Talk:Iran/Archive 5

message: My input:
I personally think Ahmadinejad's picture doesnt belong on the front main page of Iran. It gives the impression to the reader that Iran is equivalent to ahmadinejad. And that is not right. I vote for it's removal.--Zereshk 02:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Photographs of George W. Bush appear twice on the United States of America article, and Bush certainly isn't the USA. I don't see how this case is any different; admittedly Bush has much more political power in the USA than Ahmadinejad has in Iran, but they're both key figures in international politics for their respective countries. Putting a photograph of an individual on a page about a country neither implies that the individual is the country nor implies that the individual is an utterly uncontroversial, unanimously-supported figure symbolizing all of the country's ideals and hopes and dreams. All it says is that the individual is a highly important political figure in the country in question, and that's certainly indisputable in the case of Ahmadinejad: the President of Iran is the highest directly-elected official in Iran. -Silence 02:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The photograph of George W. Bush does appear on the United States of America, but that's not the norm in all of the country-related articles. I personally don't think Ahmadinejad's photograph belongs on this article, as the article's focus is the country of Iran, not the current government. --ManiF 03:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image of President Ahmadinejad is now next to the Politics section. He is effectively the chief spokesman of Iran, so I think an image of him is appropriate in the Politics section. Does that solve the objection? Green Giant 02:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like a compromise between people who don't wish to recongize the president of a country and the people that do... If George W. Bush is able to be displayed with his policies, shouldn't President Ahmadinejad be displayed (at least once) with his policies or associated with the current political affiliation of his government? --MadameArsenic 02:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Nowhere on the US page does Bush appear alone portrait style. His image apprears in a different context such as "Patriot act" or "No child left behind". The president has its own page. This image should be removed. The article is about a large autonomous country with millenia old history and sovereignty. Not about who leads it. I can bring other reasons why the image doesnt belong here.--Zereshk 03:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And we shouldn't recognize the leader? The people who founded the country have images, so the ones carrying on those traditions don't deserve it? Dubya appears under "Government and Politics" in the USA article, so is it so hard for you to accept that Ahmadinejad should be under "Politics" in this article? --MadameArsenic 02:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Please keep your personal opinions to yourself. --MadameArsenic 02:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The picture

message: We need a Foreign relations and military section.  Maybe some of the content from the disputed paragraph can be moved into such a section. -- Jeff3000 00:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea, but where would you put it? Somewhere between History and Politics perhaps? Green Giant 01:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Australia which is a featured article, the section is after the Provinces section, but I think it fits best after the Politics section like in Canada.  -- Jeff3000 01:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, it looks out of place after the States and Territories. Green Giant 01:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Which guideline length is this? The 32KB one applied a long time ago when browsers couldn't handle such sizes. At the moment 39 KB is not that long - look at Pakistan which is 43 KB. By the way removing a citation request and saying read a history book is not acceptable. It's not the date of establishment the citaiton request was asking but the bit which said the world's first superpower. Green Giant 04:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont know. Wikiacc insists on the length. The article used to be much longer than this. It was trimmed over and over again for this very reason. I objected that it was ridiculous to have only 1-2 sentences span 1000 years in the history section. Nobody listened.--Zereshk 04:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well we cut Pakistan from about 60KB down to 43 KB and nobody objected to the size. Similarily Bangladesh is also 43 KB and not so long ago Kerala passed at about 70KB. The important thing is not the quantity but the quality. However, articles have to adhere to summary style. The whole history section should have about five paragraphs - Ancient history, Post-Islamic conquest, Pre-20th century, the reign of the Pahlavi's and the Islamic Republic. All the rest of the detail should go into History of Iran and any associated history articles. Green Giant 04:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here I will have to disagree. If youre going to give a good representation of Iran, you have to represent what it really is, not how the media and current situation defines it. Adding sections about the military and the current politics at the expense of even further trimming the history section is just wrong. Iran's history is something one simply cannot summarize in such a short space. Between the Islamic Conquest and the 20th century Iran went through at least 15 major dynasties that had continental influences. And all that is wrapped up in a feeble 1.5 sentences. I find that totally inaccurate in the representation of Iran. For Iran and the Iranian identity, culture and history play extraordinarily large defining roles. Those should be properly reflected in proportion in this article.--Zereshk 16:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think length is an issue here, but more completeness.  I think the page would still pass FAC if it had a longer length.  The history section as it is ok, not great, but ok. I would remove the subsection headings though, to get the page more in summary style. -- Jeff3000 17:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign relations and military 

