Talk:Persians/Archive 3

message: Ok, I normally stay out of things I don't know about, but I reckon if I was from Persia, I'd want a better name than "Persian People!" That's just my opinion, but I reckon it should be worked on ASAP. 
I realise it's also the name of a cat, but "Persians" sounds Ok, for the time being. At least, it's less offensive than "Persian People". Wikipedia would not start an article on "Black People", as that is a very unpolite term. Instead, "African Amercians" is better. Just my opinion. Scalene 08:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Persian People!?

message: This page was too long and has been archived. See Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page. Do not bring back all the discussions, but only the ones that are necessary. AucamanTalk 18:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: Reverted Arhive - you can't while dispute is still going and there has been significant efforts to stop it. I have tried to add the comments back, but its got a little messy and I dont know the proper way of fixing it. I blame Aucaman for archiving it all of a sudden, if an admin knows the best way to fix this all up, feel free to do so. --Kash 12:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he doesn't want the word Aryan used, or at not used without some caveat that it is now considered offensive outside Iran and India. Zora 12:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The mediation is still open at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-02_Persian_people, where majority are in favour of using this term. There has been no users reporting that they find it offensive so far. I don't understand why anyone would. It has nothing to do with Nazi Germany. --Kash 12:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Kash. We have provided countless references that the term "Aryan" IS NOT offensive, period.  The term is used by many Western scholarly sources in relation to Iran and Iranians--ManiF 12:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Using the term as an ethnicity is different to racism. We have said nothing about Jews, or even about Aryans being superior or anything like that. That was all Nazi propoganda. If he can't appreciate this, then it is his problem. Majority of users on the mediation have agreed that it has nothing to do with racism. --Kash 12:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed dispute 

message: Once again, all my edits to this article as being indiscriminantly reverted without any explanation. What does it mean for Persians to be "Aryan decendents"? Firstly, it's grammatically incorrect. Second, Aryan is not a race. What does this even mean? AucamanTalk 20:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aucaman: The mediation case is about resolving the dispute. Please don't put it in the archive yet. Archive pages are not for ongoing discussions. --Fasten talk|med 21:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute

message: Zora, shut your mouth.  You know nothing.  Aryan isn't even pronounced "air-yan."  You say it ARE-EE-EN.  I GUESS ARYANS BETTER MAKE UP A NEW NAME FOR THEIR PEOPLE CAUSE SOME JERKS FIND IT OFFENSIVE.  Just because the Germans got confused and decided that Aryan means nothing.  Zora, you are an idiot.  Don't speak.  Aryans live primarily in Iran and Northern India and also in Pakistan and Afghantistan.  However, none of these countries are monoracial, so being from there doesn't mean you're an Aryan.  If Aryan isn't a racial term THAN WHAT DID ARYANS USED TO CALL THEMSELVES, EH?  What  racial term did they use?  Did they call themselves "indo-iranians" or the foreign word "persian," eh?  See?!?!  You're a moron.  Go swallow a frisbee and die.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.240.225 (talk • contribs) --Fasten 11:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whatever 

message: Again another article which uses the word Aryan profusely:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/EJVS-7-3.pdf
The claim by some of these people that Aryan(which means Iran) has no use in Academia is totally debunked again and again.  Also not only proto-Indo-Iranians, but old persians, medes,.. and etce called themselves Aryans and were referred to as such.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.62.234 (talk • contribs) 
:: Again this is an excellent article and proves why anti-Iranians like Zora are completely wrong.  Check out page 3.  The article is from Harvard Professor and it shows that Zora is belligerently anti-Iranian due to the fact that she claims she knows more than Harvard Professors, Encyclopedias and many different scholars.  I request the mediator to read this article and put an end to this aryan contorversy in this topic.
--Ali doostzadeh 07:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic use or non-use of the word Aryan 

message: The 2002 US census recorded just 338,266 americans with "Iranian" ancestry. 
No resource is more reliable to this regard as the US census bureau . If 900,000 or so persian americans existed (as some persian nationalists claim), wouldnt they have declared themselves as such ?
Even that 338,266 is an grossly exaggerated figure because Persians are only one of the ethnic groups that constitute Iran - numbering just 51% of the total population according to the CIA factbook. A good number of those 338,266 "Iranian-americans" are likely to be belonging to non-persian ethnic groups in Iran such as Kurds, azeris, lurs, gilaki, arabs, baloch, turkmen and so on. If anything the 338,266 is an absolute maximum for the number of persian-americans.
Furthermore, the 913,000 figure espoused by some persians comes from the Joshua People's project. This evangelical site has huge discrepancies when it comes to population data. For instance it gives a figure of only 977,000	for Serbs within Bosnia-Herzegovina, whereas the real figure is 1,479,930. In other words, it is unreliable. Nowhere as reliable as an established institution of statistics such as the US census bureau, which leaves the declaration of ethnicity/ancestry to the person(s) in question as opposed to an unauthoritative estimate.Bescn 08:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 913,000 figure is more accurate as most Iranians identify themselves as "Asian" or "White" in the US census.
http://www.niacouncil.org/faq2.asp#2
How many Iranian-Americans are there in the U.S.? 
It is estimated that there are upwards of one million Iranians in the United States. 
They are dispersed throughout the country and have large concentrations in metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., New York, and Chicago.''
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ifs_news/hi/newsid_4730000/newsid_4738200/nb_wm_4738232.stm
More than 600,000 Iranians live in Los Angeles many of whom are critical of the regime in Tehran.
--ManiF 08:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: BBC is not a random site. National Iranian American Council is not a random site. United States census is based on what people report themselves as. Many Iranians don't identify themselves as Iranian due to political conflict between USA and Iran. The actual number of Iranians in United States in between 1 to 1.5 million, at least 900,000 of whom are Persian. 
http://www.niacouncil.org/pressreleases/press008.asp
While there are problems with the way the census is administered, the biggest reason why we expect to be under-represented is that many people who received the long form failed to mark themselves as "Iranian".  This may have been due to the poor design of the census form or because of the individual's privacy concerns. 
--ManiF 09:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: BBC and the Iranian site you mention do not have a scientific way of carrying out polls in the US the way US Census Bureau does. See WP:V. AucamanTalk 09:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this website total population of Persians is 27 million?! Is it exact?Diyako Talk + 09:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we already have two good sources on the population in Iran. You can add yours as a third source if you want, but the source is not significant enough to rule out the other ones. AucamanTalk 09:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What are the two good sources?  There has only been two census done in Iran and thats it.  One in 1935 and one in 1993.  I really doubt there are 99,000 Persians in Afghanistan.  The site seems like another ethnologue wannabe with the exact same information copy & pasted.  In fact they give reference to ethnologue, so it is not a new source.  I have about three sources: Britannica, CIA Factbook, Encarta.    --Ali doostzadeh 15:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay I'll add both. AucamanTalk 10:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's strange! Some people choose some points of a source which are in their interests and ignore others which they do not like. The source wich shows a higher number for Persians in US has a much lower number for Persians in Iran as well as total population of Persian people. I'm not sure why some people prefer to censor the same source which is in some cases even supported by themselves.Diyako Talk + 10:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point. AucamanTalk 11:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Persian-americans 

message: This is not "Wikipedia" but "the English Wikipedia". All words used in this Encyclopedia are in English (language) and have the meanings and connotations of English words.
Now, most of us, especially those of middle age and above (or younger ones who have studied European history) know that the term Aryan was used in Nazi propaganda. It represented an ideal type of human being and was a an essential part of the Nazi justification for conquering or wiping out other "races".
In the English-speaking world, primarily the West, Nazism is all but discredited, and genocide generally frowned upon. 
So the association of Aryan with Iran appears to link Iranians with Nazis.
::  2500 years ago Darius called himself Aryan, 1700 Kanishka called his writing Aryan.  The Avesta dated between 3200-2700 years ago is also replete with this word.  I do not think the Germans were part of history back then.  The issue has nothing to do with Nazism, Genocide and etc.  For example maybe to the Rwandan Tutsis, the term Hutu could be offensive.  That does not mean that some groups should censure it.  So by explaining the correct term of Aryan, any distortion of the history of this word is actually corrected.  --Ali doostzadeh 16:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: irrelevant on en: (but do go ahead and start a Wikipedia project in Avestan or Old Persian). dab (ᛏ) 14:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aryan

