Talk:Persians/Archive 4

message: I write it in persian since I can express myself better in persian:
Doostan, khaheshan gir nadin. Man nemikham inja estedlal biyaram ke oun jomleyi ke tooye maghale hast ghalate ya doroosteh. Balkeh mikham azatoon bekham ke yek joori oun roo avazesh konin ke hame razi bashan. Bebinin man khodam mote'aleghe be hich aghaliyate mazhabi tooye iran nistam. Valy bebinin, dar morede yahoodiya vaziyat yek khordeh fargh mikoneh. Yahoodiyat ta unjayi ke man midoonam (ke ageh eshtebah migam lotfan yeki manoo tashih koneh) ba islam ya masihiyat yek tafavooti bozoorg dareh. Ounam ineh ke bishtar az inkeh yek mazhab basheh yek melliyat ast. Yahoodiya khodeshoon rou pesarane hazrate ebrahim az tarighe eshagh midoonan. Yek chizi shabihe hamin "seyed" khodemoon. Valy tafavootesh ineh ke yahoodiyat melliyateshoon ham hast na faghat mazhabeshoon. khoob, ageh begim ke "iraniha" = "pesarane ghoume ariya"; manish ineh ke "yahoodiyaye iran" ~= "irani". khaheshan in jomle rou yek joore digeh benevisin. man sa'ay mikonam ke emtehanam tamoom shod in ghaziyeh rou bishtar bahs konam. Valy khaheshan inoo yek joori avazesh konin ke hamvataniyaye yahoodimoon ham razi bashan. mokhlese hame, Amin. --Aminz 23:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Amin jaan, I think its best to write your answer in English so others know too. One's religion comes after one's ethnicity. It is true about Jews that you can have Jews who are not actually Jewish (religiously) however that is different to Persian Jews. In any case I really hope you realise what headache this individual who you want to back up has given us, if you only knew that for two months we have had arguments over this, it has truely made us tired. In the article it does not say "Iranians are Aryans, nokhteh sareh khat", I do invite you to actually read that sentence especially in its context and understand that we have tried all our efforts to make it as neutral as we possibly can, however IRAN is a synonym of ARYAN and our language Persian we call an Aryan language, we can't censor information just because it might be offensive to someone, and it should NOT be. Never lose your pride on this matter as it was Cyrus and Darius who created the first empire that gave everyone including Jews freedom to practice their religion and infact paid them to rebuild their temples of worship. Aryanism is NOT associated with racism when it comes to Iranians and Persians and I am personally sick and tired of this endless argument, and I am not alone, I hope you understand. Ba sepaas, -- - K a s h Talk | email 00:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aminz jaan, there are no disputes here, do you really want to start one? why?!
If you are "unaware of it" then look above, look in the archives, do you not realise that too many people have wasted their lives on this, it is not matter of a joke! -- - K a s h Talk | email 00:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And what is your reason for this? -- - K a s h Talk | email 00:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Aminz, Wikipedia is not a place to make people feel good. There are many things that many of us don't want to see, but in this case it's something backed up by numerous sources, and something that Wikipedia editors have a consensus on. I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of editors here just want this dispute to end, there was an ArbCom over it! And the fact that a small minority dispute the History section isn't good enough of a reason to change it. Let's just leave it as that, please. —Khoikhoi 00:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A request 

message: Yee-haw, let the battles begin again! Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war! Or simply, chill --please... --Bobak 18:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unprotected? Yesssssssssssssss! ;) —Khoikhoi 21:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply can't believe this!! =) --K a s h Talk | email 21:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected! 

message: i added that passage in so as to end the confusion and debating going on both on wikipedia and other places. if anyone has any objections or additions to make, feel free to express your opinions or take any action deemed necessary. thanks.Iranian Patriot 05:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Term Persian And Irans Other Ethnic Groups 

