Talk:Iran/Archive 10

Please consider reading the archived discussions for this article before asking any questions on this talk page or initiating any new debate.

Iran's History

I hope this picture with the short article behind it from British Museum could be helpful about the citation required for the age of history of Iran. Apparently it goes somehting 8500 years before. http://behzadghorbani.com/images/2004_1114Image0022.JPG T2345 17:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

my question is how the hell did such a treasure for iran get to the british museam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.72.204 (talk) 07:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Difference between Persians and Arabs

• Persians Are Not Arabs
• Persians speak Persian ( Parsi)as well as few other languages, while "all" Arabs speak Arabic, otherwise they are not considered to be Arab.T2345 (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• edited out the guy who gives all persians a bad name

Can an article be created on the Possibility of war in the Middle East

This articale really had me thinking and I would advice all persons interested in Iran, Iraq, USA foregin policy in the Middle East to take a look at it and similar article from Iran and across the world.

There is a wealth of informationn we can use for the new article tht would deal with war betwwne the USA and Iran. Maybe we can put a section in the Iran article. Lets get some opinions on this.

Here are some excerts from the article that are well documented with proof...

Beating the War Drums: A Summer Offensive against Syria and Iran?

“One scenario is that their intrusion was a prelude for a large-scale assault,” he [Ahmad Bakhshayesh, a professor of political science at Tehran’s Allameh Tabatabai University] said.

This week, Maj. Gen. Hassan Firoozabadi, Iranian armed forces chief of staff, predicted that the U.S. and Israel would launch a massive attack on the [Middle East] this summer.

“International Zionism and the Palestine-usurping Israel with the support of the reactionary neoconservatives of the U.S. are preparing a new plan,” he said, according to Iranian news agencies. [40]

At the official level, Israel has also ratcheted down the implausible rhetoric that Syria is preparing for a near-term offensive against Israel to the more plausible account that Syria is initiating the mobilization of its defensive forces. This includes the purchase of weapons systems from Iran and Russia, and also the manufacturing of rockets and missile with the help of Iran and Russia. Russian anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles are also being delivered to Syria. The U.S. has also imposed further sanction on the Syrian military. [41]

The consequences and results of any strikes against Syria would be far-reaching and would destabilize the whole of the Middle East from Turkey to Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Iran would also intervene on the side of its Syrian allies.

War in the Middle East: The Palestinian Front

A war against Syria would have disastrous ramifications for Anglo-American occupied Iraq and would spill over into Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordon. The Associated Press reported that Ahmed Jibril of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), a group with strong links to Syria, like other Palestinian leaders said that his forces would fight against Israel and the U.S. should they attack Syria or Iran;

“We will not allow any aggression against Syria or the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Ahmed Jibril told a rally of about 1,000 supporters in a Palestinian refugee camp in the Syrian capital.

“I say it frankly, we will not only be on their side, we will be in the forefront,” said Jibril. [42]

Hamas has also made similar statements saying that the Palestinians, Syria, and Iran are part of a united front and that any war launched against either Syria or Iran will generate a battle front in Palestine against Israeli forces. Khaled Meshaal, the political leader-in-exile of Hamas pledged his support to Iran and Syria in December of 2005:

“We are part of a united [resistance] front, and if one member [e.g. Syria, Iran] of this [resistance] front is attacked it is our duty to support them.” [43]

Iranian ballistic missiles will leave Israeli forces exposed. The leaders of the different Palestinian fractions and groups are well aware of this. The Palestinian leaders know in the possible scenario of a war against Iran and Syria, that Israel would be placed at a disadvantage inside the Palestinian Territories and that the battlefront would be “almost even” between Israeli troops and Palestinian fighters.

If Syria were attacked there would be violence in Jordan and possibly civil war. The bulk of the population in Jordan is either Palestinian or the descendents of Palestinian refugees. Many in Jordan also oppose the authoritarian rule of the Hashemite Dynasty and the support that King Abdullah II gives the U.S. and Israel, which is directed against Palestine and Iraq.

War in the Middle East: The Iraqi Front

“The U.S. military presence [in Iraq and Afghanistan] will not become an element of strength [as the Pentagon thinks] at our expense. The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into [our] hostages [in the event of any attacks against Iran].”

-Rear-Admiral Ali Shamkhani (August 18, 2004)

If war were to be waged against Iran and Syria, there would be casualties in the tens of thousands in Iraq and the Persian Gulf. Iraq would become a graveyard for American and British forces. American and British troops would be overwhelmed by waves of well armed and well trained Iranian troops from the East and Syrian troops from the West and an Iraqi Resistance that would undoubtedly grow in numbers and strengthen ten fold with the arrival of Iranian and Syrian military forces.

Iraqi cleric and leader, Moqtada Al-Sadr, a major opponent of the U.S. and Britain in Iraq, has also pledged to stand by Syria and Iran in a united front against Israel, the U.S., and Britain. While in Tehran, the young Shiite Muslim cleric said in the presence of Dr. Ali Larijani, the Secretary-General of the Supreme Security Council of Iran, that his forces would battle on the side of Iran if Iran were to be attacked. The Washington Post carried the story about Moqtada Al-Sadr’s visit to Tehran and concluded that Anglo-American occupied Iraq was destined to eventually become a battleground between U.S. and Iranian forces:

The rest of the article is here. Sorry I have no idea how to format so you can read everything here.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5791

Get the idea? There are many others from other news sources and writrs we can use inclsuding Seymour Hersh and from Russia.

We should really think about making an article not on threats of war, but on the buildup to a war that could happen in the Middle East.

Its a wonderful idea and thats excellent researching, but I think perhaps it is early days to be suggesting this will happen just yet. I think the key thing to recognise is that there is at least some evidence that parts of the middle east are preparing for the possibility of some sort of summer-2007 offensive. However this seems more likely to be based around Israel, Syria and Lebanon than Iran. Janes (the defense consultancy) reported in April that they had received information from numerous sources that aspects from lebanon and Syria were preparing for a summer 2007 offensive, including hezbollah, after their summer 2006 defeat. Personally I think its all sabre rattling, and its hard to say how serious any of this is. Realisitically Iran is geographically distant from Israel and is unlikely to be involved should such an event occur. Any iranian forces would need to pass through Iraq, Saudi Arabia and/or Jordan to reach the conflict, all 3 nations being very much pro-Israeli/US orientated at the moment, and the 200,000+ US (and other) troops, hardware and supply infrastructure already well established in the region (iraq and afghanistan which border either side of Iran!) would be a serious problem for Iran to overcome, as militarily they have virtually no navy as well as extremely limited power projection cabailities. Consider that the UK and US who presently have a large number of troops right next to Iran, are the worlds 2 largest spenders on defense... that wouldn't bode well for Iran, who despite a numerous army, are more suited to a vietnam era conflict than fighting the latest generation of Anglo-American-Isareli technology.

The US also has 2 carrier battle groups in the region. Bearing in mind the US (and UK) also have incredibly developed power projection cabailities and could probably deliver another divison or at least another brigade to the region within weeks or even days of any signs of conflict, with another shortly thereafter due to the existing supply infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as US bases in Kuwait and other arab nations. Then theres the european nations such as france and germany who may get involved as many have strong ties to israel due to the nature of israel's origins. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 22:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Can an article be created on the Possibility of war in the Middle East? The answer is NO, because Wikipedia is NOT a Crystal Ball. (See WP:NOT) For your information, there has been an article on this subject that got deleted recently called "Plans for military attacks against Iran". 69.116.234.208 12:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

i wonder how ignorant you guys will a feel if nothing happens for the next decade, however i wonder how foolish i will feel if it does happen, either way i'll be running to the recruitment officers with filled out forms

Foreign Policy

If this article is ever going to become "very good" or "featured," it needs a foreign policy section. If it has a "cuisine" section, it needs a "foreign policy" section.

Emotions run high on the subject of Iranian foreign policy, as they do in the subject of United States foreign policy. Iran's foreign policy is obviously influenced by the history of colonialism in the Iran by the United Kingdom, the United States, and Russia. It is also influenced by the clash of religion and secularism, by the Iraq-Iran war, and by the hostage crisis of 1979-81.

These are hot topics that provoke emotional responses, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss them facutally and dispassionately.

Iran is trying to influence the course of the Middle East. Whether you think that this is for good or for ill is not relevant. However, it is a FACT that the Iranian government has deep ties with Hezbollah. It is also clear that they are maintaining ties with Shiite militias in Iraq. This is not POV, this is factual.

You may be angry at the United States or the Bush administration, or with the government in Iran. But that doesn't mean that Iran does not have an active foreign policy in the Middle East.