message: Aryanic tribes moved into the region about 2000BC. Like I said all your information is against WP:V and WP:NOR. AucamanTalk 18:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who changed the date and removed the link to Columbia and why, but I have restored it. Instead of just deleting the paragraph using the incorrect date as an excuse, you could have just corrected it. SouthernComfort 04:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The Aryans came about 2000 B.C. and split into two main groups, the Medes and the Persians.  That's what Columbia says, BTW, not "Aryanic" tribes. SouthernComfort 04:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you really want to know who did it it's not hard to figure it out. The question is why are you reverting my edits when I'm trying to fix this? AucamanTalk 07:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't try to "fix it" - you deleted it outright or removed the term "Aryan" which is what the source uses. You need to stop going around to different articles deleting the term "Aryan." That is totally unacceptable and improper behavior. SouthernComfort 08:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dating

message: I don't know if I've made this clear before, but I'm not against all uses of the word "Aryan". In the English language, Aryan is simply a linguistic term (almost) synonymous to the term "Indo-Iranian". It is not used to refer to a specific ethnicity or race. As such, the term Aryan cannot be used interchangeably with the term "Old Iranian". The first paragraph of the disputed section is simply unsourced. Either provide sources or remove the paragraph. AucamanTalk 14:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you acknowledge that use of the english word Aryan in Iran, even if differing from modern western academic use, could constitute a point of view that might deserve representation? --Fasten 21:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is yes, but not in this article. Perhaps in the Aryan article, or the Aryan race article. I would even support the establishment of new article covering the usage in Iran. The term is only used by Iranian ultranationalist-monarchists (most of whom now live outside Iran) in a highly racialized matter. You also see the term in the first page of 5th grade Iranian history books, but that's just the legacy of the above-mentioned group. In any case, it's not related to this article and any mention of it is likely to violate WP:V and WP:NOR. AucamanTalk 23:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To say that "The term is only used by Iranian ultra nationalist-monarchists" is your POV. We have provided countless examples on this page that the term is used by many scholarly sources such as Mariam Webster Dictionary and Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia, Iranica in regards to Iran and Iranians. --ManiF 10:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good to follow arguments section by section, not sentence by sentence. We were talking about the specific case of the term meaning "Old Iranians", not the general term itself. Mariam Webster Dictionary and Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia, and Iranica do not use the term to mean "Iranian and Iranain alone" - the way you are. Thanks for joining in the conversation. AucamanTalk 11:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of fact, Webster Dictionary and Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia, and Iranica do use the term in relation to Iran and Iranians, specifically the background of Iranian ethnicities. --ManiF 12:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you're just making things up. I've yet to a single source that says Aryan mean Iranian. A simple Google search further illustrates my point (you only see 5 hits from uneducated people in forums). There are simply no sources out there saying Aryan means Iranian. Aryan is usually taken to mean Indo-Iranian - and that's not the same as Iranian. AucamanTalk 15:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason is that you do not read.  The Sassanid trilingual inscriptions use Aryan for Iran in Greek and Parthian. --Ali doostzadeh 22:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comment in the section below this. We're talking about the use of term in English. AucamanTalk 08:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: ::Why are you changing the subject? When I say "you're making things up" it means you're doing neologism. You claimed that the English word "Aryan" means Iranian. Where's your source for that? I already know that Aryan means Indo-Iranian. But you understand the difference between Indo-Iranians and Iranians, right? AucamanTalk 07:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact you constantly change the subject and reject what everyone else has to say and return to your original argument again and again. Instead you go around deleting sourced statements and any appearance of the term "Aryan." Your behavior is out of line. SouthernComfort 08:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:SouthernComfort, you still have to explain edits such as this - an unexplained removal of the dispute tag without any consensus on the talk page (and with a mediation case already in place). AucamanTalk 11:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning of Aryan

message: From a historical point of view, it seems Aucaman is more or less correct and ManiF and Ali are both wrong, to a certain extent. The Aryans were the prehistoric peoples who spoke the Indo-Iranian parent tongue that would later evolve into Iranian, Nurestani and Indo-Aryan. Iranians are a branch/descendant of the Aryans. In a sense the orignal Iranian peopls are Aryans, with the understanding that all Iranian peoples are Aryans but not all Aryans are Iranian peoples. If Aryan meant the Iranian peoples, then by golly are North Indian people Iranian peoples? Are the Punjabis, Kashmiris and Sindhis of Pakistan also Iranians, along with Pashtuns and Balochis (who are Iranian peoples)? Are the Bengalis and Sinhalese Iranian peoples? This just shows how ridiculous this definition of Aryan is. Aryan is an ethno-linguistic term that in ancient times signified the Indo-Iranian speakers that migrated and settled in both the Indian subcontinent and the Iranian plateau. Aryan was also frequently used in ancient times to refer to the ancestors of the Indo-Aryan branch of the people, who are as ancient and significant if not more older a branch of the Aryans than the Iranians. India was as much an Aryan area as the areas settled by Iranian peoples and to define Aryans as just Iranians is an example of mere ignorance and only excludes this ancient and probably more antiquated branch of the people who founded one of the worlds oldest continuing civilizations. The first recorded mention of the word "Aryan" was used in the Rig Veda to signify the Indo-Aryan migrants who spoke Indo-Iranian. The people who were Aryans were the people who spoke the Indo-Iranian language and split up a long time ago. Today, the term applies to the Indo-Iranian languages spoken in both the subcontinent and the Iranian plateau (plus Central Asia). The modern Iranian peoples and Indo-Aryan peoples are descended from Aryans but are not necessarily Aryans as they do not speak the Indo-Iranian parent language and do not follow original Aryan tribal customs. Both branches changed and evolved from the original Aryan culture. Zoroastrianism and Hinduism changed and revised much of the original Indo-Iranian religion and later faits such as Yezdism, Manicheanism, Buddhism and Jainism depart from it even further. Iranian peoples today mostly follow Islam. Indo-Aryans today follow Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism, and Jainism. Basic point is, Aryan signifies the prehistoric peoples who invaded Iran and India. The Indo-Aryans and Iranians are branches of the Aryan people. One branch does not signify the whole Aryan race. Case closed. Afghan Historian 20:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Afghan Historian's contribution

message: Didn't Hitler consider the Persians superior? If you say no, he actually considered them superior MORE than the germans.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.53.217.41 (talk • contribs) --Fasten 15:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler 

message: http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/er_ermazdesn.htm
First sentence:''
Inscr. Mid. Pers. êr [´yly], plur. êrân [`yl´n]), an ethnonym, like Aryan (Old Persian) ariya- and Avestan airya-, meaning "Aryan" or "Iranian." 
Note Prof. Gnoli is one of the foremost scholars of ancient Iran.  (Do a google search on him and you will get 14000 links).
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rels/002/lectures/lecture8.html
Use of Aryan by Professor. Frye.
"The question is not the integration of old Aryan beliefs into the religion of Zoroaster, but the reverse, the acceptance of the teachings of the little known priest in a small principality in eastern Iran by the majority who followed priests of the old Aryan pantheon. The Magi accepted Zoroaster probably as they had absorbed other teachings, but Zoroaster became the founder and the prophet of the new syncretic religion . . . This is the real problem to explain."  
-- Richard Frye, op. cit., p. 77 
http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/arya.htm
By Late Sir Harold Bailey (died 5 years ago, the article is very recent) (the foremost scholar on Saka Khotanese and Iranian linguistics)
http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/aryans.htm
Prof. Rudger Schmitt (the foremost scholar on Old Persian)
So here have four of the top experts (plus Prof. Witzel which makes 5) who have all used this ethnic terms for Iranians. I have also mentioned Prof. Asko Parapola (makes 6). There are many many scholars who are not concerned with politics and are just trying to do their work without hinderance.   If you put the names of each of these Professors in google, you will get thousands of link.  So I am not sure what the problem of some people is with the word Arya(Iranian)?  And yes even in Islamic sources (Hamza Esfahani 10th century A.D) use the word Aryan and Persia equivalently. 
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0415103177&id=dz3d7ymB1f4C&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=shapur+++king+of+aryans&sig=hCRo0jNuo0AaEJmwzIfV8M5qhxk
from: The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars: A Documentary History
edited by Michael H Dodgeon, Samuel N C Lieu  
From the above, Shapur the Sassanid kings incription.  Part of it is: 
"I am the Mazda worshipping divine Shapur, King of Kings of Aryans (i.e. Iranians) and non-Aryans of the race of gods...I am the lord of the Aryan nation (i.e. Iranian) nation."
So here we have middle Persian (which is very close to modern Persian and much closer than modern English is to middle English) stating clearly from a inscription.
 
