parsi one, or none at all. This particular one has some questionable components so that doesn't help. Any other opinions?  The Behnam 22:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If we are gonna be picky, we can question everything about that image not just the book, as you said. But then again, who would expect any drawings or paintings of Zarathushtra to be factual? How would the Parsi one be any more factual just because it doesn't have a book in it? --Rayis 12:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zartosht painting 

message: I read this section and thought it had a few flaws:
* This one section describes four very important dynasties. I think this section should be devided into:
1. Safavid empire
2. Afshar & Zand Dynasties (We can debate about the name)
3. Qajar dynasty
* also one picture is not enough for a section describing such an important part of our history.
* Shah Abbas, (one of the most revered kings ever to rule iran) is not even mentioned! I think the safavid empire deserves more attention in this article.
Plese write your views below.Manu kian maheri 14:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a bit more info on them. But I'm afraid that the section gets too long. --Arad 04:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shia islam section 

message: This quote:
آمدند و کشتند و سوختند و بردند
They came & they killed & they burned & they took.
The English translation seems simple and these words are actually greater in meaning than the english translation. Although it was literally translated word by word, it seems to simple as if an immigrant wrote it (no offence) and the words don't seem valued. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Storkian (talk • contribs) 21:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mongolian invasion 

message: Whoever wants to add, debate about, or delete a picture please do so here.Manu kian maheri 12:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *First we need to get rid of the watermark if we decide to put this in the article (it's easy). But in my opinion, we have enough Khomeini on this article, we don't need anymore. Plus, he's not an appreciated character for most Iranians. --Arad 21:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: for deleting "imaginary" pix from this important article, you have my support. --Pejman47 01:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: for sure, we do need a picture of Khomeini. And I agree with Behnam, we don't need more. That's what I said too. We need to cut down not to add more. We can replace the current image of Khomeini with this one. But personally, I strongly oppose both. And about Zartosht, all I can say is that he was very important but I agree that the image is not appropriate. Maybe the Parsi version is better, as you mentioned. --Arad 21:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll put the Parsi version in for now, usage requirements permitting.  But it is worth to consider whether or not we really need a picture of Zartosht.  The Behnam 21:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is copyrighted, but it "illustrates the object in question" (Zartosht), and there is no free equivalent that is actually of 'classic' significance, so it should be good.  If I misinterpret the image police will show up anyway, so no worries. :)  The Behnam 21:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You didn't reply to my concerns regarding your point here about why the "Parsi" version should be used here, so no you will not do that (replace the pic) yet. --Rayis 12:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I replied elsewhere.  No issue here.  The Behnam 16:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: WOW those are some amazing images. Many of his works are feature worthy. I wish he was a contributor to Wikipedia. --Arad 21:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I was just looking at those and they are very good.  In fact some of them would be appropriate for our discussion below about desert hills.  The Behnam 21:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does someone wish to add them to the page? I believe they are relevant to the article. Adam 15:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think he meant adding the link. But I have emailed him to see if he gives permission to use the images here.--Zereshk 18:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please tell us the results when you got them. I can't wait to see those in Wiki. --Arad 14:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did get permission. Please cite his name in boldface, and the actual text of the permission when using his images, like I have done here, and use the CCASL 2.5 tag, as I have done.--Zereshk 18:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks a BUNCH to you and the author ! --Arad 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Come to think of it, that one bothers me too.  I'll ask to have it taken out.  Thanks for bringing it up.  The Behnam 21:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: The statement that Romanesque Architecture was influenced by Ctesiphon, is not only wrong, but ludicrous and clearly shows the propagandist pro-Iran Bias of the article's author. Romanesque Architecture flourished in the middle ages in Europe and was a Medieval interpretation of late Roman Architecture - that's why it's called "ROMAN-esque." Europeans in the Middle ages had NO contact whatsoever with Iran, and would not even have been aware of the existence of Ctesiphon. Therefore they could not possibly have been influenced by it! This article requires immediate review and editing by a historian of Persian history, preferably one who actually has a degree from a respectable major university, outside of Iran. Reading this article was like taking crazy 1 and 2 - next thing you know, the author will be telling us that Iran influenced the building of the Great Wall of China. Oh yes, and maybe the Persians built Big Ben too, and invented the internet thousands of years ago . . . yes, that's it - all hail the Supreme Leader, he will help us to turn off our Brains!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.151.21.99 (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: haha. OK calm down. I don't have much information about this topic, but I can assure you the Europe was very WELL aware of Persia in middle-ages. --Arad 01:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The claim is fuckin sourced. Open your eyes people. Its a straight quote from an American reference. Sheesh. Why does it piss off people soooo much to have had Iran influence some part of western art or science in the past? As if their mother has been insulted or something. Please do some reading before actually making any "crazy" comments.--Zereshk 01:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: for making your point, you don't need to offend other people: "hail the Supreme Leader, he will help us to turn off our Brains!", BE POLITE!--Pejman47 01:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Zereshk, kota biya. I agree with Zereshk. --Arad 21:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to reference #27 regarding Romanesque Architecture 