I had appended a foreign policy section to "Military," where somebody deleted the entire thing, and said that it was all POV.

This section on foreign policy can and must be improved. It can be added to. I'm sure people will get mad about it. But please work on it, don't just delete it.

Here's what I started with on June 17:

"Foreign Policy" Iran is deeply committed to limiting or eliminating the influence of Western powers in the Middle East, and to preventing the resurgence of a Sunni-dominated Iraq. As a result, it has tried to limit the influence of the United States, which currently has hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in three of Iran's neighbors: Iraq, Afganistan, and Turkey. While Iran has avoided direct military confrontation with the United States, Iran is able to project power and influence in the region through proxy sources. Iran's government has well-established military and political ties with Hezbollah in Lebanon, which is engaged in an armed struggle with Israel. Additionally, the United States government maintains that Iran gives weapons, bomb technology and military training to Shiite militias in Iraq. These militias, which include Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, in turn use this training and technology in attacks against Sunni militias and US coalition forces in Iraq. Iran has denied any involvement in the civil war in Iraq.

Western powers, including the United States and the United Kingdom, maintain that Iran is working towards the construction of an atomic bomb. Iran's government has denied this, while steadfastly maintaining that their nation has as much of a right to atomic weapons as the Western powers, Russia, China, or Israel.

On May 29, 2007, the United States and Iran held the first public, senior-level talks between the two nations in more than two decades.

• I am really trying to be fair here.--Mcattell 22:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE REMEMBER THIS: Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily:

Do not simply revert changes in a dispute.

When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. -Unsigned comment by Mcattell

Thanks for your contribution. There are several points that I would like to make:

1. An article about the Foreign Relations of Iran already exists. So there is no need to create a new one. I advocated some month ago to have something on the main page and now we have a paragraph under "Government and Politics of Iran" which should be sufficient for now.

2. I have looked at other countries like the UK or France. I don't see much detail on their main page, only their membership in supranational organizations. Yet they are involved in many controversies. The rest is treated in the specific articles.

3. As you know, much of it is news and Wikipedia is not for that (WP:NOT). For the rest we have the history section.

4. I see you are quite new and I take this opportunity to warn you in a friendly manner that there are many (occasional) editors who will use this opportunity to vent their anger against Iran on this page. I think personally it is best to keep it as it is (without a new section). We already have a paragraph in the main article and a link to the foreign relations of Iran for more details. I support my decision, also because it will allow to keep the serenity and quality around Iran's article/discussion high. Otherwise, it will inevitably bring trolls to this page as in the past, who will disturb Wikipedia including many if not all the editors here. This is not Wikinews even less a "CNN political forum". We need an OVERVIEW of Iran as I have repeated several times before. With details in the sub-article themselves. I have noticed NOBODY almost seems to care about Iran when the same subjects are treated in those articles, like foreign relations, history, etc. This proves to me that those same people are ONLY interested in TROLLING and this is not acceptable.

5. If you want to contribute and given what has been said before and what other have said to you before, I would strongly encourage you to contribute to the same subject in that specific article and discuss it there with the editors.

SSZ 03:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

SSZ--Your points are well taken. I'll desist, in the interests of harmony. Perhaps, as a suggestion, in the future, you could make your points without using CAPS LOCK and calling people trolls. Sure, I'm "quite new," as you put it (although I've probably been around longer than you, at least on this earth, if not on WP). But I approached this article in good faith, and I don't enjoy being lectured any more than anyone else.--Mcattell 03:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mcattell, I NEVER called YOU a troll. I said you are "new" just by looking at your edit history. I did not mean that you are inexperienced in life or that you don't know the subject. I did not comment on the content of your contribution, but only on its PLACE in Wikipedia. CAPS LOCK are not meant to shout but to UNDERLINE only (there is NO "underline" functionality on Wikipedia it seems). Again you are most welcome to contribute to this subject, if you like. SSZ 04:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand--peace--Mcattell 19:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Passport section and it's history :=D

I would like to have a passport section about Iranian passport and its history, how it looked like until today. There are different passports:

1)Ordinary 2)Emergency 3)Protection 4)Refugee 5)Service 6)Diplomatique 7)Etc.....

Could anyone take this up and its history?? Please.....

There is another issue that should be discussed and it's Iran's national IQ, which is as low as 84 and not 105 as in Japan. Serious discussion please do not tell me that the Japanese eat more fish. I think they rather have a positive self-image. There is a distinct difference between The European High Self-Image and The more accurate and scientific positive Self-Image such as described by Mr. Bahman Chehel-Amirani ( an antroprologist from Uppsala University, Sweden ) and Dr. Holakoee ( a psychologist in L.A. ).

The Pre-Revolutionary section is quiet poor. I think it is because so many Iranian are still against the Pahlavi Era, even if The Shah gave us A Positive Persian Self-Image so we could live today. I just wonder what the traditional political parties did for You and Me. I am just a foot-soldier.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Iranian Issue (talk • contribs) 13:29, 24 June 2007

a) The Passport history would probably get its own article, not a section on this page.

b) Maybe Japan has a higher IQ because its a developed nation, while Iran is a developing nation (You cant compare the two).

c) There is always room for improvement. If you have reliable sources, please feel free to expand the Pahlavi dynasty article.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page.Hajji Piruz 14:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I would see the use for an article devoted to the Iranian Nationality Laws like for other countries. See British nationality law as a possible model.69.116.234.208 12:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The pahlavi dynasty is as it should be. unfortunately the other sections are way too detailed. Please people, this article is supposed to get smaller, not bigger!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.219.62.196 (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2007

Nation's IQ.

I strongley agree that Japan and Iran can't be compared when it comes to respective Nation's IQ. Iran must solve it's own problem which goes back 1000 years of lawless behaviour and bad, am-Iranian leadership until todays´date.

For example revolutionary leaders never cared about the unemployment: The best way they thought it was sending all people to War Front in order to defend Islam and become martyr for this. Their sole would eventually come to the paradise and meet 13 virgins (???). Talk about developing nation, IQ and solving problems.

According to Iranian socialogists, if Iran did not have the Clergies and Islam, We wouldn't have today's problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iranian Issue (talk • contribs) 20:56, 24 June 2007

I did a research on the French Wikipedia today and that's what I found:[1] (free translation)

QUOTE:

-USA: 301'000'000 inhabitants; 1 million Iranians contributed $800 billion to the US GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in 2007 - US GDP is 12,000,000,000,000 $; Per capita contribution to the GDP by Americans is 40'000$. - In contrast, Iranians contribute 800'000$ per capita to the US GDP (20x times more!).

-Iranians make 7% of the United States GDP while they represent 0.3% of the entire population.

-A Survey by the MIT has demonstrated that the income level of an Iranian is 45% superior, on average, to the income level of an American.

-The same study has shown that Iranians represent the ethnic minority, which has the highest educational level, with 30% achieving a Master’s degree or above, which makes it the ethnicity with the highest percentage holding a Master's degree among the population.

UNQUOTE.

I knew we were ‘’good’’ but we can't be that good. Lol 69.116.234.208 00:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Having said that: Do you insinuate that Iran was somehow responsible for the war with Iraq and its economic repercussions(?). I strongly disagree that one regime or religion alone bears the entire responsibility. It's wrong to distinguish between religions or races. We are all one: One human race and one nation under God.

Also, you said: "According to Iranian sociologists, if Iran did not have the Clergies and Islam, We wouldn't have today's problems." please provide a link to this study (Wikipedia is not a political forum - See WP:NOT). If you want to contribute, please do so. Otherwise, it's a useless divisive debate. 69.116.234.208 01:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And you should know better: There is no one type of intelligence but many; Scientists have categorized at least seven, if I remember correctly. The most important is the intelligence of the heart. The rest is not biological and can be developed at will by ANYBODY ;-)69.116.234.208 04:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the same in the UK for hindi peoples. It is however a deceptive statistic. Many of the people who raise the income are actually a very small number of extremely wealthy (in irans case often so called oil barons) who have billions upon billions. Equally, many iranians in the US will be defectors and refuge migrants. Due to the US' tough policies on immigration only highly skilled individuals are allowed in, for example doctors who are also amongst the highest earners. This is the same in the UK, where would you believe it 1 in 20 hindi men is a doctor. (Bearing in mind there are about 1000 patients to a doctor normally in the UK.)It does not mean to say ALL iranians are wealthy in the US or contribute alot, it may not even mean the majority. It could be as few one or two extraordinarily wealthy people who are distorting the statistic. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 15:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if scientists did it, it MUST be right. Don't get me wrong, scientists are great, but insofar as psychology is a science, it's probably one of the least well-understood sciences these days. That's ONE theory of intelligence. So is the Intelligence Quotient model. Also, I would LOVE to see the source of the remark that "intelligence of the heart" is the "most important". We could also argue that all intelligences are biological, from a scientific standpoint130.207.103.99 18:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This was meant to be sarcastic!:) I consider myself to belong to the human family and I only view mankind as ONE human race with various talents, traits and equal. 69.116.247.26 (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

New Section about health care in Iran

I thought we had resolved this problem long ago. Today, I see Cuvette reinstating a section devoted to health care when it is already mentioned and duplicated in the Demography of Iran section. For the rest, we have a separate article devoted to that entitrely. I think that we don't need "mortality rates for children under 5 years old" (and under 10 etc.) on the main page. What do you think? Please share your thoughts.