message: Needs to be checked for NPOV. The whole section sounds like it's been copied from a web-page of the Iranian Ministry of Tourism, if there's such a thing.
:Half of it (including the Persian verses and their translations) was edited by me. The other half, people just kept adding in until it took the form it currently has.--Zereshk 16:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Culture Section

message: User:Zmmz, you have effectively reverted most of the edits I and Jeff3000 made without explaining the rationale. Your edit summaries should be civil and should not include comments like "do not keep moving/deleing picfs on your own, it is becoming disruptive" especially when addressed to other editors. That is not an acceptable tone to use in edit summaries and I would appreciate you explaining on the talkpage why you feel other editors cannot make changes without requiring your express typed permission? In case you are not aware, I recommend reading the guidelines on explaining reverts and edit summaries.
You ask for discussion before changes but did you read the suggestions we made for Article Improvement? The very least you could do is to comment about the suggestions if you feel so strongly about the changes. This article will not pass FAC until and unless each of the editors fully appreciates the guidelines at Wikipedia:What is a featured article. It would help enormously if you could take the time out to read the featured articles on countries like Australia, China, Pakistan and Bangladesh, especially the last two because they have only recently passed FAC. Note the criticisms and comments made on their candidacies and let's apply the ideas here. Green Giant 23:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion 

message: Zmmz has reverted much of the image work of Zereshk, and I have gone back to Zereshk's edits.  I think the article is much improved the way Zereshk has modified it.  There were too many images. -- Jeff3000 23:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was posting this as GreenGiant posted the above, I agree with what GreenGiant said above. -- Jeff3000 23:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here, I agree with Jeff's revert. Green Giant 23:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it's me, Green Giant, and Zereshk who believe his edits in moving/removing the images is appropriate.  There are too many images in the article, and they are all important, but decisions have to be made to remove some of them.  -- Jeff3000 23:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This page is not owned by you Zmmz.  I believe Zereshk's edits were hard work, and by your edits you  deleted his work.  But really wikipedia doesn't work that way, and if some of your edits were removed, you shouldn't take it personally, we are all working to make this article better. -- Jeff3000 23:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You don't make straw polls for every edit. How many straw polls have you seen on Wikipedia. The point is that most editors believe Zereshk's edits were appropriate.  -- Jeff3000 23:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zmmz, if and when Iran makes it to featured status, you can demand that no major changes be made without consensus. However, as it is a FACfailed, this article is open to positive changes by anyone. There is a "straw poll" of sorts above - make some comments on improvements instead of backing into a corner. Green Giant 23:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Zmmz, please explain why the griffin image is relevant to the Name section. Is it not more appropriate in the History section? Green Giant 23:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also explain why three images are good in the Geography section? If we were to remove one, would you have a preference? Green Giant 00:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: === Vote on the Tochal picture in the `Climate` section ===
*Keep- The image in the `Geography and climate` section is also important, since it shows the snow filled mountains of Tehran, and many do not know Iran has the four seasons.  Thank youZmmz 00:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment - good idea. Change my vote to merge as per Zereshk. Green Giant 00:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *Comment - sounds good, merge as per Zereshk. -- Jeff3000 00:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *Comment - Note: the Tochal picture shows snow, as well as the the Telecabin, in Tehran, and from experience I can tell that many are surprised that both exit in Tehran, or even Iran.  So, it is more useful than just a boring pic of a mountain.Zmmz 00:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: All, how about if we agree to my suggestion for the pic here for the geo section, and instead have the snow/tochal/ski pic of Zmmz used as the image of the new section on sports that GG, ManiF, et al have been talking about?--Zereshk 17:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *On the issue of which image, I too would prefer the map on the same grounds as Zereshk. Green Giant 00:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can definitely use it on other articles indeed.--Zereshk 00:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote on images