message: Someone else brought this up, but I am also concerned that it is misleading to use this picture  in the article.  If you look at the discussion and related pages, the image has been modified significantly, and it is rather embarrassing that a 'fake' image has stuck around on this page for so long.  Furthermore, I don't understand the image selection very well.  Where are the deserts? I know that it is stressed that Iran isn't a big sand desert like Saudi Arabia, but much of it is desert of the New Mexico type.  We have picture of shomal, which is good, but it seems misleading to not picture any of the deserts, especially since some of the major and historically important sites are within the desert part of Iran.  I think that we ought to get an unmanipulated picture of Iranian desert and replace the Sanandaj picture with it.   The Behnam 01:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, It is not a good idea to have a Pic which is doctored on this article, I will delete that. Substitute is welcome!--Pejman47 01:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice if someone had a good desert picture on hand.  I may able to get one from my trip, as I believe that we took desert pictures.  The Behnam 01:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish you a good trip! :)  --Pejman47 02:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks but it already happened.  I mean I could ask for the photos from a family member.  The Behnam 02:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So then: "I wish you had a good trip!", and I think in the lead, there must be one sentence about the current political system of Iran. I will add it now--Pejman47 02:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it was good, thanks.  And yes, the lead should summarize the article per WP:LEAD so any addition to that end is appropriate.  The Behnam 02:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And someone pointed out that there similar pictures on USA, and this is not a big issue. I object to the deletion of the picture. --Mardavich 02:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something being done on a different article doesn't really justify it being done here.  Do you have any concrete arguments in support of a doctored/misleading picture?  The Behnam 02:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not "doctored", all pictures get color-adjustment and a final touch from photo-shop to make them more clear and photogenic. Anyways, I added a new picture for now, but I think the Kurdistan picture should not have been removed, I'll wait and see what others have to say about. --Mardavich 02:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read its delisting discussion, you will find that many of the users found the level of doctoring 'too much', hence leading to the delisting.  The Behnam 02:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No idea, feel free to edit the caption/description with more precise info. --Mardavich 03:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to add Fars Province landscape. Also I might support a desert picture with a Mohammadi Rose in it (As you know, Rose (or at least some sorts of it, originates from Iranian deserts) --Arad 21:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I don't like a picture of a desert alone. I think Arg-e Bam picture represents desert too. --Arad 21:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am just saying that I think pure geography/wilderness should be depicted rather than modified land.  Aren't there any important natural landmarks in the desert? I too agree that a picture of 'a patch of desert' would be bland, but if there were some of those rock-hills in the picture it would be much cooler, IMO.  The Behnam 21:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely not, that's one ugly picture. --Mardavich 23:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any 'pretty' non-manipulated pictures that are true depictions of the Iranian landscape?  The Behnam 00:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The current pictures are fine. --Mardavich 00:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I guess you aren't actually up to addressing the issues here.  I'll wait for some more opinions, hopefully a little more constructive.  The Behnam 00:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are non-issues to me. There is nothing wrong with current picture, that's my opinion and I consider it constructive. --Mardavich 17:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks for your opinion.  The Behnam 19:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This one obviously shows the mountainous part of Iran. But this is no desert. All the pictures we currently have do have mountains, we don't need another one. But I still love to see a landmark in a real desert in Iran. --Arad 11:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was really thinking of something like the Fars picture but without the farmland.  This isn't Darjeeling so the excessive green (from the farming) is kind of misleading.  If a similar one could be found without the farm I think that would be good.  I call it a New Mexico-type desert, but I don't know the technical term for that.  Do you know of any geographic landmarks?  The Behnam 11:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More image concerns 

