Talk:Iranian peoples

Genetic section

I put it up for dispution. It is weak, inaccurate and incomplete. It is based on bunch of a certain hypothesis of Indo-Iranian origin that are not well supported, it only talks about two isolated Tajik population without mentioning any other Iranian population what so ever (Please check below "49-Iranian genetic"for my arguments against this section). I tried making changes, but my changes were reverted twice as a user finds it a case of POV. Since I was not trusted with making a change I put it up for an expert opinion. I also propose that we eliminate genetic section all together. There are no other Indo-European nation that have R1a mentioned as their origin ( check Indo-Aryans, Italians, German).--Ddd0dd (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Many experts now believe that the Iranian people are one of the lost tribes. Their names culture, etc. indicate this beyong doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.251.241 (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And what about photo of "green eyed" Iranian girl in genetics section? As if green eyes was most characteristic feature of Iranian people. The whole section tries to convince reader that modern Iranians are European / "aryan" people unlike their neighbors. And tries to blur genetics research showing that at least West Iranians are closer to other Middle Eastern groups, than to East Iranians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.7.42 (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

in the deleted part iranians were called "idiots of iran" i delete it

information age is good in some ways!! we can recognise other people and their behaviour all the world are idiot except europe and usa isnt it??? The genetic section should be deleted, There are several studies about Iran, which are not confirming each other, Also Dr.Bonab's research results about the similarity of Iranian Azeris and Persians and their differences with Azeris of Azerbaijan needs more explanation,Can the author specify, where the results are published? if not it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.167.141 (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Work in progress, please help

Here is what I have so far (Ethnic group info box):

Iranian Peoples

Total population
152.7 - 205.2 million (Not including possible Iranian peoples)
Regions with significant populations
Middle East, South Asia, Central Asia, Caucasus, and also dispersed across the world due to immigration
Languages
Persian (various dialects), Kurdish (various dialects), Zazaki, Balouchi, Ossetic, Luri, Pashtu, Talyshi, Mazandarani, Gilaki
Religion
Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Bahai'ism, and various others

The "Iranian peoples" are mainly characterized by their use of Iranian languages. The addition Not including possible Iranian peoples is not needed - instead, estimates vary should make it. There is no need to mention all kinds of languages ... it's totally enough to say Iranian languages. Tājik 00:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to edit it. Also, the reason I put that down is because Croatians, Bulgarians, etc.. are still disputed.Khosrow II 01:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we turn it into a template to be used on all the articles on Iranian peoples? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 01:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The image

I really like the image, but can we get more non-Persians please? We shouldn't forget that the other Iranian peoples are no less important!—Khoikhoi 02:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, in my previous one I had Saladin (Kurd), Cyrus (Persian), and Avicenna (Tajik). I dont really care what the image is, so long as there is an image.Khosrow II 02:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I know. But I thought that these 3 Persians actually represent the wider "Iranian identity" rather than a specific "Persian identity". Zarathustra was not Persian but Bactrian. Darius was an ancient Persian and should not be confused with modern Persians - besides that, he was the Emperor of the first Iranian Empire. Avicenna wrote most of his works in Arabic rather than Persian. His ethnicity was most likely "Sogdian". Rumi represents a whole range of peoples - most of all, he represents a unique version of ISlam which sprang out of a strong Iranian element.

I removed the piture of Saladin, because Saladin was more an Arab than a Kurd or Iranian. And I replaced the picture of Cyrus with that of Darius, because Darius' picture is better known. Tājik 02:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Cyrus was not the shah of the first Iranian Empire. You have to remember that the Medes were the founders of the first Iranian Empire (while the Bactrians and Sogdians founded the first Iranian kingdoms).Khosrow II 02:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand Tājik, it's just that I'd just rather have it not seem like Persians are the "dominators of all Iranian peoples". I'm sure there are plenty of famous non-Persians we can add—right? We don't even have to have 4 people, we can have many more like in the Kazakhs page, or even the Volga Tatars article (although I think that's possibly overkill). Additionally, not all Pan-Iranists are Persians, right? —Khoikhoi 03:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I am curious why all the personalities in the image are Persians. Is this a page for Persians? Anyway, Tajik's argument on removing Saladin (being more Arab than Kurd !!!), sometimes makes me wonder that all this talk of Iranian people, Greater Iran,etc, are just convenient vehicles for advancing the cause of Persian domination over the region.Heja Helweda 03:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Calm down. By the way, not all of them are Persians. Tajiks are Central Asia Persians in the context that they speak a Persian dialect, however, they are mostly the descendents of Sogdians, and Bactrians, and other Central Asian Iranic peoples. However, I do believe we should have more pictures, including Ossetians, Kurds, Pashtuns, Balouchi's, etc...Khosrow II 03:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The infobox needs to go