message: *Keep- The image in the `Geography and climate` section is also important, since it shows the snow filled mountains of Tehran, and many do not know Iran has the four seasons.  Thank youZmmz 00:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment - good idea. Change my vote to merge as per Zereshk. Green Giant 00:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *Comment - sounds good, merge as per Zereshk. -- Jeff3000 00:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *Comment - Note: the Tochal picture shows snow, as well as the the Telecabin, in Tehran, and from experience I can tell that many are surprised that both exit in Tehran, or even Iran.  So, it is more useful than just a boring pic of a mountain.Zmmz 00:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: All, how about if we agree to my suggestion for the pic here for the geo section, and instead have the snow/tochal/ski pic of Zmmz used as the image of the new section on sports that GG, ManiF, et al have been talking about?--Zereshk 17:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote on the Tochal picture in the `Climate` section 

message: For the naming section we can only have one image. Which would you prefer?
Image:Persepolis - The Sculptures 3.jpg|Homa griffin of ancient Iran, with a caption stating what the country was called back then.
Image:Yek toman qajar.jpg|Iran name on 19th century bill
Image:Iran.jpg|"Iran"'s name on ancient map by Erathostenes.
This vote will be held for three days (until thursday the 27th). (agree?)
*Keep Homa- I think the image is a major symbol, it blends to the next section nicely, and it also shows a slice of the biggest tourist attraction in Iran.  Plus, it is aestethically appealing.Zmmz 00:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *On the issue of which image, I too would prefer the map on the same grounds as Zereshk. Green Giant 00:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can definitely use it on other articles indeed.--Zereshk 00:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote on picture in the `Naming` section 

message: As of this note, the above vote has yielded the following assertions from 10 editors:
* 6 votes (5 at a mere cursory glance) prefer including the map image
* 3 votes prefer including the Homa (griffin) image
* 1 vote for not including any image
Various users support including the Homa image elsewhere in the article, while minor varied support has been expressed about including the bill note.
Thus, the map seems to be the choice of a majority and, arguably a consensus of editors.  Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote summary/result

message: What do you guys think of a sub-section in culture about sports in Iran explaining Iranians' passion for wrestling, football, skiing and etc? --ManiF 02:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All for it (though I'm not sure we need the actual subsection title).  Sports are an important part of the country. -- Jeff3000 02:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That would be a good idea. I suggested covering sports in the Talk:Iran#Article improvements above but it seems to have become lost in the middle of the talkpage. Green Giant 02:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Do it, and put the Tochal skiing picture there, so that Zmmz will also be happy, and so that we can have the previous problem (in the geo section) solved.--Zereshk 17:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sub-section in culture 

message: Perhaps I'm missing something here. Overnight changes have been made which have changed things back to previous versions. I can understand the images and things like that, but what concerns me is that the changes include removal of a citation request for Cradle of Humanity which ManiF at least made an effort to address, slight rewrites of two sentences in Demographics, and a grammar mistake in the History section. If you are going to change things back, at least check what you are changing back. If I didn't have faith in huan nature, I'd be tempted to think some people are blindly reverting without assuming good faith. Green Giant 13:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: E Pluribus Anthony restored the Name section changes, and I have put back the new photo of the Mosque, as well as restoring your work to the Politics section, and put back the fact tag. I assume that the reversion was done to restore the picture of the president, and he didn't look that much more work had been done. -- Jeff3000 13:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm unsure what happened there: I only restored those tidbits (upfront) that I've dealt with recently.  Perhaps User:Never Cry Wolf inadvertently restored a cached or otherwise halluncinatory version of the article? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for putting back the uncontroversial changes, I would have done so myself but I've been at work all day. Green Giant 22:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what happened, but I tried to move the Cradle of Humanity line from Geography to History and for some bizarre reason a whole bunch of other changes took place at the same time including a reversing of the provincial wikilinks which I had fixed just minutes earlier to avoid redirects. I reverted myself and tried to move the line again and it worked. :) Green Giant 03:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  You noticed that too? The only changes I had made were supposed to involve the image of Mahmoud, but for some reason it changed a part of the page back to a cached version. Strange... Never Cry Wolf 07:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overnight changes 

message: Now Cradle of Civilization usually refers to the earliest civilizations of Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus, and China, but other than that, there isn't any mention of Iran which has contributed other things such as being the world's first multinational empire that encompassed much of the known ancient world. Plus, it's badly worded. Tombseye 07:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think one of the major theories of CoH said that it is in Iran, sadly I can't remember his name but it was only a year or two ago and I read about his published work in a newspaper. -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 08:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I looked at the article and it doesn't cite anything. I replaced it with some interesting stuff on pre-historic Iran that I think warrants inclusion though. Tombseye 09:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It is interesting but I think we can definately improve on that, the fact that civilization from nearly 8000 years ago existed in Iran, (and not only they existed!, but they were civilized!) and they used to make wine, etc.. I think we should mention that -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 09:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can't really find citation for Iran being a Cradle of Humanity