The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism
by R C Zaehner  
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN1842121650&id=7FktVgTyDGsC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=iranians+aryans&sig=DmIu8Uy3F10x7XS_JWjbMObE3tY
Another book clearly uses the words Iranians and Aryans equivalently.
Here is a book about the Holocaust
Curriculum and the Holocaust: Competing Sites of Memory and Representation
by Marla Morris 
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0805838120&id=dqnU3OdFIsYC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=iranians+aryans&sig=s2jfFfRUaVfzjwlihG79Sjgrn_M
Once Christians "discovered" their new roots, their relatedness to Indo-European Iranians or Aryans, they could boast of their supposed superiority over the semites or the jews 
Another book by a top Iranian studies Professor:
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN9004008578&id=VPBlAncugn8C&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=iranians+aryans&sig=4gLkBHfwvdJ0SzGXi49brRSgJcs
The term Iranian derives from the Old Iranian ethnical adjective Aryaana, itself a derivative and synonym of Arya
Another source: Cambridge history of Iran:
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN052120092X&id=Ko_RafMSGLkC&pg=PA409&lpg=PA409&dq=iranians+aryans&sig=qjChpx2yT0rI9gshbDYRp5qA4mU
Note these are not random google sites, but top references used by many many academians.  So the usage of Aryan(Iranian) is widely spread in the literature and it is used in Achaemenid, Sassanid and Islamic (Hamza Isfahani for one example) sources.  The word Iran infact is the best proof of this continuity.  Greeks and Armenians have also used this term in their addressing of Iranians (Persians,Medes, Parthians).
--Ali doostzadeh 06:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aryan is not a mere definition, it is an ethnic group which by itself consists of variety of definitions and as you can see, many English textbooks use the term Aryan beyond the term Indo-Iranian. The first claim was from Zora that the term is not in academic use and she was proven wrong.  It seems you accept the fact that the term is used in the academic world.  Obviously there is no choice for any unbiased reader , when this amount of abundant evidence is brought forth. As per your claim above, it is wrong, since I have brought a good amount of material written in English to show that term is used beyond Indo-Iranian!  But besides being wrong, your argument is actually irrelevant from my POV, since the term is not English but it is Iranian and when there is an article about Iranians, it is totally relevant to use terms related to Iranians.  Just because the language of English Wikipedia is English, it does not mean anything since the English speaking world spans America, England, Australia, India and many many other places.  For example some words are used differently in American English than Brittish English.  So there is no such concept as English definition when defining an ethnic group, since what is the most important is the historically established sources defining such a group.  Each term and word must be sought in its own language and translated for any other language.  And this btw does not mean that if I am going to define Chinese by Chinese records, then I should go learn Chinese. --Ali doostzadeh 07:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not addressed any of my concerns and the large number of irrelevant links you provide (and your excessive writing) is not likely to make your case look any better (if not worse). AucamanTalk 08:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aucaman please act WP:CIVIL, if you have any problems with the links go through them and express your concerns. --Kash 11:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aucaman your concerns are emotional and not academic.  Because I have given English sources that strictly identify Iranians as Aryans and these are written by top scholars in Iranian studies.  Previsouly you claimed that the word Aryan and Iran are not related and I gave proof above that they are the same.  Another use name Zora claimed that the term is not used in Academia and again you were proven wrong.  I have also given sources from Avesta, Achaemenid, Middle Persian, Parthian, Greek, Armenian, Modern Persian and etc.  When discussing an article about Iran, then we are discussing the opinion of top Iranian scholars about Iranians.  We are not discussing "Semite/Aryan" conflict of Nazi Germany. The two issues have absolutely nothing to do with each other.  As per aryan in Indic languages, I must also add that some scholars claim that Aryan in Indic language is not necessarily an ethnic term but this has nothing to do with the Iranian branch.  Every scholar on Iranian languages concurs that Aryan is an ethnic term and that is why today there is Iran(aryan) and Iranians(Aryans).  --Ali doostzadeh 05:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abundant amount of sources 