The infobox is useless as the Iranian peoples aren't an ethnic group, but a series of ethnic groups sometimes only linked by language and sometimes by other factors. Tombseye 05:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. {{Infobox Ethnic group}} is only supposed to be used in articles about ethnic groups. The Iranian peoples are a group of ethnic groups. Khoikhoi 02:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool, but why do I get the feeling that resistance and controversy is on its way?! Tombseye 02:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Because it always is. ;-) Khoikhoi 02:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

-This is absolutely correct, the Azeris were Iranians who were "turkophoned" (adopted turkish language)

*sigh* Khoikhoi 03:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Not all Azeri's are Iranians my friend. There are several ethnic groups who speak Azeri today, but their origins are all different. For example, Iranian Azeri's are Iranian, while those from the Caucasus are Caucasians, and the ones in Iraq are called Turkomans.Azerbaijani 17:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The reference about genetic similarity of Iranian Azerbaijanis and Persians needs to be explained, I could not find the paper, even I tried the author's web page, please give the name of journal or conference , which the paper is published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.167.141 (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The definition of "Iranian peoples"

The following definition is very good and reasonable and will be the basis of the edit I'm about to make.

The Iranian peoples are an ethnic and linguistic branch of Indo-European peoples ... As a group of people, they are predominantly defined along linguistic lines as speaking the Iranian languages, a major branch of the Indo-European language family ... From a linguistic standpoint, the term Iranian people is similar in its usage to the term Germanic people, which includes various people who speak Germanic languages such as German, English and Dutch, Norwegian, or the term Slavic people, which includes various speakers of Slavic languages including Russians, Poles, Croats or Serbs. Thus, along similar lines, the Iranian people include not only the Persians and Tajiks (or eastern Persians) of Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Tajikistan, but also the Pashtuns, Baloch (Pakistan), Kurds, Lurs, Zazas, Ossetians and others.

-- Mttll (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted an edit by User:Mttll. First of all, because the explanation he gives does not justify his edit (i.e. he is assuming that Azeris are included in the number given, which is not the fact). Secondly, he is suspected by some to be a sockpuppet. Tajik (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Azeris are included in that figure, which is a fact. Check the link. I'll be good as to ignore your ad-hominem.

Here's the link: [1] which, looks, btw, rather amateurish. -- Mttll (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Leaving that source out, the other ones (though not scholarly either) say "150-200 million" - NOT including Azeris. As for the claim that I made ad hominem comments: it's not me that is accusing you of being a sockpuppet. But you are being suspected. Tajik (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that now. That should be a typo or some other kind of mistake, don't you think? If you take a look at the table showing the breakdown of Iranics into subgroups, the figure is 131,25 to 132,25 million people which is nowhere near 150 million, let alone 200. Still, I apologize for not being very careful. -- Mttll (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, those numbers are just estimates. Yet, I did add the numbers, and that's what I get:

Minimum: 150.000.000+

Maximum: 182.000.000+

Go and check the numbers. So I think that estimates between 150m and 200m are quite accurate. NOT including Azeris. Tajik (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We can use;

a) this source [2] which somehow mentions 150 to 200 million, but its breakdown chart shows 131,25 to 132,25 million people.

b) the unpublished synthesis in the article which is 150 to 182 m.

for now. I'll investigate the figures further.

Btw, can you create an infobox for "Persian people" article? -- Mttll (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Now I see what you mean. Well, the problem is that it's almost impossible to get real numbers. All numbers are mere estimates. As for the article Persian people: I do not like infoboxes. And I think that an infobox would be very misleading, because in popular language, a "Persian" could be an ethnic Persian, a native Persian-speaker or even a citizen of Iran. Going by the definition "Persian-speaker", the article and the infobox must be extended to include Farsiwans, Tajiks, Hazaras and even Afghan Uzbeks who are bilingual (of whom many speak Persian as their first language and Uzbek as their second language). Tajik (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