Public health is a major aspect of any country and should not be relegated to a sub article. There should be a substantive summary of key public health data in the body of the Iran article. There is a theme in the Iran article as a whole to omit or minimize information that is even mildly negative, and the whole article reads like a booster club brochure to promote Iran. Let s at least keep the health data intact. Cuvette 04:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, but please be specific so we can improve the article. WHERE is it "POV", exactly? I remember Iran mentions torture and human rights violations on its main page. The nuclear dossier and sanctions (in the foreign affairs paragraph). Also, I don't see any health section for the USA, UK, Turkey. ALL the information that you have provided was already there under demographics (word for word) and health care in Iran. 69.116.234.208 04:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in the military section, mention by US top CENTCOM Commander is somewhat POVish because the same was said about Iraq in 1991 (i.e."4th mightiest army on earth"). I removed it. 69.116.234.208 04:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Iran: Another Perspective A Photo Tour

Why don't we see more information of this nature about Iran in Wikipedia?

No war with Iran. I want to live!

Thousands of friends are far too few, an enemy is too much

69.116.234.208 08:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for activism. Neither is the talk page. Please avoid making posts on the talk pages that have no specific article-related focus. Thanks. The Behnam 19:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Behman, It is very encyclopedic to speak about media bias. Wikipedia is here to remedy that problem because it is open source. That's why those comments were made and they are very appropriate. Sorry if you have a different opinion of what Wikipedia is. (see: WP:NPOV)

I don't see ANY activism to see an adorable Iranian little girl say "I don't want war and I want to LIVE". This is the most basic humanism and I will continue to defend LIFE over death nor will I abandon this very basic rule. If this is "activism" for you, then I am an activist and every Wikipedian I know is like that (except you may be). 69.116.234.208 22:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot agree, sorry. Wikipedia is about knowledge, about information - as free from bias as possible. Wikipedia is not here to remedy problems. Open source (I speak as an avid opensourcer with Linux and BSD OS and applications) is about choice - and also control. Media bias - which is always present in every country - can be mentioned if it is suitable to enlighten the project on views which have been falsely disseminated, but that is as far as we should go. My POV at least. docboat 04:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, is the US Central Bank "the FED" a privately owned bank or part of the US Government? 69.116.234.208 04:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to redirect the query to Federal Reserve System? docboat 04:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not an answer. 69.116.234.208 05:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The answer you seek is on the page I referred you to - it is also OT for Iran, but seeing as you wish it answered on a talk page about Iran, there it is. But it might be better to stay on topic on the talk page, do you not think?. Iran. And in this particular aspect, the issue of activism/media bias and the purposes of Wikipedia. --docboat 05:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I was interested to know YOUR answer about the subject. Does it means YES or NO? 69.116.234.208 06:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

When you don't know if "the fish is fishy" go by its smell. 69.116.234.208 07:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• What are you on about? How is this in any way relevant to the topic?? But since you ask - and apologies to those seriously interested in Iran for wasting space on this talk page - I do not give a rats arse about the Fed, and know as much about it as any other newspaper reader. docboat 08:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You would have spared many lines to this talk page by simply answering "yes" or "no"... The subject is linked to Iran I can assure you but we never got to this point because you did not want to answer my simple question. Your link to the FED on Wikipedia is good but I am still not sure if average people will be able to find the answer by reading it entirely, three times. 69.116.234.208 08:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I assume you have a valid point to make? It would help if you made it, rather than wasting time and space as seems to be the case now? It is relevant to the issues raised earlier? Is this your normal style of editing too? Can we assume good faith? docboat 08:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you that my words are always adapted to the person I speak to. In that case that would be YOU. Again, don't worry about space. There is plenty of it. Can I assume good faith? I am a very busy person in real life and would oblige if you could accelerate the pace of your answers. Thanks in advance! 69.116.234.208 08:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry mate - you have shown what stuff you are made of. Not very impressive, but that is your problem. I will stop wasting space on you on this page. Meanwhile, address the issues please. As for you: <plonk> docboat 08:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Strangely, you remind me of a "person" I spoke to recently 69.116.234.208 (lol)

Cute Kid.--Atlanic wave2. 00:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Democracy

I find it appalling that democracy is not mentioned once in this article. Like it or not, this is a democratic country! They hold elections, people! VolatileChemical 00:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

democracy by label, not by practise.

We talking about the States or Iran here? I just can't tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.187.200 (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Child Executions

A recent Amnesty International report has rapped Iran over its continued use of execution to punish minors. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6244126.stm). This is quite a significant subject and should be mentioned and highlighed within the article. Jamie 07:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Jamie. I did the change under demographics today.69.116.234.208 08:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Children being killed, that is horrific! --Atlanic wave2. 00:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

More information should be supplied on this topic not just a quick mention not even that! Mwalkmi 13:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, "horrific" you say. Just to add some perspective: the BBC article cited states: In a report entitled Iran: the Last Executioner of Children, Amnesty says that since 1990, 24 child offenders have been executed in Iran - more than in any other country in the world...Eleven of these people were still under 18 at the time of their execution, while the others were kept on death row until they reached 18 or were convicted and sentenced after reaching that age, the report says.

However, as this article points out: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/02/politics/02scotus.html, the practice was quite popular in another country until quite recently. Concluding that the United States and the world have turned against the death penalty for youthful offenders, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the Constitution categorically bars capital punishment for crimes committed before the age of 18. The 5-to-4 decision, which upheld a ruling by the Missouri Supreme Court, will move 72 people off death row in 12 states. It represented an about-face for a court that only 16 years ago rejected the argument that the execution of those who kill at the age of 16 or 17 violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments."...There have been 19 such executions in the United States since 1990, most recently in 2003.

And in the same BBC article cited above, it's apparent that Iran's lawmakers are heading in the same direction: Amnesty says a draft law proposed by the judiciary in 2001 and still under consideration by the Iranian authorities could pave the way for the abolition of the death sentence for minors - or at least result in a reduction in the number of offences for which child offenders could be sentenced to death. So let's just keep things in perspective here; ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Criminoboy (talk • contribs) 07:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

A point to remember before vilifying Iran over this. The United States is the world leader in child executions, Iran is second and Pakistan 3rd. Only 5 countries execute children, China, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iran, Pakistan and the USA with the USA executing more children than the other 4 combined. Four of those countries have signed a treaty with the UN to provide details of these executions so they can be reviewed by the the UN Human Rights Committee and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child with the USA declining to participate. Wayne 08:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

Pejman47, you have just reverted the work of several days for many people (including mine), who have been working on this article diligently. Our work was done independently of each other. Some have changed pics in the history section or in the economy; some have edited text in many different sections over that period. Please note that your intervention is disruptive and somewhat unexplained. You have to be specific and you can't revert the work of everybody at the same time. Please provide more explanations below for each individual edits that you have reverted. Thank you. 69.116.234.208 23:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

wtf??

What on earth is that Ali quote doing next to the picture of Avicenna's book in the history section??--Zereshk 08:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what it was doing but it isn't doing it anymore. The Behnam 21:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

2015

By 2015 Iran will have as many as Russia has its population? I mean about 125 millions? Was Putin correct when he told this?--Tones benefit 19:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No he was drunk (lol) ..Izvinite pajalsta, where did you see that? do you have a ref./link? 69.116.234.208 21:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A source said on a UN web-page last year it would be about 90-95 million strong.--Atlanic wave2. 00:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Iran as a great power

There are several reliable sources which mention that Iran has become a great power in the middle east and Central Asia. For example Jacques Chirac has quoted:

Iran is a great power which has its rightful place and its rightful role to play in the stability of the region.[2]

Nicholas Burns has quoted:

Our view is that Iran is a generational challenge. It is not a challenge that is going to be episodic or fleeting; it will likely be on the front burners of our foreign policy in 2010, and 2012, and probably 2020. It is the largest country in the Middle East. It aims to be the most powerful country in the Middle East, and it always will, no matter what type of government it has. [3]

I propose adding this issue in the lead. We can mention abilities and disabilities of Iran to be a great power in th region.