message: Alright so who else should we add to the picture? How about some modern Iranians? Don't have to be leaders of the country, how about Niki Karimi for example? --K a s h Talk | email 16:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, sweet heavens don't use Ahmadinejad as a model of what Persians look like, lest you want George W. Bush as the basis for what Americans look like. They both look like chimpanzees for crying out loud (should that worry the international community?) ;-) --Bobak 18:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: The terminology section needs sources that define "Who is a Persian" and the same is true for the Kurdish people - "Who is a Kurd" since there are non-Kurdish tribes who speak Kurdish language. Kouroush 13:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: This list needs to be updated. There are 7 million Tajiks (persians) in Tajikistan, and about 22,000 Tats (also Persians) in Azerbaijan republic.Iranian Patriot 23:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tats and Tajiks should be included, I see no reason why they should be taken out.Iranian Patriot 18:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Persians in other Countries 

message: If the consensus is to include Tajiks, then this line should be either removed or modified: This article is about the ethnic Persians of Iran. Heja Helweda 01:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree, it should be either changed or removed, because the persians of iran are not the only persian people. this page should be about all the persian people.Iranian Patriot 02:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Tajiks 

message: The population of Persians is miscounted. The user who added persians in Afghanistan as 8 million and Persians in Uzbekistan as 1-4 million is wrong. His citation does not even say that there are this much persians in those countries. You have to know that there is not 8 million persians in Afghanistan. I will remove that part and I will try to get the real figures. Thank you!
If you know the right figures please fix the populations, after all this is WIkipedia.
Wikilo12 21:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tajiks are persians. afghans are NOT persians, they are mostly pashtuns. the turks called central asian persians Tat jiks (tajiks) and they called caucasian persians Tatis (Tats). tajiks are persian today in every way shape and form.Iranian Patriot 18:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ethnic Afghans are Pashtuns indeed, but Afghans include Tajiks as well. Overall, the problem is that Tajiks have unique qualities that make them different. They have interacted with their neighbors and are largely Sunni Muslims and generally identify with their countries (Afghanistan and Tajikistan) rather than being 'Persians'. They are in fact Central Asian Persians and speak the same language, albeit different dialect-wise (Dari). Most references do differentiate between Persians in Iran and Tajiks because of their separate evolution. Subsuming Tajiks into the Persians will in effect make any mention of the Tajiks problematic. For example, in the Afghanistan article do we call them Tajiks at all or just Persians then? Including them in this article creates a ripple effect of problems. Then there is the Tajiks article as well that is then made superfluous. The Tajiks are a distinct type of Persians in Central Asia as well as an Iranian people in their own right. They can be and are both. As a result, their inclusion in this article is highly problematic. Not to mention the logistics of writing what amounts to two articles in one article in Persians. Wikilo's Moldova analogy is very accurate as well. There are numerous similar examples including the Croats and Serbs, Bulgarians and Pomaks, and even Turkish people and Azeris. Though we are on a slippery slope here, the point is that language alone isn't always enough to simply subsume smaller groups. We're better off keeping the two as distinct given the common practice in references and academia. Otherwise, we are delving into subjective interpretation and original research. Tombseye 18:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: tajiks call themselves persians. if you want, i can get some tajiks to come in here and voice their own opinions.Iranian Patriot 21:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need. Already talked to Tajik and he agrees that although the Tajiks are Persians of Central Asia, they should have their own article (and thus the census figures that include them) given their unique qualities. Their inclusion in this article, something I wrote in by the way, is worth mentioning but complete inclusion in this article is not feasible given the preponderance of references that do support Tajiks as Persians, but also designate them as a unique type of Persians, a sub-type if you will, with its own separate history and interaction with their neighbors etc. Tombseye 21:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, there seems to be some confusion here. I'm not debating removing mention of the Tajiks as a sub-group, in fact I originally wrote that subsection myself. I'm opposed to including Tajiks in the population infobox section as they are counted in the Tajiks article. That's all. Mention of them in the article and defining them as a related Persian group I have no problem with. Tombseye 21:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If this debate is about the census or the number of Persians, I think that Tajiks should not be included - with a small note that they are not included. However, it should be mentioned that OVERALL, the "Persians" (a people who are almost exclusively defined by the use of the Persian language - which automatically qualifies Tajiks for "being Persians") - including Tajiks, Tats, and maybe Hazaras, Mazandaranis, Gilakis, and Lurs - are this much. We did the same with "Turkish language" ... while Azeri and Turkmen are not included in the Turkish language article, we added a small note here, that OVERALL, the "Oghuz language" has this or that many native-speakers, pointing out the fact that Turkmen, Azeri, and Anatolian Turkish are different dialects of the same language. In case of Persians and Tajiks, this is even more important, because - unlike Turks, Azeris, and Turkmens - Persians and Tajiks even have the same ethnic background. Tājik 21:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm okay with the compromise of noting that they are not included in the population stats. Hopefully, this will end the 'debate' if there ever was one! Tombseye 21:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That wasn't what we were currently debating actually. The problem was including Tajik population figures in the infobox. As for the Tajiks as Persians, well it's a hazy issue. The Persians of Iran are themselves a mixed group which assimilated first native peoples such as the Elamites and adopted Persian after the conquests of the Persians from Fars who spread the language throughout, including what is today northern Afghanistan and Central Asia. I do agree that there are variations between the two and thus we have two different articles. However, mention of their relationship is not out of line given their similarities. See Germans for discussion of the Swiss for example who also have some differences with the Germans of Germany that is similar to this issue. Tombseye 21:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afghanistan+Uzbekistan 