So which one is it going to be, a or b? a seems problematic, I'd say b for now. -- Mttll (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am for B. Because it is more "general" ... the number of Iranian peoples is somewhere between 150m and 200m. Tajik (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted unsourced POV edits by an anon IP. Tajik (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted edits by User:R1000R1000 simply because they were no improvement at all. Quite the contrary. Tajik (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Population numbers

The population numbers mentioned in demographics section need reliable citations.E235 (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Slavic Macedonians and Iranians

This is definitely not the place to discuss whether today's Macedonians originated from Bulgarians or ancient Macedonians, so making any connection between them and Iranian people is quite inappropriate.Scheludko (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Iranian vs Persian

Why is Wikipedia being replaced by the term "Iranian Peoples"? The following statement does not do any help either: "As Iranian people are not confined to the borders of the current state of Iran, the term Iranic peoples is sometimes used to avoid confusion with the citizens of Iran." In most languages the correct term is "Pesian" and Iranian refers strictly to people of the country of Iran. As a Persian I am deeply offended when everything related to Greater Persia is simply called Iranian or Iranic. The modern Iran was only a small fraction of the various kingdoms and empires of Persia. It seems that people from Iran are leading a campaign to "miseducate" people that everything Persian is really Iranian. It is not! How would you feel if the term "British" got replaced by "Welsh" or "Scottish"? It is just as inaccurate to refer to everything Persian as Iranian, even if you try to clarify what you mean. Iranians are Persian, but not all Persians are Iranian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.44.102 (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Iranic

Separesh (talk · contribs) here did a s/Iranian/Iranic/, without as much as an edit summary, let alone a coherent proposal or explanation on the talkpage. This is not acceptable and should have resulted in a revert. Yes, "Iranic" is sometimes used, but with a usage at least an order of magnitude smaller than that of "Iranian". See also WP:NAME. --dab (𒁳) 12:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

ANSWER to iranic people: pls change it,we are indoeuropean people ,pls write that so.iranic people harassed us kurds, because to be executed in Iran every day Kurds. indoeuropean peopel would be percekt.because indoeuropean or indoeuropean speking people would be right ,too.

greets from kurdish area.

ali. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.188.101 (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Change to Iranic peoples instead

This word is confused with the modern citizens of Iran the Iranians. Are we going to start calling Turkic peoples Turkish? This needs to be changed to Iranic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.90.213 (talk) 06:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Read the page wp:title according to which the article is named correctly as "Iranian peoples": "Generally, article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources call the subject of the article". Xashaiar (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The confusion may have to remain as there is a similar situation with regards to Germanic peoples for example. Mentioning Iranic as an alternative in usage is not a problem though I'd say. LearnerDude (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, "Iranic" is not a neologism but a scholarly term even if not employed as much as "Iranian", and it is more apt as it wont cause as much confusion with citizens of Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scythian Saka (talk • contribs) 11:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

gorani and zazaki =kurdish languages

pls edit this page.gorani and zazaki =kurdish languages

greets —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.190.72 (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

_Kurdish is an Iranian language too.Pouyakhani (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Reporting a violation of personality rights

The owner of following picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Persian-Iranian_girl_with_green_eyes,_rural_Iran,_09-07-2007.jpg which is actually http://www.flickr.com/photos/kargadan/ is not willing to give the rights to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Le_Behnam to use her photo on wikipedia, since It's an identifiable photo. I tried editing the page and and it was "Locked". tell me what else is needed to remove the photo ? any e-mail from the owner or something ? THE PHOTO HASE BEEN ILLEGALY USED BY SOME OTHER PERSON ON FACE-BOOK, And it is causing some touble, Please help me solve this problem, I'm not wanting the people who is responsible or something to sue, The copyright holder only wants the removal of the photo. Soso freak (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

==

Title of Article

I agree, the title should be changed to "Iranic people", it's confusing this pan-ethnicity with the citizens of Iran (Iranians). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayromlou (talk • contribs) 00:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Im with this too, it will be on par with "Germanic" and "Turkic", rather than German and Turkish respectively which also now refer to a specific ethnicity rather than a pan-ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scythian Saka (talk • contribs) 18:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Please restore the previous featured article instead of this version