message: The page says the Bush Administration has revealed plans for nuclear strikes.  After reading the cited article, it seems the press was responsible for the revelation, not the Administration.  I'm new, any advice on changing it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.128.251 (talk • contribs) 
:How exactly do you mean the press was responsible for the revelation? Green Giant 01:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsigned question 

message: So up until the coup in 1953, supported by the British and US (in which the US mostly funded and planned it), Iran was essentially a secular democracy in the first place! It's amazing how ignorant we are about our own histories, and so naive to think that the Americans have a plan to "bring democracy to the Middle-East."
Now I understand where the anger stems from. Amazing to think that they should put someone in charge, who has been accused of being a nazi collaborater, in control of a country and be responsible for the worst human atrocities in the country in the time he ruled.
Had this not have happened, the Islamic Revolution may not have been necessary, Iran would already have a healthy secular democracy, and we could have been living relatively harmoniously now... Some how I think that with the current American foreign policy, we could be seeing a few more 'revolutions' - An uncomfortable thought..
R.A Uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.133.205 (talk • contribs) 
Pure speculation.  The Iranians didn't install a democracy to replace the Shah but an theocratic Islamic state.
--Kevin 20:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran a secular democracy?? 

message: Should there be a sports section. Many countries have this section. We should also add a military section. Im new, so I was just wondering.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.185.170 (talk • contribs) 
: The see also section has a link to the 'Sports In Iran' article. Ashmoo 04:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there should be a sports section but no there shouldn't be a military section, because it is something worth examining on a separate daughter article. BY the way, think about starting an account - it is far easier to edit with than without one. :) Green Giant 23:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We need something better. I don't like that paragraph, it's too general and it's also factually inaccurate as skating or professional dancing are practiced in Iran by men or women only. --ManiF 22:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports? 

message: There's a problem with the image in the "Name" section. The image is formatted on the left side of the page, but when the menu is displayed, the table on the right hand side of the page, which has the statistics, extends down into the "Name" section, in a way that causes the picture to obscure some of the text in the first paragraph (at least with my browser, Safari on MacOS X). If I try to move the picture to the right, the text is not obscured, but if I hide the main menu, the picture moves into the "History" section, where it is not intended to be.
I do not know how to fix this problem. I hope that someone more knowledgeable than I can fix it. Bill Jefferys 22:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just fine in Firefox, and I can't test it in Safari (I'm on Windows). --Jeff3000 22:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting problem with images

message: *Note: User:Gadolam is suspected of being Aucaman's sockpuppet. Aucaman has been banned from Iranian articles permanently by ArbCom. Please monitor. --anon observer129.111.56.195
:NOTE: the anonymous user above, whose comment I've signed for him, is most likely a sockpuppet of Zereshk.Timothy Usher 03:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See your talk page, Tim.--Zereshk 21:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously User:Timothy Usher, you have an agenda against user:Zereshk. You have made personal attacks against him. Have made these claims of sockpuppetry and pasted them publicly without going to the proper sources and finally accused him out of nowhere of being anti-Semetic or more accurately anti-Jewish. Why? Why is it that you and a group of Jewish editors are attacking user:Zereshk? I personally see a link to user:Acuman. Please stop these attacks against user:Zereshk. What you are doing in incivil and wrong. 72.57.230.179 19:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the return of banned users

message: Would anybody be able to tell me the translation of the name of the Iranian national Anthem? Much thanks 205.210.170.48 14:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The national anthem "Sorūd-e Mellī-e Īrān" can be roughly translated as "Hymn of (the) Nation of Iran" with "Nation". Green Giant 01:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brief help

message: I think this article deserves to be a featured article since it's well documented, precise, and very well written. What do you think? And since I'm a newbie please help to put this article as a featured article (move the last featured article discussion on Iran to archives and resubmit). Thanks The Unknown 16:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article still needs some refinement, especially dropping the gallery and adding new sections like holidays. Green Giant 00:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article 