message: This appears to be a POV projection, and for that matter a projection from opinion pieces of no significance whatsoever.  I will remove it as people have complained about the pamphlet/propaganda character of the article, and projections such as these are part of the problem.  The Behnam 02:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sourced, that's all that matter. "Opinion pieces" you're referring to are written by academics. --Mardavich 02:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No plenty more than 'being sourced' matters.  I don't know where you establish Shapour Suren-Pahlav as an RS or even an 'academic' of any repute, or the other guy, but in any case the incredibly severe opinions from those 'works' aren't going to be projected onto this page, especially views that can easily be contested.  Unless, that is, we'd rather keep this article as a POV 'propaganda'.  The Behnam 03:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah! I see Khorshid mindlessly restored the POV like he does elsewhere.  This is silly.  The Behnam 03:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Model of tolerance and respect 

message: The section on the major cities is poorly written, with grammar and spelling problems. It is also very disorganized. If someone can please order it from the largest city to the smallest and maybe place the populations in brackets next to the name of the city. Also the section for isfahan says that it is he third largest city while the karaj section has a population that is bigger making it the third largest city. 
The section on the government and politics also looks messy with small chunks under subheadings. I think it will be better to write the information in summed up, bigger paragraphs instead. 
The military section also needs expansion such as the industry, major advances, build ups (if any), current fleet (not to detailed) and other stuff. 
The geography and climate section also needs more information such as Irans wetlands or more importantly the Ramsar Convention. It is also lacking information on major lakes such as Lake Urmia. Additionaly it needs information on the animals, plants and forests unique in some way to Iran like the Hara forests and trees.
There should also be more detail for the provinces, look at Turkey for an example. While you are looking at the Wiki for turkey look at the foreign relations section. I think this Wiki can use that section as well. Other Wiki's, special ones for the countries, can help us develope this one much better since we can see the goods and bads in the other articles.
pedram-e  02:05, 13 April 2007
:I looked at the Turkey page and saw that Pedram was right. We should use good ideas from other pages (especially Featured Articles) and combine them with our own. For instance in the Turkey article there was no Major Cities section and all the infomation about turkish cities were in the Administrative divisions section. I think this makes the article more tidy and focused. Even if no-one agrees with me at least we could put the Major Cities section after the Administrative divisions section. We can learn alot from others. Manu kian maheri 15:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I like having as much information about a subject as possible, but really, this page takes, what seems forever, to load and I'm on cable! Can't some of the sections be broken up into different articles so the page is not so big? I don't know the exact size right now, but do know that wiki suggests a certain size so it isn't so big for people on slower connections, or moble devices, etc. that it takes forever to load, or makes the page barely readable. I do know this page exceeds the recommented size limit quite a bit just by loading the page. Just a consideration please. Thanks for everybody's hard work. Jeeny 00:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree with you. I think section like and specially like the history section are way prolonged ad need to be shortened. With that we will have more room for other sections that this article is missing or sections that need improving. pedram-e 21:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Issues Found In This Wiki 

message: I think the earthquake list is way too long for this article. Please put that in it's main article and mention a few important ones. --Arad 15:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earthquake 

message: Hello everyone,
I have made some major edits to the above article over the past 2 days, which refers to Iran's nuclear programme.
Could you please tell me:
1. If it is NPOV enough?
2. If You think I have omitted any material fact.
Thanks in advance for your time and feedback.
SSZ 02:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747]] 

message: Since people cant even agree whether or not the article needs changes (Cyrus111 and SSZ think it doesnt), the issue of improving the article is moot for now.
However, I will make some changes to some images. I have been given access to some new images to upload. The images of course are almost entirely non-political/historical. Mostly geographic and architectural. I think you will all (or mostly all) approve of them.
The changes will come in the next few days.--Zereshk 21:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While your addng pictures why not put one of the persian currency/money in the economy section. What happened to the old one?  pedram-e 21:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I uploaded 50 tomani, 2000 tomani, and 1000 tomani pictures before. I even remember a 10 tomani pic with Modarres' pic on it a long time ago. The images should still be around. People just cant agree when it comes to anything in this article.--Zereshk 21:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed the picture of Darius under etymology since it wasn't directly related. It was related to a small part of the aticle but it did not add any significanse to the etymology section. What do you think? Pedram-e 22:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK with me. It is related to the history section, but not directly to the etymology section.--Zereshk 23:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, While on the topic of changes I think the aricles flow would be enhanced if we move the major cities section to under the provinces. Then we should move the demographics section to under the major cities. I'm shore that other changes like that will improve this article as well, not just the usual changes people here like to talk about. Pedram-e 22:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think SSZ will get upset if you touch the city section. But I agree, the way they are written and presented isnt very appealing. Perhaps they should gho under the administrative divisions section.--Zereshk 23:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I liked that picture you put above but Mardavich didn't.  Anyway, about Darius, I believe he was under etymology because he is the strongest source for the use of "Arya" in a ethnic sense of the Achaemenians.  Of course, his picture doesn't add to this and it would be more appropriate to show the OP inscription, but there is no need for more pictures here so I second removal.  The Behnam 16:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: changes

