Talk:Persians/Archive 1

message: I think the description of Persian women in the "Persian Women" section is a little inappropriate. Are you trying to sell something here? Perhaps some word other than "Oriental" can be used to describe them.
Also, I don't think the word "garden" is of Persian origins. Perhaps you're refering to the word "paradise"?
I agree with the first user. This an encyclopedia, not an infomercial. I will edit it. --SeanMcG 21:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reconsidered the Persian-Tajik divide and believe that they are very similar. It is mainly religion and geography that separates the groups and they are in fact very much like Swiss Germans and the Germans of Germany in terms of their relationship with each other. Still though I think it's okay to have a page for both as they have diverged historically in various ways as well. It seems as if the Persians of Iran also claim historical figures from Central Asia as their own, while distancing the modern Tajiks are illegitimate Persians which makes no sense at all. The criteria might as well be geographic if the two are to be considered somewhat distinct rather than ethnic. As for the Parsis, it's a tough call. They are ethnically Persian still and yet culturally Indian. It's like asking whether or not the Amish are American or German-Dutch. Thus, someone like Freddie Mercury, who identified himself as an ethnic Persian, can be considered both without too much trouble I'd say. Tombseye 21:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Your assessment is incorrect. I made the same mistake and realized after doing some more research on the subject that in fact the Tajiks are a type of Persians. The difference is basically the same as an Austrian German and German in Germany. Who Persians in Iran identify with is irrelevant. The Tajiks see themselves as Persians and speak a dialect of Persian and that's really all there is to it. We have a concensus view on the pages so unless you can come up with a better argument than Persians in Iran not seeing Tajiks as Persian then we're going to have to stay with the previous version of the page. Tombseye 21:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persian Women 

message: I made some edits to clean-up the confusing beginning of this article before signing in.  AT any rate, interesting debate, but the main point here is that the Tajiks and Persians have differences including geography, religion, and dialect differences not unlike that of Austrian German and the German spoken in northern Germany.  So while it is important to note their common origins (as Iranian people), language alone does not define people.  The Hazara are a Turkic-Mongol people who adopted the Persian language (their dialect being Hazaragi and even in Iran, the language spread over time as a result of empire and not simply because everyone came from the province of Fars which is not the case.  The Tajiks are definitely part Persian from Iran, but not entirely AND their differences and similarities can all be noted.  This can become quite confusing since Afghanistan and portions of Central Asia have been under the rule of Persian based empires that it has become difficult to ascertain who is and isn't "Persian."  The Persians of Iran have lived a different existence to some degree, while the Tajiks have interacted with other groups around them such as the Uzbeks and Pashtuns.  Of course, of all the groups east of Iran, the Tajiks are obviously the closest cousins, with the exception of the Farsiwan.  Tajik is a category of itself and is explained in numerous articles.  Surely it's not a problem if the Persians of Iran get an article of their own?  Tombseye 02:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reconsidered the Persian-Tajik divide and believe that they are very similar. It is mainly religion and geography that separates the groups and they are in fact very much like Swiss Germans and the Germans of Germany in terms of their relationship with each other. Still though I think it's okay to have a page for both as they have diverged historically in various ways as well. It seems as if the Persians of Iran also claim historical figures from Central Asia as their own, while distancing the modern Tajiks are illegitimate Persians which makes no sense at all. The criteria might as well be geographic if the two are to be considered somewhat distinct rather than ethnic. As for the Parsis, it's a tough call. They are ethnically Persian still and yet culturally Indian. It's like asking whether or not the Amish are American or German-Dutch. Thus, someone like Freddie Mercury, who identified himself as an ethnic Persian, can be considered both without too much trouble I'd say. Tombseye 21:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Your assessment is incorrect. I made the same mistake and realized after doing some more research on the subject that in fact the Tajiks are a type of Persians. The difference is basically the same as an Austrian German and German in Germany. Who Persians in Iran identify with is irrelevant. The Tajiks see themselves as Persians and speak a dialect of Persian and that's really all there is to it. We have a concensus view on the pages so unless you can come up with a better argument than Persians in Iran not seeing Tajiks as Persian then we're going to have to stay with the previous version of the page. Tombseye 21:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Persian-Tajik divide 