message: I think the 1000 Toman bill in this picture is both dirty and old (although, thanks to Zereshk for uploading it). Please if anyone has a newer version (cleaner and more respectable) upload it. It will improve the quality of this article a lot. Thank You. The Unknown 21:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also uploaded a 2000 Toman bill (Isfahani side) a while ago. I dont know what happened to it.--Zereshk 03:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1000 Toman bill 

message: I am pleased to announce that I have just finished making a special comprehensive gallery (repository) of images for Iran.
Please use it, and fill it up!!!
It is located at:
Wikipedia:List of images/Places/Asia/Iran
Thanks to all.--Zereshk 04:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image repository

message: The following Anons, have all been confirmed to be sockpuppets of User:Ahwaz, just as I had suspected:
*User:88.109.23.31 
*User:88.110.92.95 
*User:88.111.86.206 
*User:88.110.200.222
Please notify Admins for any necessary measures. Thanx all.--Zereshk 02:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpuppets of [[User:Ahwaz]] have been confirmed

message: All,
Please contribute to: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Persianism by Arabs whether you vote for or against the article.
The article has unjustly been nominated for deletion (by User:LukasPietsch) despite the fact that there is an entire list  and even category  of similar articles.
User:LukasPietsch has denied the similar nomination for the similar Anti-Arabism article.
Your input would be appreciated.
Thank You all. Peace.--Zereshk 00:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet another drive for deleting Iranian related articles

message: Since Mahmud Ahmadinejad was elected as president the time will no longer be set back or forth one hour.
::I hope thats supposed to be a joke? --K a s h  Talk | email 18:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Zone 

message: please do add to: Iran-Italy relations. Thanx all.--Zereshk 03:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, I know. It was .. well nevermind. It's only football at the end of the day. --K a s h  Talk | email 11:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think because of politics and fear of riots the regime instructed the team to lose or else they be sent to prison. because for them to be in so low a morale is unusual. Khorshid 12:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New articles

message: * There are 6 references in this section, 1 in the first paragraph and 5 in the last paragraph coincidently relate to the last year and Iran's nuclear program.  For such an imporant section, I think more references are needed as some of the descriptions and chain of events seem vague and biased. Also the last paragraph should not be in the history section, as they are current events. Discuss. Amrix 00:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in history section 

message: I think we need more images for the History Section of the article. With such a long history and so many monuments, this section is really empty, one or two more images will do the job. Please give your opinion so we can decide.
Thank you The Unknown 04:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Images 

message: A US Federal court can't just decide to give away a country's heritage. It doesnt belong to them. That's pretty fucked up.
See: University of Chicago's Persian Heritage crisis.--Zereshk 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Federal Court ruling against Iran

message: Hey guys,
I read an article that said director Maziar Miri has  created a documentory about how the clothing and culture of Iran has changed from the times of the achamaenids to the present. It will be shown on Channel 4 on the Iranian TV in 13 eposides, each 30 mins. I thought everyone might be intrested in seeing it. Now here is the problem.I don't know when it'll be shown and what time it will be on. If anyone knows anything please let us know, thank you. --(Aytakin) | Talk 00:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Persepolis to Vanak 

message: Hello, the page List_of_the_localities_around_Tehran is about to be deleted. Everyone, please help in turning the red links into blue and help keep the page alive and also in the talk page state your opinion on the page. Thanks --(Aytakin) | Talk 18:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help keep this page alive! 

message: http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/persia/index.html (GREAT SOURCE, NEUTRAL FROM BRITISH MUSEUM)
Somebody please add things from this site and others.
The "history section" uses MORE THAN HALF OF THE SECTION TO DESCRIBE THE LAST 60 YEARS OF HISTORY.
THAT ISN'T HISTORY! MOST OF THIS IS FOCUSED ON IRANIAN AMERICAN TIES.
--SkyEarth 23:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PERSIAN/IRANIAN HISTORY NOT VERY GOOD

message: I wanted to know why the British were involved in Iran before oil was discovered. Bold text
* Oil isn't the only natural resource in Iran, as well as Iran being the main land access to the far east (silk road). Amrix 16:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Iran-Britain relations for details.--Zereshk 01:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  why the British were involved in Iran before oil was discovered 

message: I thought this was interesting.--Zereshk 16:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the image because it falls under fair use and is not allowed on talk pages. See :Image:Ralph Peters solution to Mideast.jpg. joturner 03:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I havent seen any WP policies specifically banning use of Fairuse images on talk pages, where they can be discussed. It would be great if you could show me such a directive.--Zereshk 13:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New map of Iran

