|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iranian studies article.|
We need a comprehensive list of Iranologists.--Zereshk 23:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Here is the category:Iranologits:. There is also a list here:. There must be more comprehensive lists. Any suggestions ? --Joe Dynue17:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I put up the merge tag. Please see if you agree with the merge.--Zereshk 02:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the merge. To me Iranology is a better title as it is much more common than the other choices. Please feel free to merge and edit. Thanks in advance. --TomJenson18:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- And JoeDynue, what do you think?--Zereshk 22:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. Joe Dynue16:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Ditto that for other prominent Iranologists like Henning, Bailey, and Minorsky.--Zereshk 23:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Iranistics is a more widely used term for this meaning. It has a long history of usage in the academic circles. "Iranology" is a newly-made term by some Iranians who are apparently not that much familiar with the Western tradition of Iranistics. --Mani1 22:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no such thing as Iranistics. It is a made up word, if not please give a reference. Universities and journals use Iranian Studies or Iranology.
The term I've heard used most often when referring to the literature of the Persian language is Persian Studies, it seems Iranistics may be something derived from European (German?) usage. Jasper Zanjani (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Abdolhossein Zarrinkoub.jpg
Image:Abdolhossein Zarrinkoub.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Harold Bailey is the same person as Harold Walter Bailey, correct? There is already an article on Harold Walter Bailey, getting rid of the red link by wikilinking to that.Hajji Piruz 23:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Iranian Studies vs. Persian Studies
- Persian Studies is the study of the Persian language and its literature. Persian, although it is the most widespread, is not the only language spoken in Iran, and is distinct from languages such as Kurdish, Zaza, Lori, Pashto, etc each of which has its own literature. It is also distinct from Middle Persian, which is the ancestor of modern or New Persian spoken in the centuries of the Sasanian and Parthian empires. The modern Persian language is generally agreed to have evolved in the centuries after the Muslim invasion; the earliest texts date to about the 10th century.
- Iranian Studies is a more interdisciplinary field (really a fusion of philology and archeology with a regional focus) which studies all languages of the Iranian family and of all Iranian peoples. Since many of these peoples (Scythians, Parthians, etc) are extinct, Iranian Studies as a field tends to be more focused on the period before Islam when these cultures flourished. Iranian Studies is less interested in the modern usage of Persian than it is in documenting cultural and historical change of these other poorly-understood peoples.
This doesn't mean that there isn't overlap, especially in the early period of Islam. For example, Ferdowsi could be used as a source in a discussion of pre-Islamic Iranian history, and at the same time he is a keystone of the Persian literary tradition. However, you would all agree that the focus is different; one field is focused on recovering the past, the other is focused on the present. One field is broad and regional, the other is very specific and national.
I hope that subsequent editors will keep this distinction in mind. Persian Studies and Iranian Studies are two separate fields of study, and looking at the many academic institutions' pages which are linked at the bottom of the article shows that this distinction is commonly held. I will edit accordingly.
"Iranology" and "Iranistics" may be used at certain institutions (and Iranistics specifically seems to be related to the German Iranistik), but they are not widespread and they should be removed from the article. I have placed a mention in the introduction to the article which explains so.
This Irano-Phoby must end . why do everybody conclude every regional language to Iranism or Iranology or Persian people? there are 100% or 90 % differences or distinct the regional Pashto, Kurdish, Arabic, Azari, Turkmenian, Tajikis, Indian and other languages from Iran and its culture. once when they were named by one name Arian it has its own reason which is tribes and powers. but after 15th century every thing has changes and every Arian population should be counted in the term " Arian " Instead Iran . because the credit will go to Iran and it is un-acceptable for others which is inustice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
How come this article is linked to "Iran" rather than "Iranian peoples"??? Since when Iranian studies is about 75 million citizens of Iran??? I always assumed it was about the 160 million people of the Iranian plateau ??? Will someone fix that or should I change it myself? --Kasparov49acer 03:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaweiss (talk • contribs)