message: i dont know why u guys Persist to call urself Persian
we are Iranain Not persian
yes that is true that 4000 yrs ago the people who come here were Persian but it was for past and history all of those people has died till now
Dont say what u were Before say what u are Right now and all of you are Iranains NO persian if we call ourself persian the Afghanestan and tagikestan , Gorjestan , Iraq , Turkey and north of Sudi Arabia and Even some part of Eygept Should call them self Persians.
Please Live at the Moment not at 4000 yrs ago
We are Iranain and Our language is Farsi
:calm down, persian is an ethnic group just like kurds, balouchi's, azari's, etc... if they have the right to call themselves by their ethnicity, then so do we. we are all iranian first, but we arent necessarily all of the same ethnic group.Khosrow II 19:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. WE ARE THE PERSIANS AND WE EXIST, we are the remaining of the ruling core of Persian empire who someday ruled all lands from Egypt to India. loosing those lands doesn’t diminish our culture and existence. 
2. there is no ethnic group with the name of Persian, Persia(recently called Iran!) is a nation that involves people who speak Persian, Kurdish, Azeri, ... even Persian live in Khuzestan and speak both Arabic and Persian it doesn’t mean that they are Arab. Please note that there is no one exist in iran who mention him/herself as a part of a "persian" ethnic group.80.242.10.17 08:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Not trying to pick a fight, but you don't seem to know much about the history of Iran/Persia, so don't make these kinds of comments. We were called persian until 1935 and also since 1959 we could be called both. So get your facts right. --(Aytakin) | Talk 20:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show Me the persians ! 

message: Is there an anthropologist out there with any real information? What is a Persian? I submit that thre are as many Persians left as there are ancient Egyptians, Romans, Sumerians, Assyrians etc. I would appreciate someone explaining to me how I am wrong. No "Persian" alive today is remotely related to Darius, is he? The only thing Persian about Iranians is the land they live on which was a small part of the Persian Empire. I submit that todays Macedonians under an Alexander would defeat Iranians. How many ancient Persians were Moslem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alf1052 (talk • contribs) 
::Thats like asking "How many Arabs are out there who are Not muslims?", or "How many Europeans are out there that are not Pagan?" 2000 years ago, everyone had different religions to what they have today. --K a s h Talk | email 11:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persians 