message: Sorry I've already read most of these articles. The question of meaning of the Old Persian term ariya- and whether or not it was an ethnic self-designation is not at all relevant to this article or the discussions we're having. The question is: What's the English definition of the term Aryan and how it should be used. Historically a lot of different ethnic groups have chosen to adopt the term and used to identify their people. This does not in any way change the meaning of the term in English. If there was an Old Persian Wikipedia then you could have used the term to mean Old Iranian. But this is the English Wikipedia and the usage of terms is dictated by the English language. In English the term Aryan means Indo-Iranian and its usage seems to be diminishing due to the same exact confusions you seem to have. AucamanTalk 07:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aryan is not a mere definition, it is an ethnic group which by itself consists of variety of definitions and as you can see, many English textbooks use the term Aryan beyond the term Indo-Iranian. The first claim was from Zora that the term is not in academic use and she was proven wrong.  It seems you accept the fact that the term is used in the academic world.  Obviously there is no choice for any unbiased reader , when this amount of abundant evidence is brought forth. As per your claim above, it is wrong, since I have brought a good amount of material written in English to show that term is used beyond Indo-Iranian!  But besides being wrong, your argument is actually irrelevant from my POV, since the term is not English but it is Iranian and when there is an article about Iranians, it is totally relevant to use terms related to Iranians.  Just because the language of English Wikipedia is English, it does not mean anything since the English speaking world spans America, England, Australia, India and many many other places.  For example some words are used differently in American English than Brittish English.  So there is no such concept as English definition when defining an ethnic group, since what is the most important is the historically established sources defining such a group.  Each term and word must be sought in its own language and translated for any other language.  And this btw does not mean that if I am going to define Chinese by Chinese records, then I should go learn Chinese. --Ali doostzadeh 07:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not addressed any of my concerns and the large number of irrelevant links you provide (and your excessive writing) is not likely to make your case look any better (if not worse). AucamanTalk 08:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aucaman please act WP:CIVIL, if you have any problems with the links go through them and express your concerns. --Kash 11:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aucaman your concerns are emotional and not academic.  Because I have given English sources that strictly identify Iranians as Aryans and these are written by top scholars in Iranian studies.  Previsouly you claimed that the word Aryan and Iran are not related and I gave proof above that they are the same.  Another use name Zora claimed that the term is not used in Academia and again you were proven wrong.  I have also given sources from Avesta, Achaemenid, Middle Persian, Parthian, Greek, Armenian, Modern Persian and etc.  When discussing an article about Iran, then we are discussing the opinion of top Iranian scholars about Iranians.  We are not discussing "Semite/Aryan" conflict of Nazi Germany. The two issues have absolutely nothing to do with each other.  As per aryan in Indic languages, I must also add that some scholars claim that Aryan in Indic language is not necessarily an ethnic term but this has nothing to do with the Iranian branch.  Every scholar on Iranian languages concurs that Aryan is an ethnic term and that is why today there is Iran(aryan) and Iranians(Aryans).  --Ali doostzadeh 05:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: Hi guys, you know I've mostly stayed out of here, but ...:
I think you are less far apart from each other than you yourselves think. If I read this correctly, Aucaman's main concern at the moment is that "Aryan", where used as a modern English term, should be understood as a cover term for both the ancient Iranians and Indians, but not as a synonym of "Iranians" alone. As far as I've seen, sources seem to agree with that, including the list of sources Ali submitted above. "Aryan" is only ever mentioned as either a modern English term for the larger group, or as an historical name used back then.
But - that does not preclude us from using the term. Ancient Iranians were Aryans. There's nothing wrong with sometimes using a larger cover term in the place of a more specific term, if it's done properly. There are contexts where it is legitimate to replace a mentioning of "apples" with "fruit", and there are other contexts where that would be confusing. We just shouldn't be doing it in such a way as to imply that the extensions of both these terms were identical.
If you all could just refrain from stoning me to death for a little while, I'll submit a suggestion for a wording shortly. 
Lukas (T.|@) 13:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your wording implies that term Aryan only has linguistic implications and is outdated, which are incorrect notions. Also, we would appricate it if you didn't address Iranian editors with ethnic Muslim stereotypical and condescending comments like "just refrain from stoning me to death". That's highly inappropriate! --ManiF 15:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a christian I would appreciate it if you wouldn't annex the phrase "stoning to death" as if you had invented it or owned it and I'd also appreciate if you wouldn't refer to quaint traditional practices as stereotypical and condescending. --Fasten 17:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Telling others on a WP talk page to "refrain from stoning me to death" is not only incivil, but highly offensive and disrespectful. Even more so in our post-9/11 world. How you can justify such a saying here is bizarre. SouthernComfort 21:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's the relation to 9/11? --Fasten 18:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, let us see - perhaps the massive amount of prejudice and bigotry directed towards Muslims after the attacks, and even more so in Europe after the all the incidents there (Spain, London, Amsterdam, Paris riots). There is such a thing as basic civility and two concepts called "sensitivity" and "tact." SouthernComfort 03:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's also such a thing as looking for offense where there is none intended. Death by stoning was originally a Jewish penalty, and many Christians are familiar with it from the New Testament, Acts, where Stephen is stoned to death. It's not assuming good faith to think that Lukas was thinking of Muslims when perhaps he was thinking of St. Stephen. Zora 04:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His comment was directed towards editors of Iranian background. Most Iranians are Muslims. I think that is pretty obvious. Many such offensive comments are made in jest, but that doesn't make it right. Again, "sensitivity" and "tact." And by the way, "stoning to death" in this day and age is rarely ever equated with Judaism and even more rare with Christianity. It's not very nice to justify comments which others find offensive. And if you don't believe me, go ask Muslim editors here on WP what they think and how they would react to such a comment. I would have thought that you, of all people, with your involvement in the Muslim articles, would at least have enough respect to not support the use of such a comment and to know that it causes offense. SouthernComfort 05:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please assume good faith. This or similar phrases are often used without any intended reference to any religion. --Fasten 11:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree, for reasons that I've already outlined, and it is absurd to suggest that the comment was made without any reference to Islam when most of the editors involved here are Iranian and most Iranians are Muslims. Comments perceived or interpreted as anti-Semitic or racist are quickly condemned in our day and age, and ther is zero tolerance on WP for such comments or attitudes - the same should hold for anti-Muslim comments and phrases. You may not view it as anti-Muslim, but then again you're not Muslim or from a Muslim background. SouthernComfort 20:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I personally wouldn't insist on the "linguistic". As for the "stoning" comment, sorry, that wasn't meant to allude to any such stereotypes, I apologize if it was understood like that. Lukas (T.|@) 16:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, I don't see how my version was marking the term "Aryan" as outdated any more than yours? Lukas (T.|@) 16:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I made another try. By the way, I hit the save button accidentally before I could fill in the edit summary. That "S..." was supposed to be: "Same thing without the 'linguistic' - I really can't see what problem you guys could probably have with this one now." Lukas (T.|@) 20:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another compromise proposal? 

message: : See Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-02_Persian_people#Outside_opinion_.28my_two_cents.29
: Fasten 18:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well before we do anything else, the other side has to give a consistent definition of the term "Aryans". Who are these Aryans? What does it mean to say "Persians are descendants of Aryans"? What kind of message are you trying to send? What's the reader supposed to take away from this? Where's the defintion coming from? AucamanTalk 18:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition is in the many books that have been linked here.  Read it first and then most of your questions are answered.  BTW the term persian is not used in Iran, but the term Iranian (Aryan) is.  Persian (Parsi/Farsi) is used for the language, but the ethnicity is called Iranian(aryan).  --Ali doostzadeh 18:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're still not giving me a definition. And no, this article is claiming that "Persian" is an ethnic group, not just a language. I wouldn't object to deleting this article and making a new one called Iranian people. The Iranian peoples article seems to be having a lot of problems of its own. AucamanTalk 18:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think this is a class for me to give you a definition.  I can not define Chinese or Arab in one sentence either.  Go read the article by Prof. Baily, Prof. Gnoli and Prof. Schmitt and you will get a  clear definition.  Their links are all posted by me and so there is no need for you to repeat the same thing.  I am not sure what your interest here in all these articles are anyways and some users mentioned you change your argument.  As per the term "Persian people" I will discuss the issue further with other people, but I actually do believe the term should be under Iranian people, since all Persian speakers in Iran call themselves Irani and not Persian.  I will discuss this issue further and see if there is concensus, but for example the term Persian since it is at least 2700 years old has come to refer to variety of concepts.  But the term Iranian is more solid since it not only derives from Aryan, but it is a ethno-linguistic-cultural term used by Iranians themselves.  I'll let the article here stand until I discuss the issue further with some folks since in reality all modern Persian speakers call themselves Iranian and only in the English speaking world, the two terms Persian and Iranian have been used equivalently and not just for standard Persian speakers.
--Ali doostzadeh 21:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Persian is an ethnicity. What are you talking about?! --Kash 19:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know exactly what I'm talking about if you're Iranian. User:Ali doostzadeh brought this up and I was telling him that I agree with him. Thanks for keeping us on track :) Let's hear your defintion of "Aryan" now. AucamanTalk 19:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not following you. Please provide links to what you are talking about. Are you saying that 'Persians' is not an ethnicity group? because if this is the case, you are wrong --Kash 19:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah how about that defintion now? AucamanTalk 19:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No, because it is not relevant, and it would make the article confusing to the reader. --Kash 03:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah so why don't define who these Aryans are so that we can clear the confusion. AucamanTalk 04:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Lol what? The term Aryan has its own article and if thats not enough it even has little brackets with less-confusing words in it! :) --Kash 04:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it's referring to the Indo-Iranian linguistic group? AucamanTalk 04:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  No, read the Aryan page to understand what it means in the context of Iranians --Kash 04:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Aryan page is about the history of the term, not its linguistic usage. AucamanTalk 04:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Nah, read it carefully. "Since ancient times, Persians (Iranians) used the term Aryan to describe their lineage and their language, and this tradition has continued into the present day amongst modern Iranians." 
Perhaps you don't understand what lineage means? --Kash 04:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "Since ancient times, Persians (Iranians) used the term Aryan to describe their lineage and their language, and this tradition has continued into the present day amongst modern Iranians." 
This is not a good definition for the word Aryan. You also might want to read this, which you have so far ignored. AucamanTalk 11:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside opinion (my two cents) 

message: :"Since ancient times, Persians (Iranians) used the term Aryan to describe their lineage and their language, and this tradition has continued into the present day amongst modern Iranians." 
This is not a good definition for the word Aryan. You also might want to read this, which you have so far ignored. AucamanTalk 11:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: What are you talking about? What has that got to do with Persian people and their history? The defnition of the word is in the article right here on wikipedia, read it and try to understand it. You also have to understand that the use of the word Aryan in context of Iranian people especially Persians is part of their history and has nothing to do with "racial" ideas. --Kash 20:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: Do not remove delete sourced information from an encyclopedia and replace with information from someone's personal page on a university server  . See WP:V, and also review WP:CIVIL. SouthernComfort 08:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My sources come from better sources and I was just quoting it. I suggest you stop making comments about my "behavior" in article talk pages. AucamanTalk 08:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "source" you provided was from someone's personal page. SouthernComfort 08:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's a WSU-supported website. Stop making baseless accusations. See WP:AGF. AucamanTalk 09:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect. It's the website of someone named Richard Hooker . It's a personal page, perhaps of a professor or student. SouthernComfort 09:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like something designed for high school students with its textbook-style layout. And you have not addressed the issue of your behavior, in deleting a massive chunk of sourced text, sourced from an encyclopedia. See WP:V. Your removals are inappropriate and cannot be justified. SouthernComfort 09:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any such source should probably go out the window per WP:NPOV. Such websites are not credible sources.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 17:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I hate to break it to you, but http://www.wsu.edu/~dee is a personal page on a university server. --ManiF 09:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The current article has a much better definition than that anyway. Only difference is "Indo-European" instead of Aryan, and "East to Mesopotamian region" is a POV of the author anyhow. The current article here has a much better defined information. --Kash 20:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aucaman's behavior