message: I also just finished editing the Safavid/Afsharid/Zand/Qajar era. I think the text reads much more smoothly now. However, looking at the section, the Qajar events are largely missing. Should I add a sentence or two about the Qajar legacy and main events, or are things good as they are now?--Zereshk 00:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sections of history of Iran has undue weight, it failed to show that current state of Iran is just a continue episode of "shia state" of Ismail and safavids. Safavids and Qajars must be expanded. --Pejman47 19:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Im fine with that. But we're already under pressure to reduce the size of that section. I'm just hoping that the 2 paragraphs I just added to the Safavi--Qajar section doesnt get erased. If people agree that it's OK, then we can addmore sentences to that section. Please all give your opinions: Is what we have enough, or is there more needed, and if so, what topic should be mentioned?--Zereshk 20:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its current size is OK, I think if there is a need to summarize other parts of History sections must be summarized and sorry for my errornous edit!--Pejman47 21:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: But I dont agree with the merging of the pre-Safavi and post-Safavi period into one section as you (Pejman47) are now doing. Historically, the Safavi empire is considered by many historians as the dawn of a new era in Iran's history. It is the rennaissance post-middle age equivalent of Iran's history. Modernity in Iran was literally conceived in the Safavid era. So it needs its own section. Otherwise we should likewise merge the Parthian and Sassanid eras as well.--Zereshk 21:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I know!, as I said that edit was errornous. and I was disconnected to revert it quickly, ... and that page is so heavy!, but I propose to merge Parthian with Sassanids--Pejman47 21:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then, I separated back the post and pre Safavid eras. I think the history section is as small as it can get. The "cities" and "tourism" sections are currently occupying too much space.--Zereshk 21:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, Cities section must be eliminated entirely (reverting back the User:Manu edits), and Tourism section needs a serious cleanup.--Pejman47 21:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think that we can merge all those little political subsections into one section without losing any content. But Im hesitant to do that until we get some agreement.--Zereshk 21:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Qajar history?

message: The section belonging to Government and Poitics is a clear mess. First of all is there a reason why some sub-headings are bolded and some aren't?
This section needs to lose all those sub-headings and instead it should be formed by paragraphs much like the same section for some other countries such as Pakistan or Turkey, which by the way are both featured aticles. Right now this section looks like blobs and chunks of premature and sometimes useless information. Were is, for example, the foreign relations section which could be placed under Government and Politics. 
I will not touch this section without other people's opinion so please give commonts.
Pedram-e 22:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government and Politics 

message: I suggest adding a foriegn influence section  (Or some thing along those lines) to the culture section; Briefly describing the influence of foriegn cultures had on Iran and Vice versa; and also a Persian languge section which would include Poems and also a brief history of  the Persian language; plus a short part describing prose (Nasr, نثر).
Also, some information in the very long beginning of the culture section should be put in the appropriate sub-sections.Manu kian maheri 18:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture 

message: We could use some images from this website (On all iran related subjects)(Shahrdariye shiraz):
The website is in Farsi (Persian), so our Farsi-speaking contributers should get permission and use those images on wikipedia (or whatever you have to do to get them on wikipedia).Manu kian maheri 16:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  more images 

message: I think some of the pictures in the Major Cities sub-section could be replaced, such as the isfahan, tabriz, and shiraz pictures. I suggest for the shiraz pic. go to site mentioned above.Manu kian maheri 17:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cities section is still compartmentalized. Phrases like "Ta-e-Vrezh, which meant "This is revenge"" dont have any value on an article that is introducing the country of Iran. Why are there geographical coordinates, number of Bakshs, number of townships, etc? That's info one finds in an almanac, or at least on Geography of Iran or Provinces of Iran. These issues are all reflecting poorly on the article. With or without the gallery, the section needs to be reduced to something comparable to Japan's similar section.--Zereshk 02:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  major cities pics 

message: How about if we merge all those little subsection on politics, and merge them, without any loss of content into one unified section on govt and politics, like the featured article Japan? I mean, why does the city councils need to have a special separate section? We can just cut and paste it into the unified section without deleting any content.
Do we agree on that?--Zereshk 21:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose

message: It seems that some history subsections such as the Achaemenids and safavid-qajar era. Please stop adding any more information until the desired size of the section has been reached!
We should also set a goal for the size of the history section(example:5KB) 
PS: We should shorten the Pahlavi and post revolution section!Manu kian maheri 15:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Iran does have a lot more history than most other countries. --Leroy65X 20:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well look at the size of the Japanese history section. as it says in the first sentence: The first signs of civilization on the Japanese Archipelago appeared around 10,000 BCE. Plus, if you lok at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries (and i advise everybody editing this page to look at it) it is written that an average history section should be 4four to six parragraphs, so Iran's history section should be under ten paragraphs. But there are Thity nine paragraphs' on the iran article!Manu kian maheri 20:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the paragraphs you are talking about are very short! The history section is fine.Azerbaijani 20:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You might think it is fine but it isn't fine to people who want this article to be a featured article! That's our main goal andwe will do whatever needed to reach it. Also there are more subsections than the number of paragraphs needed to make it featured! 
Manu kian maheri 07:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *What is more important than FP is that the article is informative. 10 Paragraph is way too short. There is 35 paragraphs right now man of them are very very small. If we put those into bigger paragraphs we currently have abut 17 which is OK. Of course we can still make it a bit shorter but not by much. The Iran-Iraq part is a bit long. --Arad 20:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think most people here agree that if there is to be any further shortening in the history section, it should be done on the post 1979 section. It is dispropotionately detailed.--Zereshk 14:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a thought here - the history section is fascinating, and it needs to be expanded. Why not split the history of Iran onto another page, and link to that page with a brief description on this main page? docboat 09:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: As part of the efforts to improve the article as per 2nd item on "To-do list" specified at top of this page, I merged all political subsections into one section. In doing so:
*I did not delete any contents. This section is written well enough and needs no editing.
*I assembled all "see main article" links at the top of the section.
*I bold faced the names of the main institutions of govt in the paragraphs, for easing navigation, and to highlight the paragraph's significance.
*Shuffled the images: I put the diagram image at the top (instead of Khamenei's pic), because it is the most important figure in terms of conveying information about the topic of this section.
*Added a sentence or two about foreign relations, as per discussion.
Hope that helps solidify this section's quality.--Zereshk 17:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Political section revised

message: I have edited the culture section a bit, but there are some things i would not edit before knowing everyones opinion. so:
* Do we need a sports sub-section in the culture section?
* I think that one fedowsi line is enough.Manu kian maheri 12:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The couplet from Ferdowsi (basi ranj bordam) is good as it is. We dont need to add another. And if you ask me, that Rumi poetry sample should be erased. We already have an image of Rumi. That gives him enough of a spotlight.--Zereshk 14:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture 

message: I posted this earlier, but apparently not only it fell to deaf ears. Here again:
In regards to IMOD, the herbal "medication" discovered by Iranian scientists using "nanotechnology" for treatment of HIV, it is rather careless to make mention of this "medication" in the article without any hint of skepticism and mistrust. The suspicion surrounding this medication is very well described under IMOD. There has been no scientific documentation as to the discovery and efficacy of this medication on any scientific journal, and the limited sample size of the supposed conducted trial only adds to the dubiety surrounding this "herbal medication." With the failure to make note of this uncertainity and skepticism, the statement currently made on wikipedia could very well be disseminating an Iranian government propaganda.
If you're going to make any changes to this article, at least make a case for it here before.
--Houman 05:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree. I think it's even better to remove it until there is a result out of it (which i doubt). It'd obvious that such medication is currently not possible with Iranian technology. Sorry to disappoint but we first need to make our own gasoline instead of selling our oil for cheap and buying it back for much more because we don't have refineries and then search for HIV treatment. --Arad 03:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *well, if individuals insist on keeping this frivolous claim in the wikipedia entry for Iran, this article can by no means can stay objective. I am Iranian, and I will be thrilled by any scientific breakthrough that might come from Iran, but at least keep this section limited to "objective science" only. This is absolutely rediculous! --Houman 17:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *I can't see why the claim wouldn't be true necessarily.United90 22:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science 

message: Now we have an archive index. I hope you use it to reduce repeated discussions. Khoda negahdar--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive index

message: I have edited the Jiroft civilization page alot adding two sections and am planning to do more in future. But it is curantly unrated, so I ask of you to look at it and give your opinion.Manu kian maheri 07:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jiroft civilization]] 

message: Somebody needs to change Potests to Protests 24.201.253.252 19:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various Potests 