message: I think to avoid the ambiguity, this page should move to Persian-speaking people. Persian people has several meanings. In most texts, it simply means people of Iran (either modern-day Iran or ancient Persia). In some other texts it means Persian-speaking People and in some of them (such as CIA factbook), only Persian-speaking People of the modern-day Iran. This article is about all Persian-speaking People and the title Persian-speaking people is more appropriate. Jahangard 16:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Against. Persians are an ethno-linguistic group, "Persian people" is more appropriate per wiki style. --ManiF 02:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not against using the word "Persians" as an ethno-linguistic group. However, in most English texts, "Persian people" refers to "people of Iran (Persia). To avoid the ambiguity, it's better to have titles which are less ambiguous. Persian people should be a disambiguation page. Jahangard 18:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Against as per Mani.Khosrow II 04:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I mentioned CIA factbook before. The fact that CIA uses "persian" as "Persian speaking" and many other sources use "Persian" as "Iranian" (or "from Iran") shows the ambiguity and Persian people should be disambiguation page. You say The most common meaning of "Persian people" or "Persians" in English is the ethnic group. I disagree with you. In English texts (or texts in other western languages), the most common meaning of "Persians" is "people of Iran (Persia)". To check that, see the first 20-30 results for "Persian peoples" in the Google search (over books) . Jahangard 18:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a disambiguition page will resolve this, like the one Jahangard attempted.Khosrow II 18:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A disambiguition page at Persians? But the most common meaning of "Persians" is the ethnic group...perhaps we can have a disambig. note at the top of this article. —Khoikhoi 18:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I explained earlier, the most common meaning of "Persians" is not the ethno-linguist group. Jahangard 18:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't provided any sources besides Google to back-up this claim. For example, since when are Azeris and Kurds called Persians? (today) —Khoikhoi 18:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? Those search results are books. Google is only a search engine to search over those books. Jahangard 19:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the dates on these books, Jahangard. I see one in 1953, another in 1966, and one even in 1911. This was when the country was commonly known in English as "Persia". Today we call it "Iran". —Khoikhoi 19:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even among the new books, most of them (or at least a large portion of them) use the word "Persians" as people of either modern-day Iran, or Persian empire . There are also many uses of the word as Persian-speakig people (either as Persian-speakig people of Iran or Tajiks). This shows the necessity of disambiguation. One may argue that the word "Persians" should only be used as "People of Iran", or "Persian-speaking people", or only "Persian-speaking people of Iran". But, it's not for us (ro editors of any encyclopedia) to decide what should be the use the word. It's just for us to report the common uses of the word. I think this page should move to a less ambiguous title. Jahangard 04:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The most common term for the ethnolinguistic group in English is "Persians" not "Persian-speaking people". --ManiF 10:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The last search result that I mentioned is about "Persians". Of course, "Persians" is much more common than "Persian people" or "Persian-speaking people", but it is true for the all uses of the word. Indeed, "Persians" is even more ambiguous than "Persian people". Jahangard 17:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to [[Persian-speaking people]]

message: How about we modify the Persian language page to include the above proposed chagnes?Khosrow II 03:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean you want to refer "Persian" (in a sentence like "Al-Beruni was a Persian ...") to Persian language? not a good idea. Jahangard 04:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was talking about the Persian speakers thing. Whether the article should be about Persian speakers or the Persian ethnic group.Khosrow II 04:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a sentence like "Al-Beruni was a Persian ...", the word "Persian" should be referred to a page which includes both "Tajiks" and "Persians of Iran". When we talk about the pre-safavid era, we shouldn't restrict the term "ethnic Persian" to Persians of the modern-day Iran. It's also meanningless to differentiate between Al-Beruni and Khayyam, just based on the borders which are finalized in 19th century or the religious differences of their hometowns in the post-Safavid era. Jahangard 05:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, I guess thats true.Khosrow II 05:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Solution?

message: By adding up rthe numbers listed in the table, we arrive at 37-43 range.Heja Helweda 02:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually the term "Persian" is not an ethnic term but a linguistic and historical term and if we are discussing just native language speakers than many people now speak Persian as their native language specially in Tehran which is a mix of different regions but all the children speak Persian. The term Kurd is not consistently defined either. If we are equating languages than Laks, Guranis, Zazakis are not "Kurds" as defined by any linguistic who speliazes in Iranian languages (and note their word has more Scholarly weight than other sources). Thus I bring this example that a language and label are not necessarily the same. From a historical point of view modern Persian is one(not the only one) of the descendants of middle Persian and thus the usage of the term Persian is not confined to native Dari-Persian speakers only. Some could argue that it includes all SW Iranian languages. Other might say it is for anyone who feels the legacy of say just the Sassanid dynasty. Thus confining the term to just native speakers of modern Dari-Persian is erroneous and disregards the Sassanid heritage of much of Iran who do not speak the Khorasani dialect of middle Persian which developed into the modern Persian. Thus if the article was about native Dari-Persian speakers of Iran, then there is no issue, but the term Persian is more widely used and not narrowly defined to just speakers of one branch of Pahlavi. For example Parsi (Persians) of India who speak Gujarti..--alidoostzadeh 02:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population numbers