message: I not going to bother feeding your troll. Just in case you were interested, User:Zmmz got blocked for doing exactly the same stuff you're doing right now. Article talk pages are not the place for these kind of accusations. If I've done anything wrong you should report me for vandalism.  My source comes from here, which is a university-run project, not a private website. Your behavior has been far worse than anything I've done. In fact you're about to get blocked for constantly reverting other people's edits. Have a nice day. AucamanTalk 09:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to break it to you, but http://www.wsu.edu/~dee is a personal page on a university server. --ManiF 09:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The current article has a much better definition than that anyway. Only difference is "Indo-European" instead of Aryan, and "East to Mesopotamian region" is a POV of the author anyhow. The current article here has a much better defined information. --Kash 20:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: Aucaman what is the problem this time? You have to discuss it in the talk page before adding the tag. From what I remember your previous questions were answered but you changed your argument so many times that I really don’t remember which part you did not like. So pretend I am new here and tell me what is wrong?
Gol 19:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Folks, you don't unilaterally remove tags, unless the editor who put them up has disappeared. Otherwise, you keep the tag up as long as the tagger has problems with the article. When the tagger says that the dispute is resolved, then you can remove the tag. Don't just say, "There, I answered your objection" and remove the tag. Zora 19:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Zora, sadly the editor in this case has a habbit of not "disappear"-ing. Tens of editors have expressed their opinions on the case and yet he keeps putting on the tag without explaining what his problem is. --Kash 20:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  C'mon, I think he has explained, and you guys haven't listened. Zora 20:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You haven't used the opportunity for mediation either. --Fasten 20:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition of Aryan should be discussed in the Aryan page but just to make it clear here as well, here is the definition of Aryan from Britannica:  'a people who, in prehistoric times, settled in Iran and northern India.'  Gol 06:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Your old problem has been addressed hundreds of times before! --Kash 23:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Hundreds of times" eh? Then one more time would not hurt. Let's hear your answer to my question now. AucamanTalk 23:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not here to answer your questions Aucaman. The text is referenced. --Kash 23:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Announcing that you're not going to answer questions is not the way to settle a dispute. Look, can't the article say that there is a dispute about just WHO should be considered Persian? and why? Then we add various references demonstrating that there are various points of view out there. The problem is insoluble only if you think one view has to win. If there's room for all views, then the reader can decide. Zora 23:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not dispute on who is considered to be a Persian. If you are going to start your old argument about genetics, then save it. We know no one has stayed pure but the original ancestor of each race is mentioned and for the 100th time, it does not mean that each and every member of that race is a pure descendant. It just means that the original ancestors were as such. Thank you. Gol 06:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think you guys need to read the wikipedia article on Aryan instead of acting ignorant.  --Ali doostzadeh 08:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new problem? 

message: No new problems. Just the old one. I still don't know which groups you're referring to when you say "Persians are descendants of Aryans". Who are these Aryans again? The link goes to the Aryan article which discusses the history of the word Aryan. AucamanTalk 21:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition of Aryan should be discussed in the Aryan page but just to make it clear here as well, here is the definition of Aryan from Britannica:  'a people who, in prehistoric times, settled in Iran and northern India.'  Gol 06:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Your old problem has been addressed hundreds of times before! --Kash 23:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Hundreds of times" eh? Then one more time would not hurt. Let's hear your answer to my question now. AucamanTalk 23:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not here to answer your questions Aucaman. The text is referenced. --Kash 23:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Announcing that you're not going to answer questions is not the way to settle a dispute. Look, can't the article say that there is a dispute about just WHO should be considered Persian? and why? Then we add various references demonstrating that there are various points of view out there. The problem is insoluble only if you think one view has to win. If there's room for all views, then the reader can decide. Zora 23:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not dispute on who is considered to be a Persian. If you are going to start your old argument about genetics, then save it. We know no one has stayed pure but the original ancestor of each race is mentioned and for the 100th time, it does not mean that each and every member of that race is a pure descendant. It just means that the original ancestors were as such. Thank you. Gol 06:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think you guys need to read the wikipedia article on Aryan instead of acting ignorant.  --Ali doostzadeh 08:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No new problems

message: Removing Sourced info has no meaning you should respect to these sources. Xebat Talk + 16:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your sources don't claim what you pretend they claim. --ManiF 16:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that, but he is using the term "Farsistan" out of context. At any rate, the original name of the province was Pars. SouthernComfort 16:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute

message: Since people insist on removing the dispute tag , I'm going to add some of the information giving a different point of view to this whole discussion of race. These are added in accordance with WP:NPOV ("All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one"). Whatever you do, do not take them out without a full agreement or you're in violation of WP:NPOV. Here's the full quote from Wilson's book:
:"Of the common racial tradition there's not a trace in Persia. A typical Persian does not exist, because there are within the limits of the Empire many distinct type, easily recognized, though they originally represent geographical and climatic areas rather than different racial origins. Yet no other race, perhaps except the English, has such a mixture of blood in its veins. The original inhabitants of Persia, whose descendants are to be found comparatively unaltered in Gilan and Mazandaran, on the shores of the Caspian, in forest country, were replaced in some areas and in others assimilated, by Aryan-speaking Nordic nomads from Eastern Russia, and by Turanian-speaking Mongolians from Western Siberia. This took place as early as 2000 B.C., and continued many centuries."
AucamanTalk 19:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Outdated racialist theories (Aryans being "Nordic") have long since been discredited and abandoned. That you would attempt to inject such racist nonsense in this article is appalling. SouthernComfort 05:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I second this, Aucaman please leave discredited racist ideologies out of wikipedia -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 09:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: I would like to ask Aucaman to stop vandalising this article or we would have to get it protected again. -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 18:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent vandalisms

message: A typical Persian does not exist
what is this? This is very biased and vague. I see no other article, German, Italian, French etc… writing such a thing. Why should we have it here? Are you saying those other races have stayed purer compare to us? If there is no typical Persian then there is no typical Italian, Greek or Russian either. 
Gol 00:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a matter of fact, there IS no typical Italian, Greek, or Russian. Nationalities are not races. Zora 01:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, Persian is not a nationality, at least not since 1935, it is an ethnicity. If what you say is right, why is it that articles about Italian or Greeks or Russians don’t mention anything like that?Gol 01:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ethnicities aren't races either. See the Ethnicity article. IMHO, it's a negotiation. I say I'm X. Other people who say they are X accept me as X. People who are not X classify me as X. Any of those three things can break down. I can deny that I'm X. The people who say that they are X can refuse me. Non-Xs can refuse to recognize my Xness. Then of course the Xs can split into the Ys and Zs, producing confusion and possible bloodshed. Not a "fact". All in people's heads. However, it's hard enough to change millions of minds all at once that there's a certain momentum involved. Zora 21:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When did I say ethnicity is the same as race? You guys brought race into the argument long before when you started talking about genetics. Saying Kurds are not Iranian people since they are genetically mixed!! (As if genetics has anything to do with it) So remind yourself and your friends that ethnicity is not the same as race. Question still remains if your claim about Italians and Russians is true how is it that no article mentions that? why should it be mentioned here when they dont mention it? are we mixed while they have stayed pure?Gol 00:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Zmmz, everyone has a POV. It's better that they be acknowledged, out in the open, so that others can calibrate their perceptions accordingly. If you say that you don't have a POV, it's claiming that you have got the TRUTH and everyone else is wrong. It's like someone from New Orleans claiming that he doesn't have an accent, but that everyone else in the US does. We've all got accents. Zora 21:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  P.S. You can't tell anything about genes from archaeology -- or language either. Genetic testing is the only way to do it, and genetic testing shows big differences between people living on the eastern Iranian plateau and those living on the west. The westerners are more closely related to the people further west. So much for a genetically defined "Persian people". Zora 22:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Aucaman is adding discredited racial nonsense to the article, such as the Nazi idea that Aryans were "Nordic." I've reported his behavior to an admin. SouthernComfort 00:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Aucaman, your source is nearly a century old. This is so ridiculous. --Khoikhoi 00:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My information is properly sourced and is presented to neutralize the other racial statements in the article (i.e., that paragraph following it). By the way, that source you've provided does not say that Persians are "descendants of Aryan tribes", so you might want to go back and fix it. AucamanTalk 01:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is this? 