Iran's power is based on its ideology which has affected Iraq and Lebanon. Iran also has great influence in Syria and Afghanistan. Iran has fascinating geographical position. There's the best transit corridor between east Asia and Europe as well as central Asia and the see. She has prominent position in the Persian Gulf and about 20 percent of oil's pass through Strait of Hormuz . Iran's political system is the most stable one in the region. There wasn't any coup in the last 50 years and it could survive an eight-year war. The terrorist attacks in Iran is less than other countries of the region. Iran don't have any severe clash with her neighbors while other great countries of the region have clashes. She can manage the ethnicities and prevent separatist tendencies. Iran has a lot of natural resources and raw minerals. Iran holds 10%(4th country)[4] of the world's proven oil reserves and 15%(2nd country) of its gas. It is OPEC's second largest exporter and the world's fourth oil producer. Iran also has gain high tech achievements like nuclear enrichment.

Iran also has large population(3rd in the region after Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey)[5], large army (2nd in the region after Pakistan)[6], large territory (2nd in the region after Saudi Arabia)[7].

The only challenge which may fade its power is economical condition. Although Iran has the second GDP in the region after Turkey[8] and about 5% GDP growth in average but has been threatened by the shortage of skilled labor, poverty, inflation, unemployment, dependency on the oil price, the U.S. sanctions, high risk of investment, mismanagement and instability in the economical policies.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

However we can't say which country is the greatest power in the region because Pakistan, Turkey and t some extent Saudi Arabia and Egypt are in good conditions. Turkey is one of the Newly-industrialized country and have good geographical position. Pakistan has achieved high tech and has large population. I think it depends on the criteria to choose one of them. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 05:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering that articles discussing/suggesting a few mentions here and there of 'X being an emerging power' were deleted en masse not too long ago, it probably wouldn't be a good idea to bring the messy subject into the main page for the nation. I'll see if I can find a link to that giant AFD. The Behnam 05:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Here it is [9]. That type of article creates a lot of problems. The Behnam 05:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to make a separate article. But adding a paragraph in this article may be a good idea.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I oppose adding this to the article. Its subjective, meaningless and generally not true. "A great power is a nation or state that has the ability to exert its influence on a global scale." Broadly speaking you could say any nation has power, but great power... I wouldn't say that Iran has any particular great power over the region or world. Most would agree that the current regional and global great power is infact mainly the US but also China, the EU and Russia who can exert considerable political and financial influence on the M.E. Iran has a somewhat tempremental economy so it can't exactly exert major financial power on any great level like say China/US can. Chiracs comments are very much taken out of context here, they were a polite complement not a critical analysis of Irans role in the modern world. Don't get me wrong Iran is a regional player but its not a great power. If Iran wants something to happen in say Afghanistan, Turkey, Iraq, S.Arabia etc. can it exert the pressure/influence to try and make it happen? --> probably not. If the US wants something to happen in Afghanistan, Turkey, Iraq, S.Arabia etc. can it exert pressure/influence to try and make it happen? --> probably yes. Generally most (but not all) great powers are highly modernised, industrialised western nations (aka the G8) with a strategic nuclear deterant. The only ones which dont are Germany and Japan, due to the 2nd world wars outcome and thier own desire not to aqquire such technology for military purposes. Iran really isn't a great power. You could add a paragraph highlighting its regional importance but all M.E. nations have regional importance because the situation there is highly volatile. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 20:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore here is the reasoning of the original poster broken down:

"Iran's power is based on its ideology which has affected Iraq and Lebanon. Iran also has great influence in Syria and Afghanistan."

Surely the US has more ideological, political and financial influence on Iraq and Afghanistan? Its not to say Iran doesnt have some influence but hardly as much. I think it will be hard to argue otherwise.

"She has prominent position in the Persian Gulf and about 20 percent of oil's pass through Strait of Hormuz ."

What about the other 80%? Equally Iran has virtually no Navy and realistically no way to ensure the Strait of Hormuz stays open, so its geographical proximity to the strait is meaningless in terms of power without some ability to exert its will across the waterway.

"Iran don't have any severe clash with her neighbors while other great countries of the region have clashes."

Iran recently had an 8 year war with Iraq that effectively bankrupted both nations, so I struggle to understand your reasoning here because its just not true. Equally, Irans relationship with the US, Israel and EU is a bit rocky. Not many nations have diplomatic ties cut off so for iran to be a great power with no diplomatic ties to the US its hard to see how that works.

"The only challenge which may fade its power is economical condition. Although Iran has the second GDP in the region after Turkey[10] and about 5% GDP growth in average."

GDP doesnt equate to great power. It certainly helps but consider the UK, it has a relatively low GDP as does the US globally speaking per capita. Yet they are both great powers?

WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 20:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Who removed the protection of Iran's page?

Who and WHY? Iran's page has been vandalized on a daily basis for many weeks and I am asking WHY it is not protected? Japan, USA and even France are protected. Why Iran's protection has been removed? Where are the Administrators?

69.116.234.208 22:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection may have expired. You can file a new request at WP:RfP. Hope this helps. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 21:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

State sponsor of Terrorism

well i dont see anything in the US section saying how the USA has lied about WMD and has started on war based of false pretence. If you want to see Iran's inovlment in Terrorism go to the Hezbollah page. Just like if you want to see info on anyother sub topic

Oh, hi. Iran controls, funds, trains, an operates an organization called Hezbollah. This is a known fact, not a bias or an opinion. To exclude this information is utter propagandistic crap. Let's not do that. Hezbollah is regarded as a Terrorist groups by many nations within the international community, due to their policy of intentionally and specifically targeting civilians for murder. So I'm making a section in the article about. I you want to take it down for some disingenuous reason, then we can have a little edit war about. Maybe while you are at it you can add a section to the Holocaust page about how its historical validity is din dispute by some people, yada, yada. No. Iran owns and operates Hezbollah. This happens, it exists, and it is a valid fact to put in any Encyclopedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oji The Unseen (talk • contribs) 10:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC).

Those are US accusations against Iran, it is not a well known fact. Sorry but the concluded info looks bias. --Vonones 03:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Incorrect, it is a well known and documented fact that Hezbollah has direct ties with the Iranian government.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oji The Unseen (talk • contribs) 11:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC).
  

Those documented sources should be mentioned in the section and references are needed. Vonones 03:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC) All of them are available on the Wikipedia article on Hezbollah, and the information and the tone it was delivered in are consistent both with the Wikipedia Hezbollah article and Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Is really necessary to provide the Wikipedia article as a footnote if it is already linked?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oji The Unseen (talk • contribs) 11:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC).

• The info you inserted is directly attacking Iran saying it funds and supports a terrorist organization it is not even focusing on the terrorist organization its self. Than you go on saying they are known as freedom fighters of the Muslim world. --Vonones 03:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Lies. I said Iran funds and directs the activites of Hezbollah, which is true. I said many nations considered Iran to be a terrorist organization, which is true. I also stated that much of the Muslim and Arab world view them as freedom Fighters, which is also true. That does not constitute an attack. You have no valid reason to reverse that edit. Accurate and True, as well as unbiased descriptions of relevant information about a topic is exactly what is supposed to go into encyclopedias. This is precisely what I have provided. Article will be restored.{{subst:unsigned|Oji The Unseen|—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oji The Unseen (talk • contribs) 17:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC).