message: Whilst reading the article on the Persian Empire, I noted that Iran can still be officially referred to as Persia.  Is this true? If so, I would use this name to avoid the negative media and political connotations so frequently associated with "Iran" in today's political climate. Gamer Junkie 00:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you can use the name. After all it's the same country. --Arad 16:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks for answering that.  I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a defunct name like Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia. Gamer Junkie 17:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Iran/Persia

message: Hi, I have created an article for the company mentionned in the title above and with whom I have NO relationship WHATSOEVER. This article, I realize, has existed before and is a VERY LEGITIMATE Iranian Company. In fact, it is a reputed organization relating to trade with Iran (they are in charge of organizing and facilitating exhibitions with other companies and countries) and it is linked to the Ministry of Commerce of Iran. I have just put basic factual stuff in it, like what they do and where they are located. NO ADVERTISMENT. NONE.
Please note that articles about many many companies exist on Wikipedia and it is ALLLOWED and very admissible, if they keep to the fact. People can also EDIT whenever necessary of course.
It is evident here someone is seeking to supress this information which is a symbol of free trade between Iran and the rest of the world and also a very useful article for anyone who wants to commerce with Iran. Also I am wondering HOW COME someone has noticed it was a previously deleted and what the true AGENDA is:
Indeed, I see today, just hours after its creation, that someone with the name Pejman47 has deleted this article and given me a warning by saying it is a "blatant adverstising" (which obviously is NOT the case) and that if I do something like that again I will be blocked. I would like to know if you agree that this Central Iranian International Exhibition Company must be deleted. Thanks for giving your opinion on the article's log page, here. SSZ 00:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Iran International Exhibitions Company]] on [[List of Major Iranian Companies]]

message: This is a usefull tool to check editors on Wikipedia and their edit history, along with some usefull statistics. This should also improve communication between editors. Simply input the editor's username in the box. See Wikimedia tools website69.116.234.208 03:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Check User tools for Wikipedians

message: I'm curious about more ethinic/religious demographic details in Iran, especially these questions: 
Are most non-Muslims in Iran Persians?
Are most Sunni Muslims in Iran Persians?
Are most Arabs in Iran Shia Muslims? 
What about the percentages of the Akhbari and the Shaykhi minority Shia subsects compared to the Usooli? --KMF 07:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Demographic Details? 

message: Lamborghinis on Vali Asr ave. and Chamran Highway? 
Sweet. Now Ive seen everything.--Zereshk 08:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this Tehran?!

message: Didn't it become a republic in 1948-1979? If so, we should say that becuase it doesn't mention the year it became a republic.
=== History of Iranian Revolution ===
Most of the subsection on the Iranian Revolution in the History section is taken verbatim from the lead of the Iranian Revolution article. I wrote most of that lead and think it is a good introduction to an article on the revolution, in fact I'm a bit proud of it, but is it really what you want for a brief description of the revolution in the context of Iran's history? It doesn't really fit at well as the old subsection and is a bit long considering some editor's here want to keep the subsections short.  --Leroy65X 14:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Republic

message: Most of the subsection on the Iranian Revolution in the History section is taken verbatim from the lead of the Iranian Revolution article. I wrote most of that lead and think it is a good introduction to an article on the revolution, in fact I'm a bit proud of it, but is it really what you want for a brief description of the revolution in the context of Iran's history? It doesn't really fit at well as the old subsection and is a bit long considering some editor's here want to keep the subsections short.  --Leroy65X 14:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Iranian Revolution 

message: Hi!  I added the Notable Iranians section at the very end of the article.  I think it's good to have to encourage/inspire Iranians that the sky is the limit for their goals; and as a way of connecting naive people to real Iranians, people that they heard of that they didn't know were Iranians; also that Iranians are not "evil" or belong to this so called "axis-of-evil" crap as spewed from the devil-incarnate.  ...Check it out.  Tell me what you think.  I will be back in a few days to read your responses.  Please don't delete it; if you want to delete it then plz let me know ahead of time so I can copy it and make a new page of "Notable Iranians" or whatev.  BTW, plz add to the list if you remember another cool, notable Iranian Calypsos 21:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Please note that this is Iran`s main page. Nazanin Boniadi and alike are no one to be included next to Rumi, Avecina and Kiarostami!  Sangak Talk 19:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable Iranians

message: I noticed use of both here, I changed what AD:s I could find to CE since that seemde to be prevalent, is there a consesus as to which one should be used on Wikipedia? VMajander 06:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And a few BC:s to BCE... VMajander 06:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AD vs. CE