message: The revert war is over.
Now is the time to discuss.
So, discuss. --Golbez 01:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia needs to be accurate and not propergandish. This "United States of America: 913,000 [3]" [is totally propergandish. According to last U.S. census, there are only 338,000 "Iranians" 
So how in the world can you get 900,000+ Persians? Please, someone correct this. Chaldean 03:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was dealt with before - see discussion further above Talk:Persian_people#Number_of_Persian-americans. SouthernComfort 13:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Why don't you fix your attitude and tone? As you can see, there are a number of disputes going on, and the census numbers were also disputed. I am not involved in that, and will not involve myself with that issue as I also disagree with the census figures. Anyone with a brain knows that the Persian community in the U.S. numbers far more than 300,000. SouthernComfort 23:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the comment above, Persian communities in L.A for example are so huge that L.A is known as "Tehran jeles" by many Iranians    -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 16:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: :"The Persians of Iran are descendents of the Aryan (Indo-Iranian) tribes that began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the 2nd millennium BC."
The above sentence is not properly sourced. The source provided does not even contain the word "descendants" anywhere. AucamanTalk 19:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: do you really not remember? this has been mentione 10 billion times already just read the talk page. Britannica says: "Persians, Kurds, and speakers of other Indo-European languages in Iran are descendants of the Aryan tribes that began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the 2nd millennium BC." Gol 20:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: As I've said the statement is not accurate. So you're telling me that Armenian-Iranians are "descendants of Aryans" because they speak and Indo-European language? AucamanTalk 22:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry but if you don’t like something in Britannica and say it is not accurate, that’s too bad since 99.99% of people of the world are going to agree with Britannica not you. I  am not going to answer this questino of yours anymore since since you obviously like to ask it every once in a while and then dismiss the source provided. It has been mentioned billion times before. Keep saying it is not accurate. Too bad the most famous encyclopedia disagrees with you.Gol 05:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You did not answer the question. AucamanTalk 20:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Britannica says descendant of Aryan, why cant we say it here? Gol 20:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying we can't, I'm merely saying that we need to specify that these people were of the Proto-Iranian branch of the Aryans as the split between Iranian and Indo-Aryan had already taken place by the time earliest Iranian languages were being spoken. Tombseye 20:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a good point, but I fail to see how it's in any way relevant to my specific concerns about the incorrect sourcing of the article. It's good to put different concerns in different section (or at least, different subsections) so that all of them would be addressed. AucamanTalk 20:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Gol addressed the source issue. I think the article should start with the Persians are the descendents of Aryans of the Proto-Iranian branch who merged with local indigenous peoples of the Iranian plateau. That's basically what is found in Encyclopedia Americana, but I paraphrased. Tombseye 20:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  "merged with local indigenous people" is not necessary, rest is already worded well on the article  -  K a s h  Talk | email 18:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, as I explained above, that quote doesn't make any sense. This is exactly why I complained to  you for changing the focus of my argument. AucamanTalk 04:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of it does not make sense? Those Iranians who are indo European speakers are descendent of Aryans. Gol 05:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Indo-Iranian definitely needs to be changed though as clearly there are no Indo-Aryan languages spoken in Iran or in lands populated by Persians and thus the wording should be Proto-Iranian. The Indo-Aryans branched off as did the Nuristanis and possible the Dards. The languages emerged after the Proto-Iranians spread out and then various languages emerged such as Persian. That is specifically the branch of Aryans in question here. Tombseye 20:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I personally think we need to copy the exact phrase from Britannica, which also does not mention indo Iranian and only says Aryan, and do not paraphrase it. If it is exactly the same phrase, no one can come here and claim that we are misquoting or changing what Britannica meant. All the other details can be mentioned in later sections. Gol 20:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This can't keep coming up, it became ridiculous when it was discussed all the last month, to bring it up again is just hideous. How much time are we supposed to spend just to convince ONE person to stop pushing his POV? If there are any other problems beside the source put it under new headlines  -  K a s h  Talk | email 18:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100% as I mentioned above. One person is the reason this page is locked and he loves to ask the same question, which has been answered god knows how many times, and keep dismissing it or saying unrelated stuff and then coming back after a while, perhaps hoping that everybody has forgotten, and ask the same question again. I am not longer going to answer any of his repeated questions. Any new concern I will try to answer but not the stuff that is already answered. Gol 19:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You did not answer my question. Are Armenian-Iranians descendants of Aryans? AucamanTalk 20:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not about Iranian Americans it is about Persians of Iran. Not all Iranians who migrated to America are Persians more importantly you should clarify what you mean by Iranian American. Someone who is half Iranian, half American or an Iranian who migrated to America and became a citizen? If you clarify your question I will answer but I will probably do it in your talk page since it is completely irrelevant to our discussion about Persian people. Thank you.Gol 20:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The Armenians are a separate branch of Indo-European speaking peoples and are not Iranic in the language sense. Let's keep that in mind as that's mainly what we're talking about since obviously the Armenians also share bloodlines with most of their neighbors which is inevitable. The Proto-Iranians and Proto-Armenians obviously would have split much sooner than the Indo-Iranian split. In fact, old Proto-Iranian and Proto-Armenian along with Proto-Greek are sometimes classed as closer branchs of the Indo-European family, but this is not universally accepted. Tombseye 20:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly my point. The source says all Indo-European speakers in Iran are descendants of Aryans. This doesn't seem correct because Iranian-Armenians certainly speak an Indo-European language and they're certainly not descendants of Aryans. AucamanTalk 20:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I guess as an Iranian American myself I am kind of attracted to the term!! In case of Armenians it is again irrelevant to Persian people since they are not Persian so your question is again unrelated but since I said I will answer it then see your talk page. Thank you. Gol 20:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No the point is that the statement is inaccurate. Not all Indo-Europeans speakers in Iran are "descendants of Aryans". AucamanTalk 21:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Armenians immigrated to Iran in recent times. They are not Iranian. Not any Indo European who sets foot in Iran is going to be an Aryan and I think it is more than obvious and common sense. Also it does specifically mentions Persians and what other groups are is irrelevant to this page. If you claim that the statement by Britannica is wrong, chances are majority of the people (myself included) are going to trust Britannica not you. Their scholars would not mention this fact if it was wrong. I am almost sure the reason they did say indo European speaker was that they know anyone with common sense would not think of Armenians who are not Iranians but immigrants to Iran. Gol 21:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Basically what you're saying is that Armenian-Iranians are not Iranians even though they have a very close historical relationship with most Iranian groups. If I was one of them I would be rather offended - but I'm not. AucamanTalk 22:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Armenian Iranian are Iranian citizen and among the greatest and most loyal. I am almost sure you know that by Iranian, I did not mean Iranian citizen but Iranian/Iranic people. They would be offended if you called them ethnic Iranian/Iranic. Why you want to talk about issues irrelevant to the topic, I don’t know. Gol 04:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Armenians and others are not related to this article. This article is about the Persians from Iran. -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 22:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Armenians might be an exception, they are not referred to individually on the source so you have no real claim here  -  K a s h  Talk | email 22:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. It is common sense that it is not about Armenians who later immigrated to iran. Gol 22:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The information that tells the reader about the history of a group of a civilized people which created the worlds' first world empire and gave minorities such as Jews freedom -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 22:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't answer my question. Oh and freedom is never "given". AucamanTalk 22:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Origins of a group of people is essential to the history of the people. Oh and playing with the words doesn't matter. Freedom was not something they had before or if they did, it was taken away by Assyrians and others and it was given back to them by the Persians. -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 23:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection & Problems