Would you mind terribly a) signing you comments - it is good to see who is speaking and b) adding your comments on a separate line so that we can distinguish your comments from others. docboat 12:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Satisfied? --Alexander

Yes, many thanks! It does help to keep the clutter down and improve communication. docboat 04:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Information is relevant to article, relevant to the sort of guidelines that determine what goes into an Encyclopedia, relevant to an accurate depiction of Iran, and relevant to World affairs and politics. Leaving it out would be like omitting information about The Iran-Iraq War, or Zoroastrianism. It is an important piece of information. Stop your propaganda edits. This is supposed be an Encyclopedia with relevant, accurate, true, and honest information, not a propaganda outlet for Persian Pride. --Alexander

While I'm inclined to think that working with you is a waste of time at this point, for others' sake I will repeat what I've already told you. This article is about the nation of Iran, not an organization that Iran's government partially funds, and as such there will be no section about Hizbollah in this article. The fact that you think this is some sort of "Persian Pride" issue is what leaves me to believe that you do not intend to cooperate with other users and Wikipedia rules. The Behnam 00:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh? Even if they kill and kidnap people in a very visible fashion at the order and understanding of that government? And even if it has a major impact on the International Relations and standing of that nation? Should Iran's military proper not have a place on their main page? Hezbollah has an impact and is of note. Other countries known of suspected of supporting Terrorists, or freedom fighters or whatever you want to call them have references to those organizations, including links to those groups entries on their main page. Like Ireland, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, ans so on, and in almost every one of these cases the governments involvement is less than in Iran's case with Hezbollah. Why should Iran's page be any different? Is Iran special somehow? In some manner protected from the publishing of an inconvenient truth? I fail to understand your reasoning. I am wary of your intentions. As for obeying Wikipedia's rules, I've yet to do otherwise, and I've no intention of being nasty. As far as cooperation, I'd be happy to cooperate with any other Wikipedia user in the quest to make sure pages have relevant, honest, informative, unbiased information on them. If you mean anything else by cooperate, then no, I don't. I'd be happy to sort the manner out with you via rational, plain, honest discourse, where the only agenda to push is the Truth and Relevancy of the article.Alexander 02:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A section on an organization based in another country is undue weight in the Iranian article; the article on Iran is not meant to mention everything about Iran, and in fact a section dedicated solely on a specific organization (regardless of it's in a country or not) does not pass by the guidelines set by Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. Furthermore, the section is completely unreferenced and does not even pass by Wikipedia's verifiability policy, which would disallow it's current incarnation in any article. Regards, -- Jeff3000 02:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't undue weight due to the essentially unparalleled relationship between Hezbollah and the Iranian government, as well as the rather auspicious events Hezbollah has been involved in the area of International Relations. They were even directly involved in a war against a foreign country, and are direct agents of the Iranian government. This position is unique and important enough to the State and Statue of affairs in Iran as to deserve mention. "the article on Iran is not meant to mention everything about Iran" What?! That makes zero sense. As for referencing, the tone and information given is taken almost word for word from the article on Hezbollah, and furthermore is 'common knowledge', as well as already being linked to that article. It therefore does not particularly need any further sourcing unless you really want another link added to the bottom as a footnote. And it certainly passes the verification policy. Essentially what you are saying is without the redundant link you do not agree it is in line with this policy, yes? Also, this section fits in fine with the template laid out for the WikiProject Countries, perhaps you should read that again thoroughly. It fits perfectly into the 'Miscellaneous Topic' template section. I am not trying to be confrontational or insulting, but you are either very by the book or are just looking for any convenient excuse to keep any mention of Hezbollah out of this article for propagandistic reasons. Are you genuine or no? If so I suggest you try to reach a compromise with me instead of feeding into what is already a blossoming edit war.Alexander 04:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

First, Alexander: calm down. Your rhetoric is much more confrontational than it needs to be.

Second, the page about Iran is not meant to provide a synopsis of Iran's current affairs. There are other pages that serve that purpose. There isn't any other country page I can think of that directly references funding of an international group under its "miscellaneous topics"; by that logic, the U.S. page should directly reference its funding of the Mujahideen-e-Khal, considering the amount of influence that particular group has had on American foreign policy with Iran.

Finally, you seem unconcerned with the quality of this article altogether. Your posts have all basically accused everyone else of supporting "propagandistic" views and insisted that Iran's financial and political support of Hezbollah belongs on this page, without making a case for why it should be featured in this particular article, or how it would improve the caliber thereof. No one is arguing whether or not Iran's funding of Hezbollah is 'important' (although your claim that they are "direct agents of the Iranian government" is dubious and casts your intentions into further doubt); there's just no reason or precedent that would justify including Iran's support of the organization on this particular page. The Hezbollah page mentions it, and the foreign relations page mentions it.

However, your desire to include a mention of Iran's controversial position in the world at the moment is not unfounded. There is remarkably little in the article that discusses the status of foreign relations. Other countries' pages vary widely in this regard: the US and North Korea have thorough references to current affairs (I would call the US's extensive), but Russia has almost nothing besides the Chechnyan wars (and that's in the post-Soviet section). I'm not sure how to go about incorporating the allegations of sponsorship of terrorism into the article without watching it disintegrate into a hearsay debate. Iran's links to terrorism are nowhere near as substantial as say, Syria's, and yet Syria's article mentions nothing of the sort. So again I'm forced to ask: exactly what's your aim here? If you're out to change the way WikiProject: Countries functions, why aren't you there, making a general case?Spectheintro 05:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)spectheintro

Rumsfeld picture

I'm not sure what about two guys shaking hands is so telling about Iran, so please make your case soon or else I will undo your revert. Thanks. The Behnam 04:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this picture illustrates well what happened during that time: The Iran-Iraq war, with Saddam Hussein being supported by the USA and others, who sold him weapons of mass destruction.

About a million Iranian & Iraqis died during that war, and you want to do as it never happened?

For your information, I did not create, upload, paste or edit this image on Iran's page.

Now, I understand why some people would like to see this picture suppressed, especially neocons who are preparing for another massive "LIE [11]" to the American people. Of course, this kind of evidence "ça fait chenil" as they say in Switzerland and makes US rulers uncomfortable, but I am not going to vote for its removal just for that. 69.116.234.208 15:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This seems to confirm that the picture is included to make a point or 'send a message', both of which shouldn't be reasons for including an image. The Behnam 18:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not "to make a point" but to illustrate an important FACT. That's what an image is made for. 69.116.234.208 19:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't illustrate anything about Iran ... what it illustrates is that Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld met - the image itself shows nothing about Iran, and hence is inappropriate for the article. The Behnam 19:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The picture illustrates the Irans isolation during the Iran-Iraq war and a key part of the events that happened during that war, which is Irans greatest War of the 20th century.Hajji Piruz 18:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

How does two guys shaking hands illustrate Iran's isolation? The Behnam 18:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The picture is appropriate in an article about Iraq, it is appropriate in an article about US governmental dealings and how a "friend" can become an enemy when it suits the regime, bit it does not say anything about Iran. If you want to mention about the use of gas in the Iran-Iraq war, then it would merit a place - provided it was in a section devoted to the Iran-Iraq war, and not in an article about Iran in general. It says absolutely nothing about isolation. Quite a lot about Rumsfeld, though. docboat 03:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OK it seems there is no consensus and The Behman has deleted the image.

I suggest to vote.

QUESTION: Who wants to keep the follwing picture on the history section of Iran (Iran-Iraq war)?

Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam Hussein on 19 December - 20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984. The United States supported the Iraqi regime by providing WMDs to Iraq during its 8 years war long with Iran.

Keep. The picture is relevant in order to illustrate an important aspect of the Iran-Iraq war, namely the unholy alliance between the USA and Iraq (i.e. USA providing weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein) SSZ 03:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - A vote probably won't do anything here except keep the inappropriate image. Many users are sensitive to the issue and may vote 'keep' because they might like to increase awareness of US involvement in the procurement of WMD by Saddam regardless of whether or not the picture actually illustrates anything of direct relevance to the topic of the article, the nation of Iran. While it seems many users that I dispute with don't understand this, "consensus" doesn't mean anything if it is just 'weight in numbers' without true regard for policies and guidelines. SSZ, I encourage you to opt for an actual discussion rather than a "vote" that is susceptible to corruption. This ain't a democracy. Right now, I see that you want to keep the image to illustrate the "unholy alliance," not to illustrate something about the nation of Iran itself. This is precisely the 'to make a point' invalid reasoning that brought this whole issue to the table. The Behnam 04:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• This issue is made even more silly by the unsourced caption. The Behnam 04:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The Behman, you keep repeating that people want 'to make a point' when it is not the case. The history of Iran involves an imposed war on IRAN which lasted 8 years and killed about a million people according to estimates. The US WMD procurement is not questioned by anybody that I know of. See Iran-Iraq war for sources. You keep playing with words like "its only 2 men shaking hands" to diminish its importance. This picture speaks volume about the history of Iran. You are trying to impose your narrow views and interpretation because you don't want this information to be reported (?). If so, Wikipedia itself should be your grief, because it is here just for that: to report the truthful historical fact. Finally, I proposed to vote because there has been a discussion before, which did not lead to any consensus. Voting was the next best thing to do. SSZ 05:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Compromise solution