message: Is there a problem with the references section? Amrix 08:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed.--Zereshk 01:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References Section 

message: "Many political commentators in the Middle East believe Washington's stance on Iran is more governed by the latter's substantial oil reserves and pressure from the Zionist lobby in the US who hope to establish free rein for Israel in the region and who see Iran (as they saw Saddam) as an obstacle to this plan. The US allegations in regard to nuclear weapons and support for Iraqi insurgency are thus a convenient vehicle to seek to achieve these means."
This is speculative commentary which has no sources cited. This paragraph suggests readers adopt a particular political view. It attributes motives to the USA which are arguable, and uses the phrase "Zionist" which many find objectionable due to it's connotations. Unless this paragraph can be attributed to a reliable source I suggest it be removed.
"It has been reported that the Bush Administration has not ruled out using nuclear weapons against Iran which, if it were to occur, would be the first hostile nuclear bombing since World War II.[10]. "
This statement is attributed to a source, but the source reports only speculation, which diminishes it's value as an unbiased source of information. In addition the statement is again only a speculative opinion and it's inclusion in this wikipedia entry serves no purpose other than to bias readers towards a political viewpoint (in effect it suggests that Iran is a potential victim of US agression through nuclear warfare, which opinion has no place in an unbiased and factual publication.)
Matic3d 17:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the problems seem to have already been edited out, but I'll see if I can touch it up a bit more.--Spectheintro 19:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable content

message: The article. The English name of the Persian Language is about to be deleted. requesting that the authors of that piece attend to it immediately.--Zereshk 06:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attention

message: If my understanding and the Zoroastrianism entry are correct, the alleged "formative link" between Zoroastrianism and Judaism are not as certain as this entry purports to be. I intend to fix it if no objections are raised. It is quite a contentious topic. -- Canar 02:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By "formative link" you mean this part: "Some scholars (Boyce, 1987; Black and Rowley, 1987; Duchesne-Guillemin, 1988) believe that large portions of the eschatology, angelology, and demonology (see Asmodai) of Judaism, a key influence on Christianity, originated in Zoroastrianism, and were transferred to Judaism during the Babylonian captivity and the Persian era, despite the numerous structural differences in the belief systems, crucial to the faiths, as in the issue over whether the evil spirit is a product of the good spirit."? I am not sure how you intend to fix that since this is the opinion of some scholars as the article clearly says. Khorshid 03:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to give the two equal credibility in the text, perhaps a little more NPOV. -- Canar 01:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- Canar 19:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This section needs work. "Zoroastrian monotheism has had major influence on the religions of the middle eastern monotheisms in adaptations of such concepts as heavens, hells, judgement day and messianic figures. Nonetheless, claims of Zoroastrianism influencing ancient Jewish thought are disputed by some Jewish and Christian scholars, despite the various influencing elements being evident." This needs two citations, and I'm inclined to believe its redundant too. What do other people think? --Spectheintro 20:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zoroastrianism and Ancient Judaism

message: I was about to start go through and change all referrences to dates using these notations into the accepted BCE/CE format, since all of the above appear throught the article, but I figured it might be good to check and see what anyone's thoughts would be first :-)  If no one has a convincing reason not to, I'll just go ahead and do it. Regress 21:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Standardizing BC/BCE/B.C/CE/AD/A.D. throughout

message: may I suggest some images for this article:
Tehran
Tehran
Tehran
Tehran
Tehran
Tehran
Tehran
Tehran
Tehran
Tehran
Tehran
Tehran
Tehran
Tehran
Tehran
Tehran
Mount-Damavand
Isfahan
Perspolis
Perspolis
Isfahan
Isfahan1
iii
Qom
Shiraz
ppp
Isfahan
Isfahan
Shiraz
nnn
lll
Yazd
Isfahan
Shiraz
Yazd
Shiraz
Yazd
Shiraz
Shiraz
sss
Isfahan
Mashad
ttt
Perspolis
rrr
Kashan
Isfahan
Mashhad
Mashhad
Qom
Qom
ttt
Kerman
Kerman
Kerman
Some of these images are from Iranian news agencies and others are free images released into public domain.
: Beautiful pictures really. I added the Kurdistan Hills. Please feel free to add the ones (1 or 2 of course) that you think are the most suitable. Thanks again. Arad 00:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Images