message: :This can't keep coming up, it became ridiculous when it was discussed all the last month, to bring it up again is just hideous. How much time are we supposed to spend just to convince ONE person to stop pushing his POV? If there are any other problems beside the source put it under new headlines  -  K a s h  Talk | email 18:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100% as I mentioned above. One person is the reason this page is locked and he loves to ask the same question, which has been answered god knows how many times, and keep dismissing it or saying unrelated stuff and then coming back after a while, perhaps hoping that everybody has forgotten, and ask the same question again. I am not longer going to answer any of his repeated questions. Any new concern I will try to answer but not the stuff that is already answered. Gol 19:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You did not answer my question. Are Armenian-Iranians descendants of Aryans? AucamanTalk 20:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not about Iranian Americans it is about Persians of Iran. Not all Iranians who migrated to America are Persians more importantly you should clarify what you mean by Iranian American. Someone who is half Iranian, half American or an Iranian who migrated to America and became a citizen? If you clarify your question I will answer but I will probably do it in your talk page since it is completely irrelevant to our discussion about Persian people. Thank you.Gol 20:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The Armenians are a separate branch of Indo-European speaking peoples and are not Iranic in the language sense. Let's keep that in mind as that's mainly what we're talking about since obviously the Armenians also share bloodlines with most of their neighbors which is inevitable. The Proto-Iranians and Proto-Armenians obviously would have split much sooner than the Indo-Iranian split. In fact, old Proto-Iranian and Proto-Armenian along with Proto-Greek are sometimes classed as closer branchs of the Indo-European family, but this is not universally accepted. Tombseye 20:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly my point. The source says all Indo-European speakers in Iran are descendants of Aryans. This doesn't seem correct because Iranian-Armenians certainly speak an Indo-European language and they're certainly not descendants of Aryans. AucamanTalk 20:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I guess as an Iranian American myself I am kind of attracted to the term!! In case of Armenians it is again irrelevant to Persian people since they are not Persian so your question is again unrelated but since I said I will answer it then see your talk page. Thank you. Gol 20:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No the point is that the statement is inaccurate. Not all Indo-Europeans speakers in Iran are "descendants of Aryans". AucamanTalk 21:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Armenians immigrated to Iran in recent times. They are not Iranian. Not any Indo European who sets foot in Iran is going to be an Aryan and I think it is more than obvious and common sense. Also it does specifically mentions Persians and what other groups are is irrelevant to this page. If you claim that the statement by Britannica is wrong, chances are majority of the people (myself included) are going to trust Britannica not you. Their scholars would not mention this fact if it was wrong. I am almost sure the reason they did say indo European speaker was that they know anyone with common sense would not think of Armenians who are not Iranians but immigrants to Iran. Gol 21:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Basically what you're saying is that Armenian-Iranians are not Iranians even though they have a very close historical relationship with most Iranian groups. If I was one of them I would be rather offended - but I'm not. AucamanTalk 22:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Armenian Iranian are Iranian citizen and among the greatest and most loyal. I am almost sure you know that by Iranian, I did not mean Iranian citizen but Iranian/Iranic people. They would be offended if you called them ethnic Iranian/Iranic. Why you want to talk about issues irrelevant to the topic, I don’t know. Gol 04:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Armenians and others are not related to this article. This article is about the Persians from Iran. -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 22:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Armenians might be an exception, they are not referred to individually on the source so you have no real claim here  -  K a s h  Talk | email 22:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. It is common sense that it is not about Armenians who later immigrated to iran. Gol 22:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The information that tells the reader about the history of a group of a civilized people which created the worlds' first world empire and gave minorities such as Jews freedom -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 22:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't answer my question. Oh and freedom is never "given". AucamanTalk 22:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Origins of a group of people is essential to the history of the people. Oh and playing with the words doesn't matter. Freedom was not something they had before or if they did, it was taken away by Assyrians and others and it was given back to them by the Persians. -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 23:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: There is a link to Persian a ways down the page. Persian is a disambiguation page. Please choose one of the options on that page and link to it instead.  Thanks. --Iggle 08:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for reminding -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please fix this link when the page is un-frozen: 

message: Is he a Persian? AucamanTalk 20:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does this matter? he is not mentioned in the article is he?  -  K a s h  Talk | email 22:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I just want to know which group of people we're talking about and why you insist on calling them "descendants of Aryans". Am I in any way surprised that you're not answering my question? AucamanTalk 22:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Since when has anyone called Mossadegh an Aryan? Why are you disrupting Wikipedia to prove a WP:Point? -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 22:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not disrupting anything. I'm asking a question and you're dancing around it. It's a really simple question. I just want to know what people think. AucamanTalk 22:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not mentioned in his page. And if you don't want to answer the question just don't answer it. AucamanTalk 22:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You don't have to keep repeating this if you don't want to answer my questions. I don't really think you have much to "teach" anyway. It's "response", not "responce". Where you just copy-pasting your last "responce"? AucamanTalk 00:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL, So I made a spelling mistake at 1 AM in my third language, big deal. Perhaps you would like to ask a question instead?
The point was that we are not here to teach or answer your questions or let you know of our opinions on the matters close and personal to you, but we are here to discuss the article. If anyone is "repeating" here, it is you with "answer my questions".  -  K a s h  Talk | email 00:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mohammad Mossadeq]]

message: Aucaman has many questions as contributers to the Persians article(s) might have realised by now! I just wanted to remind everyone that we are infact not teachers, and wikipedia is certainly not the best place to get a survey to 'find what people think' about different things such as proposed by Aucaman above. Article's talk pages are to discuss the article and whether there are any problems with it. 
Also, if anyone has any questions I would suggest put it under new headline so we know what has been dealt with, when, and how many times.
Thanks,  -  K a s h  Talk | email 23:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to keep repeating this if you don't want to answer my questions. I don't really think you have much to "teach" anyway. It's "response", not "responce". Where you just copy-pasting your last "responce"? AucamanTalk 00:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL, So I made a spelling mistake at 1 AM in my third language, big deal. Perhaps you would like to ask a question instead?
The point was that we are not here to teach or answer your questions or let you know of our opinions on the matters close and personal to you, but we are here to discuss the article. If anyone is "repeating" here, it is you with "answer my questions".  -  K a s h  Talk | email 00:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: :You don't have to keep repeating this if you don't want to answer my questions. I don't really think you have much to "teach" anyway. It's "response", not "responce". Where you just copy-pasting your last "responce"? AucamanTalk 00:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, So I made a spelling mistake at 1 AM in my third language, big deal. Perhaps you would like to ask a question instead?
The point was that we are not here to teach or answer your questions or let you know of our opinions on the matters close and personal to you, but we are here to discuss the article. If anyone is "repeating" here, it is you with "answer my questions".  -  K a s h  Talk | email 00:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Persian_people&diff=prev&oldid=48344342 You mean "response"?]