The previous version of this article was far better than this one. I read that version 1 year ago and I do remember it was a featured article with SATAR but look at this article ! I am persian, but I have to say this article is ignoring other Iranic people. Please bring-back the previous version. جون مادرتون هر کی گند زده به مقاله قبلی یک لطفی کنه و مقاله قبلی را برگرداند من خودم فارس زبان هستم ولی در این مقاله با فارس فارس کردن فقط حساسیت بیخودی ایجاد می کنید اگر اول ایرانی هستید بعد فارس (مثل من) که باید تکیه مقاله بر مفهوم ایرانیک باشد و در غیر اینصورت اگر اول خود را فارس می دانید و بعد ایرانی که به عقیده شخصی من به درد لای جرز دیوار میخورید ولی آنچه مسلم است این است که جای افاضات شما لااقل در این مقاله انگلیسی نیست بروید در یک جای دیگر گندتان را بزنید — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.163.40.237 (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

== to

we zaza are kurds !

pls delete this fake map

we dimli/zaza are kurds..!

turkey trys to divide kurds"!

greets

about religion of ossetians

there is a statement in the article that ossetian follow nestorian church. that is false. those ossetians which are christian, belong to orthodox church, and initially got acquinted with christianity via bizantium missioners (neither russians nor georgians). nestorian church was never introduced in Ossetia and in Caucasus in general.

You've misread the text. It says:

The Christian community is mainly represented by the Armenian Apostolic Church, followed by the Russian Orthodox and Georgian Orthodox Ossetians followed by Nestorians. Judaism is followed mainly by Persian Jews, Kurdish Jews, Bukharian Jews (of Central Asia) and the Mountain Jews (of the Caucasus), most of whom are now found in Israel.

Here, "followed by" means "the next biggest in size". So "Russian Orthodox and Georgian Orthodox Ossetians followed by Nestorians" means that there are more Russian and Georgian Orthodox Ossetians than there are Nestorians. It does not mean that Ossetians are Nestorians - quite the opposite. As for who converted Christian Ossetians to Christianity, it's not irrelevant. It was Byzantine Greeks who brought Christianity to Russia, but Russians are now mainly Russian orthodox.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation.I also want to point out that ossetian christians of South Ossetia belong to Alanian Eparchy, which is a part of the Greek Orthodox church ( http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Аланская_епархия )- this community is actually much bigger than mentioned in the article Georgian orthodox ossetians, representing assimilated minority which survived after ethnic cleanings in Georgia. So I think it would be relevant to add the information about Alanian eparchy of Greek Orthodox church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.237.43 (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Kurds are not iranian

Well I don't understand at all: how can we say that kurds are iranians or aryans? It's a pseudo-science, because yes kurds speak an iranians languages, but can we say that they are also iranians? Persians refuse them and they allways cooperate with Turkey to assimilate them as yours! --Alsace38 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Well Sparky, by definition if you are a native speaker of an Iranian language, you are grouped in with "Iranian peoples." Sort of like how Latin speakers are defined. It has nothing to do with race or personal opinion. The Scythian 17:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Geographic distribution of Iranian languages IS FAKE! zaza are kurds!

Geographic distribution of Iranian languages IS FAKE! zaza are kurds! PLS remove it.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.179.206 (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Zazaki and Kurdish are Iranian/Iranic languages. Both languages and ethnic groups are also Iranic. Read the current article and Iranian languages. And for further study: Indo-Iranian languages and Indo-European languages. Winter Gaze (talk) 09:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Vote proposal

Change to Iranic peoples. Any search for Iranian peoples should redirect to 1) Demographics of Iran 2) Iranic peoples.

Let's vote on this and whatever decision is reached anyone wishing to challenge that can hold a future voting option after further debate has taken place. Iranian peoples is much to confusing and I vote it needs to be switched to Iranic peoples. Iranians should strictly be for peoples originating in modern Iran just as Germanic needs to be distinguished from German or Turkic from Turkish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.88.146 (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

consider these!

most of you forget about one important aspect of being Iranian... Iranian is not just related to Race " its also related to religion... let me explain my meaning : Iranic parts of Indo-European or those who labeled by the name " Iranian" can have some sub-branches in inside ( between those who lives in Iranian Plateau ) or out sider like Indian because of the Gods they worshiped. they distinct in inside because of the Godess they worshiped... for example Iranic part of indo-Iranian preyed to Mazda(ahora mazda=ahora=asora=sora=khoda ) and Indian in the another parts worshiped the DIVA. so they had been seperated in first place because of the God the had... not because of the race(they all have the same ethnic)

---

separations in inside are due some Important facts; 1- distinct God which they had 2- other races that they met 3- immigration due harsh climate but of course let me admonish you about one single truth... all of sub-branches share same race-culture and myth and of course the same race... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SORENNA (talk • contribs) 12:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)