The Behman: as a compromise solution, I suggest we keep the image until the end of September 2007 (it would have been on Iran's page for a year). Then, we can remove it permanently from this page. Agree? SSZ 06:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm open to it, but can you tell me exactly what Wikipedia principle is behind this kind of compromise? It seems a little "random." The Behnam 04:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

VP Cheney called and said he would be "most obliged" if we could delete the image. (lol) SSZ 18:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Does he mind if we randomly wait until September 2007? The Behnam 18:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

End of September is when Rumsfeld runs out of pills...;-)

This is an extremely important image and must be kept in Iran's page. Death of one milion people is a terribly painfull tragedy. The war between Iran and Iraq/US was perhaps the most damaging event in Iran's modern history. Iranians do consider US as main responsible for the damages. Sangak ^Talk 23:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

So who did they blame for thousands of years for all their troubles before we came along? Maybe we should send them a bill for the victim card that's given them to play for all their hatred. It seems "intervention by the west" gives people a free pass for terrorism and all kinds of other crimes. Yet in America you can't go a mile dowm any street in a major city without finding an Arab owned market. Is it time for us to seize an embassy, or hijack some planes?Batvette (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

We are not supposed to be writing a "tragedy" - we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia article that is neutral. Hence we shouldn't be putting things in to communicate what we think is tragic or to demonstrate the "unholy alliance." The Behnam 19:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Somebody complained that the Rumsfeld picture didn't really say illustrate anything about the nation of Iran. I agreed and so I removed the picture. However, it was restored under the claim that "On contrary this image tells a lot about what happeend during that time in Iran."

I guess there refering to American involvment in the war —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.109.13 (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is silly. A picture of the leader of Iraq shaking the hand of a US envoy in an Iran article. No, that is not siggestive! I'm calling non-NPOV unless you show Saddam shaking the hand of a diplomat from Germany, France, Russia, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and every other nation that furnished Saddam Hussein with arms and WMD during that period of time. And check your facts about "america sold him WMD" If you choose to call the dual use chemical precursors and lab bio samples we furnished him "WMD" then you better call it "WMD" instead of "nothing" when the ISG reports it found the same when we invaded. Batvette (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Iran News: Will there be war with Iran and Syria or not?

Despite the discussions of détente in the Middle East, the peril of war is still a real menace that threatens to proliferate globally. The dialogue taking place between the U.S., the E.U., Russia, Syria, and Iran seems to be merely a transient point in the timeline of the Middle East and Central Asia. The ongoing international discussions focused on the Middle East are part of an instant in time and history that will come to pass. Attached to these discussions are the fate of the Middle East, or so it may seem. With certainty, only time will tell what will unfold in the Middle East and become recorded in the annals of history.

A deeper look must be taken at the evolving domestic conditions within the “American Homeland” and at the wave of events that are unfolding in the Palestinian Territories, Israel, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, the Persian Gulf, the former Soviet Union, and Iran.

There have been reports and chatter about war between Israel and Syria and a “Summer War” that could breakout in the Levant with the initiation of Israeli strikes in the Palestinian Territories and Lebanon. The summer-months of 2007 may see international tensions rise, but witness no regional war that could potentially spread in the Middle East and beyond. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6281 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.101.84.212 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 16 July 2007.

• Very interesting I suppose, but this really isn't a discussion or speculation page about Iran in general. Do you have anything specific to say about the Wikipedia article itself? Discussing article development is what this talk page is for. The Behnam 17:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone clarify?

re- "Zoroastrianism spread unimposed during the time of the Achaemenids and..."

What does 'unimposed' mean? Should it be 'unopposed'? Brian Pearson 03:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question. I think (but am not sure) that the author was trying to convey that the Achaemenids did not impose Zoroastrianism on their subjects, but that the religion spread anyway. (To my knowledge, the establishment of Zoroastrianism as the empire's religion, and its state sponsorship, did not take place until the Sassanids.) But I can't say for certain--anyone else know what the sentence is trying to convey?Spectheintro 04:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)spectheintro

That was my impression as well. I didn't want to be hasty in making changes when I'm not sure of the intent of the wording. In such a case, I'll just post a note and let somebody else mull it over and do it. :) Brian Pearson 01:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Motto

The motto presneted in the article (Independence, Freedom, Islamic Republic), is not the national motto of Iran. It is the political motto of the government of Iran. A national motto is something rooted in the nation's history and related to its coming into being, which is more likely the Zoroastrian-rooted motto (Kerdaar-e-nik, Pendaar-e-nik, Goftaar-e-nik). If we cannot agree on a motto it is better to remove it altogether than to put something purely political like this. Shervink 09:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Essentially the national "motto" for a nation is exactly that - a motto supported by the government. I wouldn't call it the personal motto of every Iranian, but unfortunately we can't choose the national motto based on what we think seems better. If that was the case I would have changed the US mottoes because I don't think "In God We Trust" is very meaningful and I don't like fancy Latin phrases ("E Pluribus Unum"), but that "national motto" is, by its nature, the government-supported motto. Same goes here - it would make Wikipedia look silly if the editors put up a different motto just because they don't like the real one. The Behnam 20:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, but it seems you make no distinction between a nation and its government. I don't insist on putting the Zoroastrian motto (which by now I can say fairly confidently many Iranians do identify with, regardless of its origin), but I don't see why we should put the questionable motto of an extremely unpopular government on Wikipedia and attribute it to the nation. I suggest we don't put any motto at all, as is the case for a number of other countries' articles, see China, Russia, and Egypt for example. Shervink 12:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't that I don't personally make the distinction, but unfortunately the official motto of a nation is decided by the government. I'm not sure whether those other countries have a decided "motto" but that's irrelevant. From a Wikipedia perspective, there is no good principle behind removing the national motto from the infobox because we don't like it. The motto is appropriate at that location, which is designed to include that sort of national/government stuff, like the anthem, coat of arms, etc. Besides, it seems kind of "IRI" to censor out an official motto we don't like - I would hate to be doing the same thing they do, but in the other direction. And there is also a slippery slope - on the same argument we could "exclude" the national anthem because we don't like it. I'm sorry, but I don't think tampering with official motto is a good idea here. The Behnam 16:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Persian/Farsi

Just a quick note - while you are quite correct, Behnam, that Farsi is the Farsi term for the Persian language, Persian is the English name for Farsi. I would use "Persian" in an English language article, and qualify it with "Farsi". Have a think about making the change. docboat 00:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Whoops - my apologies Behnam, I got that backassward. docboat 00:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Pars=Fars Pars= Persia(latinized)

Article size

This article is MASSIVE! we should AT LEAST HALF its size. The history section is growing by the week! If you think of something to to write on wikipediaq, write it in the MAIN ARTICLE!!!!!!

There has long been a problem of placing undue weight on the history sections, especially upon those that aren't even equivalent to the modern nation of Iran. For example, the relatively alien Achaemenian and Median dynasties receive much more coverage than the Safavids despite the fact that the Safavids presided over the same national entity of "Iran" as today. Perhaps some pride and a desire to present the ancient empires as actually the same and directly connected to the "Iran" of today is motivating this kind of undue weight. I was able to remove the misrepresentation of the unattested OP *Aryanam but I'm not sure how much more I can do to stop this kind of thing.

I'm willing to attempt to summarize/truncate those parts but I'm not sure others will support this space-saving measure. Right now the article has a lot of "pride" fluff that makes Wikipedia look silly but this can change. If it does, not only will the quality of the article being improved but also we will see the size reduction that we need. The Behnam 17:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The history section should be as follows: 1-Pre-Parthian dynasties: The current subsection is too detailed. For instance cambyses only ruled for a short period of time and hasn't had any effect on modern Iran. if the subsection is supposed to be that detailed then we better write a line or two about the lives of every one who ever ruled Iran!

2-the rest of the pre islamic period: The sassanid and Parthian subsections should be merged and 50% to75% of the text deleted.

3-From then to the safavids: This SHOULD NOT be an essay about the attempt to arabize Iran or it's influence on the world; I couldn't care less about the ottomans in vienna Or Islamic Philosophy. Ferdowsi never effected The political history of Iran! I know how he saved farsi and he should be respected and remembered, but the only articles he should be reffered to is in articles (and setions) concerning Litterature and culture and language. It's like mentioning him in the Ahmadinejad article because he read his poetry in his schoolbooks!

4-from safavids till the revolution: The Birth of modern Iran is OK for now, but there is room for improvement. The merging of the two subsections is just an idea and it doesn't matter much but what does matter is the size of the Pahlavi section. I know there was alot was happening at that time but please shorten it!