message: I dont get it why is this page protected. Many people want to edit new things on Persians. So I request this page to be unprotected immediately.!!!! 
KingKongIran 04:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I explained above the first sentence in the history section is missourced. We need to either replace with a more accurate statement or fix the source. AucamanTalk 07:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is properly sourced. Stop claiming otherwise. SouthernComfort 16:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The source in the article is not Britannica. See my comment above. AucamanTalk 09:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. You continue to ignore Gol and other editors' comments and this is the last time I going to bother responding to you. See  for Britannica. You also ignore the reference from Columbia . SouthernComfort 16:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the comments above, this can't go on forever -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 23:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it “outdated” and “controversial” then why does Britannica says the exact same thing? I repeat, the exact same thing? Also the article does not say Persian are only descendant of Aryan and nothing else it does say they mixed with the Elamites. Gol 04:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in case you didn't know Britannica Online doesn't source its information. It's also not clear who's writing the articles there. But if you insist on using it as a source, I suggest you take a look at this statement: "But the people who are generally known as Persians are of mixed ancestry." AucamanTalk 04:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Aucaman but Britannica is much more credible than you even the online version! Between you and Britannica almost everyone will trust Britannic not you. Also, the article does not say that Persians are pure Aryan and nothing else. Descendant does not mean pure descendant. We are just using the same phrase that Britannica does and if it is acceptable in the most famous encyclopedia in the world then it is OK for here.Gol 04:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It also says "Persians are of mixed ancestry". You agree with that? AucamanTalk 05:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean genetically (racially) then yes 100% and this article does mention Aryans mixing with other groups. Anyone with brain knows that persians, similar to all the other groups in the world, could not have stayed pure over 3000 years! Gol 05:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This doesn't make any sense. You say they have "intermarried" with Elamites and you still want to say they're descendants of Aryan tribes??? This is plain contradictory. AucamanTalk 07:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's saying that they're not direct descendants of the Aryans (not 100%). A descendant of someone does not necessarily be direct. —Khoikhoi 07:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Aucaman, the article does not say that Persians are direct descendents of the Aryans, it just says that they are descendents. And FYI, the Aryans were not Nordic. —Khoikhoi 04:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The view that Persians are descendants of Aryans is neither outdated or controversial. It also doesn't have anything to do with the Aryan tongue theory. Persians believed that they are Aryans from the very beginning of the empire - and most probably from before - and if you haven't noticed, they still do. Also, I have no idea why you have said that the conquerers of Persia have anything to do with descendants of Persians! Perhaps you have mistaken the sentence to say "Persians are pure aryan blood" which it certainly does not claim!  -  K a s h  Talk | email 08:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I have not mistaken the sentence for anything. "Persians are pure aryan blood"? Where is that coming from anyway? Aryan is a linguistic group of people. It does not make sense to say an ethnic group is a descendant of a linguistic group. The questions of race and heredity are more complicated than just one group being descendants of another one. AucamanTalk 09:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one ever said that Persians are 100% descendents of the Aryans. Britannica says that "The Persians, Kurds, and speakers of other Indo-European languages in Iran are descendants of the Aryan tribes that began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the 2nd millennium BC." How is a tribe the same thing as a linguistic group? —Khoikhoi 04:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I really hope we see the result of the Arbitation soon because after almost two months of discussing the same thing, you still refuse to understand that the word that Aryan has its own article where you can have a good read and understand its meaning regarding Iranians  -  K a s h  Talk | email 17:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The wording currently used within the article, as it is, is indeed quite fine and it is sourced and as such, should not be altered. But thank you once again for your interest. SouthernComfort 07:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've previously noted your inability to compromise. Based on WP:NPOV all sides would have to be presented and the same source says that "Persians are of mixed ancestry." I'm giving you a very favorable alternative and you're still rejecting it. AucamanTalk 08:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is fair to say the most notable thing on this discussion page is your repeated attempts to push your POV  -  K a s h  Talk | email 21:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Not so long ago were you not denying (as with Diyako/Xebat) the very existence of Persians as an ethnic group? SouthernComfort 05:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is wrong? 

message: Okay how about the following wording: "Persians trace back they ancestry to the migration of Aryan tribes from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the 2nd millennium BC."? AucamanTalk 07:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording currently used within the article, as it is, is indeed quite fine and it is sourced and as such, should not be altered. But thank you once again for your interest. SouthernComfort 07:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've previously noted your inability to compromise. Based on WP:NPOV all sides would have to be presented and the same source says that "Persians are of mixed ancestry." I'm giving you a very favorable alternative and you're still rejecting it. AucamanTalk 08:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is fair to say the most notable thing on this discussion page is your repeated attempts to push your POV  -  K a s h  Talk | email 21:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Not so long ago were you not denying (as with Diyako/Xebat) the very existence of Persians as an ethnic group? SouthernComfort 05:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewording

message: Is this article ready to be unprotected? I don't see a lot of talking going on. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there isn't really much to be "protected" here. If you're worried about edit-warring, it's not going to happen. AucamanTalk 10:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reprotecting the page due to the above user's spam campaign to get other users here into another edit war. If you want discussion about the topic, discuss it, especially here and now. That's what protection is for; to allow for discussion to get consensus on topics of controversy. Unprotection should NOT be requested again until all issues are resolved here (and there is evidence of such agreement). --InShaneee 17:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked people to comment on the dispute. I did not intend for them to get into edit wars. I don't know why you'd think such a thing. But I'm definitely not opposed to keeping the page protected until the dispute is resolved. AucamanTalk 03:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotect? 

message: "The people who are generally known as Persians are of mixed ancestry."  LOL, no kidding?  By that rationale, literally who on Earth isn't of mixed ancestry?  I haven't quite figured out Aucaman's agenda, but this is laughable. -- Bobak 14:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about it. I'm getting used to these stuff. As for the neutrality problems, see my comments below. AucamanTalk 04:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant laugh of the day: 

message: [Personal attacks removed]--Darkred 09:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: We should do no more than laugh

message: I have been informed and warned that I was uncivil for accusing Aucaman of having an agenda and that my statements were impermissible on Wikipedia.  In the interest of good will I retract that statement and have struck-through the offending comment.  I however do ask for a level of proof that would refute all commonly known history and knowledge of the Persian peoples, keeping in mind the policy of no original research.  If Aucaman can demonstrate this with acadamic citation, then please do. -- Bobak 17:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about it. I'm getting used to these stuff. As for the neutrality problems, see my comments below. AucamanTalk 04:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RETRACTION of any incivility in my above statement

message: What's people's opposition to mentioning that Persians come from a wide variety of backgrounds? If you don't think it's relevant to the history section, then how come it's okay to claim Persians are descendants of "Aryan tribes" in the same section?? AucamanTalk 06:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of the simple fact that Persians do not come from variety of backgrounds. They may have inter-married with Elamites and people who lived in Iran before and after at different points, but this is not of relevance to their "background" -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 08:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear what you're saying. Are you suggesting Britannica is wrong when it says "Persians are of mixed ancestry, and the country has important Turkic and Arab elements"?? If the statement is correct, then why can't it be mentioned? Also see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. AucamanTalk 04:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnic diversity

message: Someone (Aucuman) has asked me to stop by and help with this page. I don't know Aucuman, I am not an expert in the history of the Aryans, Persians, or modern Iran, and I am not Iranian nor Persian. (And I have never been to Iran. But I've had very cool students from Iran before. And I think Deep Dish are the coolest DJs. And...) From what I remember from my History of Enlish class, the Aryans came from somewhere in what is now the Steppes in Russiam and went off into many directions, including modern Iran. Other groups from the Steppes headed east (the Tocharians) and south east into India, and also west into Europe. That's all I can say. Oh, and the beat goes on. DDD DDD 08:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is OK - He has spammed 20-30 users with that message. It is because he is probably getting blocked from editing Iran-related articles because of this arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 08:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  problems 

message: My position has been that there should be no mention of outdated racial theories in a history section. But if there's going to be any discussion of race, it should be comprehensive and present all the different views. The same source that supposedly says Persians are descendants of Aryans also says that "The people who are generally known as Persians are of mixed ancestry, and the country has important Turkic and Arab elements in addition to the Kurds, Balochi, Bakhtyari, Lurs, and other smaller minorities (Armenians, Assyrians, Jews, Brahuis, and others)." 
Now I'm not a big fan of Britannica (or any of these statements), but you can't just pick and choose various statements and take them out of context in order to promote a certain POV above all else. Either have a comprehensive discussion of Persians' racial background and diversity, or don't bring it up at all. Please note that according to WP:NPOV, "All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." AucamanTalk 04:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not related to the history of Persian people. Sorry -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 05:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnic diversity and [[WP:NPOV#The_neutral_point_of_view|NPOV]] issues