message: atleast hitler did something for the german people. he united them and turned germany into a powerful country. what did khomeini do? he brought his people scorn and difficulties. it is because of this that arabs call the Persian Gulf arabian gulf, during the shah's reign no arab dared to say anything regarding iran. But i don't see hitler as a hero nor do i love the shah, i'm just giving my opinion.
:It seems like his revolution was pretty popular... I mean, he completely changed the face of modern Iran by defying the west and starting a new government. See this link for more details. I'm sure that people that live in Iran think differently about this than you do. --Khoikhoi 01:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I have 3 friends who were in Iran recently (as in they came back in August 2005) and one of them is Persian, the others Canadian and British. While over their doing some academic field work (well two of them anyway), what they encountered was indeed a lot of reverence for Khomeini from many Iranians as well some desire for change from his original vision for Iran. The reality is that Persians in the west and those in Iran don't always agree on many things, while it is also undeniable that most Persians probably aren't big on the Iranian revolution's effects today in sum. It's a dicey issue. Tombseye 07:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hitler 

message: Why picture of Chomeini?
He was a non-Persian, a citizen of Iran, but at least not an ethnical Persian.
Why is his picture then there?
--ShapurAriani 20:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. --Khoikhoi 21:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There are probably a lot of Persians just like him and the divine Arab ancestry is claimed by a lot of people. The Persians aren't a pure anything anyway and he's still 3/4 Persian. I'm not going to press for his picture being included in the article, BUT please don't sit there and play the Persian purity game because it's a really pointless one given the various origins of the Persians. Tombseye 06:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why picture of Chomeini? 

message: Greg, it seems you're just ignoring what I've written elsewhere. It is an example of Persian art and released by the Iranian Cultural Heritage Museum for promotional purposes. Why would it not be appropriate in this article, Persian art, and Iranian culture? SlimVirgin (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is copyrighted! There are countless public domain images which would serve the purpose of this article equally well (and indeed some on the very articles we are editing). Again, there is nothing specific about this particular image that makes it more useful for our educational aims than the countless other images we could use. ... Nothing except that you are also using this on your user page and need an excuse to keep it on Wikipedia. :( This use would make a fine counterexample for the WP:FU of the same kind as " An image of a rose, cropped from an image of a record album jacket, used to illustrate an article on roses." now makes. If you'd like an example of a place where the image would be acceptable, you could write an article about the artist and discuss that painting. That still will not excuse its use here or on your user page, but it would allow us to keep it.   I hope this makes things more clear for you.--Gmaxwell 07:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: But why wouldn't it be appropriate in Persian art or Iranian culture. It is an example of Iranian culture. But you have removed it from there too. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there is no discussion about the work there (and hardly any discussion at all, the page is one step ahead of a simple list). Look at the rose example from WP:FU that I quoted. Just because it's persian art doesn't automatically mean that it's fair use on an article about persian art. --Gmaxwell 08:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're talking nonsense. The museum released it for promotional purposes so far as we know, and what else would they be promoting if not Iranian art and culture? You seem to be making this up as you go along. Please show me some case law from now on. You can't expect people to rely on your original research. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're saying that it's okay because it's with permission? Okay. Except thats not allowed either. Please don't take this personally, you are the zillionth and first user whos had to remove a favorite fair use image... and the billionth and first whos been told that an image wasn't fair use in a particular article. This isn't anything against you... our standards on this matter must be enforced consistently. Again, I welcome a freely licensed copy of this image, and I hope you are able to obtain the license you seek. --Gmaxwell 10:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: An additional clarification: the muesum is probably not the copyright holder (as you'd mentioned before when talking about getting a good license for it) so they can't make the sort of grant we need. Even if they were, their use for promotion doesn't automatically translate into a right for use to continue redistributing it. What do you think they'd say if we used the image on a page talking about the bad points of the museum? --Gmaxwell 10:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They'd say it was an inappropriate use because we wouldn't be promoting them, their country's culture, or the artist. But given that we don't criticize anything related to them, it is being appropriately used. I didn't say anything about permission, so stop trying to shift the goalposts. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the point of my comment... To use the image we have to give them control over our content. Thats unacceptable. This is why we can only accept images which soundly qualify as fair use or are under a free license, in either case they can't force us to remove it if they don't like what we say. I'm not trying to shift the goalpost: I'm trying to help you understand years of discussion, thought, and policy in a very small space. --Gmaxwell 10:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course we don't. You really are making this up as you go along, Greg. I'd be happy to have this explained to me by someone in the profession, but you're not. That is the problem. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, how do you know it is copyrighted? At the moment, all we know is that someone released it for promotional purposes. I'm currently trying to find out whether it's copyrighted and if so who holds it, and who exactly released it, so unless you're psychic and have anticipated the responses, you have no idea of its status. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: I find these comments about the man, no matter what you or I or anyone thinks of him, to be incredibly offensive. Comparing him to Hitler (!), claiming that he was of "mixed blood" and continually insulting him will not accomplish anything. This is crap, pure and simple. None of these claims about his ancestry can ultimately be proven and it is absurd. Whether you want to admit or not, he was very much Persian and you would be hard pressed to find anyone in Iran who would accept this nonsense that he was not Persian. That is purely an opinion and a pretty lame one at that.
Secondly, as I have had to illustrate time and time again to many people, Persians are not a single ethnic group, but many different peoples sharing a common line of origin and cultural and linguistic background. There are many different Persian ethnicities, both in Iran and in surrounding nations. We have Persians with many different skin tones ranging from the palest white to bronze to dark; eye and hair colors ranging from black to blue and black to blonde. People from different regions have different features, different dialects, different traditions, and on and on and on. Just because Khomeini doesn't fit your ideal of what constitutes a "Persian" does not make him "mixed" or whatever. If that were true then it would be true for everyone and Iran and Persian civilization and our many different peoples would have ceased to exist a long time ago and would have been absorbed into some other civilization and "race" and this whole conversation would be moot. 
Point is that there is no single Persian "race" but many different peoples ultimately sharing a common cultural and linguistic background. Accept it and move on. SouthernComfort 08:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Absurd comments about Khomeini