5-Islamic repub.: This sould be a short summary of the most recent 28 years of Iranian history! I haven't read the section in full because the parts that I did read bored me with statistics and saying who backed who in the war.Manu kian maheri93 19:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Your removal of this text does not make any sense. It would have helped if there were an edit summary. The deleted material makes sense to me. — Gareth Hughes 19:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't have deleted that. But at the time and even now I feel as if that info is too detailed for the section. I will let others decide on that.Manu kian maheri93 23:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Back in March, I came to this page to respond to a request for "impartial editorial input" on the topic of the size of the history section. I reviewed the arguments, and I did a simple statistical review of other, similar articles (e.g. Egypt, Greece, China, etc). My conclusion was emphatically that the history section in this article should be reduced dramatically, to on the order of 1000-1500 words. My analysis and commentary are [archived here]. After my posting, discussion stopped, but no action was taken. --Psm 18:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Safavid map pic

I noticed that there was a map of the safavid empire in the from the fall of...section. so I moved it to it's rightful place.Manu kian maheri93 23:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed a few other pics not being in(what Ithink) is there proper place. For instance that picture of the avesta writen in middle Persian should be in the culture sec. under Persian language. Also the ferdowsi picture should be in the culture section. I have not yet made these two changes.Manu kian maheri93 23:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Establishment in infobox

The current timeline for establishment in the infobox is somewhat misleading. The subject of the article wasn't actually established with the Elamite, Median, Achaemenian, etc empires. Those are part of the history but not actually part of the same entity. There is no continuity - it isn't like some Sassanian exile government was waiting and eventually reestablished itself.

I'm looking into options that may be more accurate. I have seen Italy's "formation" infobox, as it has a similar history (big empires in the past, later periods of disunity and/or foreign control). Italy starts with "Unification" in 1861, but also marks when the current (form) of government took hold, "Republic" in 1946.

I think that a similar format would be informative and accurate on this article. Hence, we could have "Unification" w/ Safavid in 1502, then "Constitutional Monarchy" at 1906, and lastly "Islamic Republic" at 1979. The Behnam 19:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

==Tag==

Why is there a tag at the top saying the article is too long? Did someone shorten the article and forget to remove the tag? The length looks fine to me. Slacker 08:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed that tag since it was actually 109 kb. It is still a tad too long, or at least long for the wrong reasons. Much undue weight is placed upon the history sections, overshadowing information about the actual Iran we know today that this article is supposed to focus upon. This negatively affects load time and readability (in the sense of "to the point"). The Behnam 17:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

History section too long for Iran page

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think the History section on this page is just too damn long. It's like the entire History of Iran page itself was simply copied and pasted onto this one. Thoughts? 24.160.170.22 03:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but unfortunately most attempts to place it at a reasonable size are undone - I guess some editors don't realize that providing a proper summary in a summary section by removing extensive information is not equivalent to wiping out Iran's history or something like that. The Behnam 03:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have tried many many many times to shorten it and have mentioned it several times on this page, but, as you said people always undo them and I even been accused of vandalism. So instead I have been working on nShiraz and other articles, but I will help you shorten it. Just ask!Manu kian maheri93 10:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been debated in previous (archived) talk sessions. The conclusion has been to shorten it (significantly). But any attempts get stopped. Seems to be viewed as a patriotic issue.--Psm 05:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is one archived discussion: [[12]]. It includes responses to various arguments in favor of keeping the history section long, and also some stats on other articles in similar situation (e.g. Egypt, Greece, China, etc). After my posting, discussion stopped, but no action was taken. --Psm 18:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Map request

There should be a good orienting map near the beginning of the article showing neighboring countries, major cities, and major geographical features. -- Beland 18:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Irans entertainment and Public intrest

Iranians also adapted the same culture as Pakistanis, including music and cinema. Afghanistan as well, Irans cinema and entertainment has often seeked entertainment from India as well.

Image of Rumi

Why is this note attached to the caption of the Rumi image: "This image is a candidate for speedy deletion. It will be deleted after seven days from the date of nomination." It appears we have the permission of the artist to use the image and it is noted on the image page. No deletion notice is on the page, but someone has complained on the talk page about it supposedly showing God. Why would this image be deleted? Algabal 16:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that is a proper reason for image deletion. It probably will not succeed, though it may be good just to keep an eye on discussion there. Thanks for bringing this to attention. The Behnam 16:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Iranian currency

I recently added a link to this page that connected to Iran collection website. This site is one of the rarest site that talks about Persian currencies (Coins and pape money) plus medals and orders of Iran. The site is just informative and not a trading site. I added this, only for informative purposes and regret to see that a user has deleted the link. There are too many links in the page and none of them regard such a theme. I can not forget this rude action. Leo71538 09:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.iranhome.net

Asiatic

"and also playing a prominent role in the formation of both European and Asiatic medieval art." Shouldn't there be written asian medieval art. National socialists used word 'asiatic', 'asiates' in hate langue, so at least in russian it has negative conotations with meaning something like barbarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.148.71.250 (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Iran Article Now Larger Than Every Country Article Apart From USA

Why is it that this article on Iran, a minor country, has an article size larger than that of France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, Italy, and India?

Yeah its a minor power, yet its on the news every other half hour. Regardless, this page is long because there are a lot of sub topics all in this page (i.e. sports- one sentence will do anything more should go in another page). Your ignorance is quite evident. Iran has significant role in pre history, Ancient history, Middle Age, as well as current.e.g. Iran is claimed democaracy yet it is quite clear that to call Iran a republic without the element of theocracy involvment will be misinformed. Therefor it will require more explanation. As oppose to France, which is a plain democaracy.

For anyone to say that Iran in any point in history. like the one guy did saying it didnt have much a role in the middle ages....is plain stupid. Iran only rivaled with the roman empire. because we all kno

Maybe i should start claiming that the UK should change it's name beacause the whole United KINGDOM is smaller then Iran. Its petty, if you think other countries should have a bigger page then start researching and typing. I quite frankly think that a smaller page is better because it gets to the point

This seems as though the article is extremely biased in favour of Iran and seriously breaching the WP:NPOV considering Iran is not even a “Middle Power” like that of Canada, Spain, Brazil, South Korea, or Australia, but perhaps merely a “Regional power” like that of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Indonesia, Mexico, Thailand, or South Africa. The article has became larger than every other country article expect that of the United States, even larger than articles on “Great powers” like that of China, France, and Germany, and even larger than previous “Superpowers” of Russia, and the United Kingdom.

Some might state that Iran has much ancient history to divulge hence the article size yet so do the articles on Egypt, Greece, Italy, China, and the articles of France, Spain, and England have much medieval history to divulge yet none of these articles are anywhere near the size of this article.

Well lets see your right in Ancient time iran rivaled egypt greece. Well in the middle ages where was Greece and Egypt??? Persia rivaled the Roman Empire with many recorded wars over land. Even records from Roman empire who saw Iran as threat and feared their growth.....i suggest you read some history

Most of the problem is the sheer quantity of ancient Persian history included in this article’s history section. I suggest that an amount of the information regarding ancient Persia be moved to an article regarding ancient Persia.

If this doesn’t happen the article itself will become damaged by the article continuing to grow in size until the sheer volume of information puts readers off reading the article as a whole. Signsolid 16:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This debate has been recurring. I tried to help out in March/April but with little progress. At the time I also looked at the size of comparables (see the archived discussion Talk:Iran/Archive_7#Vote_on_trimming_the_History_Section) and concluded that the history section should be trimmed to 1000-1500 words. There was no response to my analysis, nor any ensuing action. Since then it has actually gotten worse, the history section growing from 4500 words to 4700 today. I don't know how the wikipedia community can police something like this. For me it's not only a WP:NPOV issue, but a readability issue as well as respect for the process of independent editorial reviews and opinions; in particular, this talk page requested impartial comments from other editors over at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/History_and_geography; myself and User:Corlyon responded, and we both concluded that the history section should be reduced. This result from (invited) impartial editor input was then summarily ignored. A summary history section in an overview article like this one should be a summary. There are serious WP:NPOV issues with the content of the history section, but we should be able to treat that as a distinct matter. --Psm 18:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I liked it, I learned a lot about Iran, and I don't believe Iran is a minor country coz Persia has been one of the most influential civilizations ever! (also unfortunately whenever Bush and Blair talk about WW3, they name Iran!)also by a simple look at the number archive pages here, you would understand that it's one of the most viewed pages on wikipedia, that reflects it's importance among viewers! anyway, the article is categorized so everyone can find the information she/he needs, hopefully one needs not to read the whole page by force! so Do you hate information or do you have problem with Persians?!!! Sean

Iran has a 2,500 year history (as opposed to the 250 years for the USA, in terms of independence), and has not only been a major international player on multiple occasions (Achaemenid, Parthian, Sassanid), but also has inspired the culture, court, and hierarchal systems of almost all Turkish Empires, the Timurid Empire (ironically), as well as the Mughal Empire of India. Prior to French, Persian was essentially a lingua franca, considering its influence in scholarship and literary importance extended from Central Europe (Ottoman Empire) to the eastern edge of the Indian Subcontinent (Mughal Empire). I would expect an article this long for a country like Iran, Greece, China, India, or Italy. Greece's article is hardly a short one. On top of that, they also have an Ancient Greece article, which just makes for an utterly massive amount of general information on Greece, which was/has been essentially a European Union welfare-leech state since it joined. Their economy has been subsidized for how many years now? They are hardly any more politically important than Iran. Iran makes headlines today due to the current political climate, unlike Greece, so you would expect this article to actually be more relevant to the casual reader. Italy's isn't exactly that short either, albeit it is shorter than this one.