message: http://www.livinginhell.com/excerpts.php
"Khomeini was born Ruhollah Khomeini Hendi on May 17, 1900 . The last part added to his last name, indicates that his father was from India . He was born in the town of Khomain located in the south of Markazi Province, 323 km from Tehran and 160 km from the city of Qom. In 1930, he changed his name to Ruhollah Mosvi Al-Khomeini ."
http://i-cias.com/e.o/khomeini.htm
"(1902- 1989) Iranian religious leader and politician. His name was Ruhollah ibn Mustafa Musawi Khomeini Hindi (meaning the Indian)." 
--ManiF 09:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh for heavens sake. This is your proof? SouthernComfort 09:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, your source is pretty weak. She only talks about his name as 'evidence' and then goes off on symbol similarities that supposedly connect him to the Sikhs. You call that evidence? We've given you 3 sources (one from a New York Times book review) and you've give us nada. I'm not going to push for keeping Khomeini's picture up, BUT I'm also not going to agree that you have any shred of evidence to make the absurd claim that Khomeini was not an ethnic Persian because frankly while we've all been quite patient and presented sources, all you've done is come here with a selective agenda, deleting some population figures without sources and keeping others, and then making wildly unsubstantiated accusations that Khomeini was not a Persian, which is FALSE. I've got no problem with taking Khomeini's picture out, but you really need to stop claiming he's not a Persian because it sure looks like you're wrong. Tombseye 19:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it matter if Khomeini is Persian or not? He is not neutral. Is this Wikipedia supposed to be neutral or not? Kordestan 06:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't matter because now I've put up Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and he is definitely Persian and that is that. Issues of neutrality are moot, because all we are giving is an example of Persians, and he is very well known to the average Western reader. See Russians for an example of using a former monarch as an example. If you have a problem with the Shah, then that is just too bad. SouthernComfort 10:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I concede that the Ayatollah is a divisive figure for the encyclopedia (as the Shah may be as well) so I'm okay with taking his picture off if that's what most people want. But it's important not to make up things just because some people don't like the guy (such as his non-Persian origins which frankly hasn't been proven). That's all I was saying. Tombseye 19:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, it's never been proven that he ever had "Indian" blood (Indian as in indigenous to India), and many of these "seyyed" Persian families will only intermarry with other such families. So I find it hard to believe that he had any non-Persian blood. And there was nothing foreign about the man, as there is nothing foreign about any of the clerics in Iran. Unfortunately some who oppose the Islamic Republic (mainly in the Western Diaspora) like to portray the Persian clergy as "foreigners" or "Arabs" but as I've said, this is crap. Their culture is distinctly Persian, and the "Hezbollahi" religious cult that has developed in Iran since the Revolution (and whose numbers have been shrinking) is also very much a Persian cultural phenomenon (born out of this dualistic mysticism that goes back to ancient times). Obviously one can empathize with any opposition to Khomeini and the Islamic Republic, but to attack them from a racialist standpoint is absurd and offensive. It's all very moot at this point, however. As for Freddie Mercury, he considered himself "Persian" and went to great lengths to portray himself as such, so he was the one who opened up that can of worms. ;) SouthernComfort 13:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, there was (and still is) a great deal of racism towards Indians in the UK, so that wouldn't be too surprising if his intent was to actually downplay his Indian nationality. But even then, it's ultimately an opinion since we can never know what he was thinking, unless some previously undiscovered journal or diary pops up somewhere, or if his family or friends reveal something. However, Parsis are definitely of Iranian descent. Whether or not they are actually of Persian descent is open to debate since most, if not all, Iranian groups practiced some variant of Zoroastrianism before they converted to Islam. So they may very well be descended from a non-Persian Iranian group. Also, up until recently Parsis very rarely married outside their community (not even with Zoroastrians from Iran or elsewhere), and their elders still remain extremely race-conscious while many amongst the younger generations want to assimilate more into the wider Indian culture. It's a very complex and sensitive subject, there is no doubt about that. SouthernComfort 04:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: He wasn't downplaying it, but simply identifying with the group that he identified most with. It's his choice really as the Parsis are Iranian and actually Persian by most accounts. You're confusing his nationality with his ethnic group. Tombseye 21:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More evidence that Khomeini was not Persian! 

message: This source , meniones that there is approximately 1 million Iranians (citizens of Iran, or people born in Iran), living in the United States. This does not mean they are all ethnic persian, since they can also belong to other ethnic groups of Iran, such as Azeri, Arab, Kurd, Turkmen. So 1 million is wrong.Heja Helweda 18:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, one of the problems is that we have no real way of discerning between Iranians and ethnic Persians in the US since there is no official census to find out. One can assume that the majority were ethnic Persians fleeing from the Shah, but that's still just a guess. Tombseye 19:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't agree with your assumption. There are lots of Iranian Azeris living in the states. In the absence of any accurate ethnic data, I suggest to consider only 50% of the Iranian population in U.S. as ethnic Persians. (in order to be consistent with the ethnic make-up of Iran, according to CIA data.) Heja Helweda 22:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be wise to put it as a range since saying there are lots of Iranian Azeris doesn't really mean much. We also can't assume the 50% figure because, notoriously, immigrants aren't always proportional to the home country's population breakdown. A large proportion of Italian immigrants to the US were Sicilian for example. Tombseye 23:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persian population figure in US 

message: Why is there a problem with the picture showing Cyrus, Omar Khayyam, Shoreh, and the Shah? It's a 4 people picture and was okay for quite some time. Tombseye 20:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What's with the picture on this page?!

message: Link . Please don't remove it. It seems that the statistics from different sources vary a lot. All should be included. Heja Helweda 21:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost 10 years old (not reliable anymore). does not include Gilak and Northwestern Persian etc. The list contains 74 languages and dialects. Iran does not have 74 ethnic groups! -- Gorbeh 09:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnologue data shows 22 million native speakers of Farsi in Iran 

message: Dialects of the Persian language are clealy specified in the Persian page. Out of all listed dialects only western Farsi is spoken in Iran. The sentence Persians are an ethnic Iranian peoples who mainly speak various dialects of the Persian language as their mother tongue. is not quite correct, since the only dialect spoken in Iran is western Farsi. Refer to ethnologue for more detail . Moreover ethnic Iranian people may refer to Tajiks as well, which are not considered as Persian. So I suggest to say Persian are citizens of Iran, or those with Iranian parents (for the second generation expatriates) , who speak ...Heja Helweda 22:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dialects of Persian 

message: Some sectiones in the article have serious problem in wording.
Mesopotamia 23:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased wording