With that said, the article SHOULD be shortened more, cleaned up, and linked off to other articles for the sake of saving space, but to claim the Iran article is POV is outrageous. The article is highly informative, although at times it is written somewhat informally, and doesn't ooze with "Persian Pride" or POV or anything of the like. Listing Iranian achievements in an Iranian article isn't propaganda. It's fact. That was the primary comment I had an issue with. I would probobly recommend focusing primarily on the Achaemenid Empire (since people mostly associate Iran with that Empire), and then do only a very brief follow up on the Parthians/Sassanids, simply to mention they were peers to Rome/Byzantium, and then a brief description of the Sassanid fall to the Arabs (with a link off to the respective Parthian/Sassanid articles). Mention briefly the Safavids, only to describe the reemergence of modern Iran. The Afsharids don't deserve to be mentioned. After Nader, they were fairly trivial. The Zands were as well. The Qajars/Pahlavis ought to be mentioned only because it relates to colonialism and modern history, as well as the Iranian Revolution, Iran-Iraq War, and current politics. -MadarB 01:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If the USA article is really that long why don't you shorten that article first?Shervink 10:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a 'history of Iran' article that you can move it into? If not, then you'll have to delete alot of it. Highcount. 14:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If the USA page is larger than Irans, there seems to be a problem, since USA's history is peanuts in size compared to Iran's. But I do think the history section of Iran should be actually Summarized Bretonnia (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

removed "superpower" and "ruled over most of the known world"

This has been discussed elsewhere and settled by RfC after extensive discussion (e.g. see the talk pages related to Sparta). The conclusion was not to use the word "superpower" in regards to *any* ancient empires. To spare you reading through that talk page, here's the gist of it: Ancient empires were not able to be a Superpower in that they were not able to project military force on a global scale. The superpower notion post-dates WWII and was a way to distinguish the new phenomenon of the USA and USSR (from 1945 onwards) in contrast to the previous period of the Great Power (from roughly 1815 to WWII). Similarly, "ruling over the known world" is a related misnomer. Ancient empires ruled over what they ruled over, and may or may not have been aware of other empires far away. E.g. the incense trade routes are as old as 2000 BC, so certainly the Persians were aware of the Indies, but had absolutely no manner to project power. The Roman Republic was also co-terminus with the Persian Empire, but neither (at the time) had the ability to project force to the other. Even when Rome was able to project force to Arabia, that still did not constitute a Superpower. --Psm 18:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Come on...

This article is now the largest on Wikipedia, larger than the USA article as well. It needs to be cut in half. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.203.200 (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, I noticed a few things about your posting here. First off, you need to log in with your account so we know who you are. Second, I see nothing wrong with an inclusive article, that has been rated GA-class and vital in Wikipedia, and was probably rated as such because of it's content. So please be patient. If the powers-that-be decide that it needs paring down, or that some sentences might be able to be conveyed with less words while retaining accurate and concise content, then we'll work on it... Edit Centric 21:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

On the flip-side of this same coin, I DO agree that the History section of this article is a bit on the "heavy" side, and the article might be better served if the section were integrated into the separate "History of Iran" article instead. In addition, we'd have to condense this article's History section significantly. What I suggest is that a few people with the necessary experience get together, read through the text, and see what can be pared down, while not sacrificing anything from the overall article. Also, what details the history article does NOT include can be transferred over from here, thus improving that article as well. Since this type of edit is WAY beyond my own expertise, I'm going to step back on this one, save for stating that it needs done, and would greatly improve this entry.Edit Centric 21:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Kurdish nation

Kurds: Indoeuropean migration: Around 7000 years ago the first migration waves( maybe because of population overcrowd) of the biggest language family of the world called indoeuropean language family started.The members of this big family first live together in a region in caucasus(west of caspian sea and today's Georgia and Armenia) or maybe in Anatolia near Van lake(today's turkey). Different branches of this big family were Germanic,Celtic, Baltic Slavic, Albanian, Latin, Greek, Armenian, Iranian and indoaryans. Among these branches there was a big branch named Iranian family. Iranian family had three major subgroups : Medes(today's Kurdish), Persian(today's Farsi,Tajik and Dari) and Parthian(extincted). Iranian people who called themselves as aryans( and iran means the land of aryans) first started their settlement in zagros mountains(west of today's iran)to anatolia (east of today's Van lake in turkey) in around 7000 years ago. They were Medes( ancectors of today's Kurds) first iranians who came to iran. Persians and Parthians came to iran hundreds of years later. The Medes formed the first big civilization of aryans (or maybe all indoeuropeans) in their lands. They preserved their brilliant culture and language against all foreign invasions during thausands of years. The first iranian big empire was founded by these people around 3000 years ago although they had many smaller kingdoms before that.Medes people( Kurds) have had important roles in development and vanishment of different big empires and kingdomes of the region until around 1000 years ago when islam came to their region. Many scolars believe that Zoroaster, the great iranian prophet was median. You can find in ancient greek and asyrian documents that they frequently mentioned directly to Median or Kurdish people as a people with a great civilization. Today their land is divided into more than four countries including Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Armenia and Azerbaijan as well. but all of the kurds in those countries still have the same language and culture. Except for Azerbaijan and Armenia and recently Iraq all other three countries are not democratic countries and kurds think they are under oppression in those countries and are fighting against those governments militarily or politicaly for their natural rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awyer (talk • contribs) 22:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

persian greatness & superiority Bubble & terribly long article

Hehehe gosh this is so funny....some people are living in a big bubble filled with greatness & superiority about their nationalism....try to stop choosing only parts that favor & flourish your nationalism....it seems like no other nations existed before or after you.....actually Mesopotamia was a great civilization before the Persian empire, Egypt, Ancient Greek, Chinese etc....break the bubble you're living in, what a looooong article & only specifically chosen topics.....& I noticed in the summarizing history table the editor JUMPED OVER the period with the Arabic/Islamic invasion & within the article they only speak of how the Great persians resisted arabization & they only acquired Islam...I was for a while suspecting the "self-great feeling" in persians but after this article & many other Iran-related articles I'm sure this idea is valid...anyway who cares...this was a funny article...regards193.6.158.33 13:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would an article on "Iran" include historical articles related to the Arabs, Egyptians, Ancient Greeks, Mesopotamians, or, even funnier, Chinese? How in depth does the "United States" article go into the American Indians and Mesoamericans? Does the USA article give us depth on the influence of the Iroquois Confederacy on the establishment of the American Republic? Such a nonsensical complaint.

The history article specifically makes reference to empires and states that had key influence in Iran's history, including the Islamic Empire, Turkish Empires, and the Mongols (notice the entire 8-9 paragraph section titled "From the fall of the Sassanid Dynasty to the Safavid Empire (652–1501 CE)" retard?) If you want more depth, then you may click on "Islamization of Iran," "History of Iran," or the "Persian Empire" articles. They mention the Arabs, Turks and Mongols. Perhaps you are simply a racist going off on an incoherent rant. That's okay. But your nonsense has no place here. If anything, the history article should be compressed, not expanded in order to please the Pan-Arab fascists or the Chinese.

Further, the Persians didn't become culturally Arabized, so I don't know why you'd make a suggestion otherwise. The only art that the Arabs considered sacred prior to their invasions of the Sassanid and Byzantine Empires was story-telling and vulgar nomadism. Not much has changed, clearly. It's very interesting how Arabian contributions to Islamic architecture, poetry, minature paintings, etc. have remained close to nil for over 1400 years. When the only claim the Arabs have on Islamic Architecture is the calligraphy, then you know they're pretty marginal in their influence outside of the Koran.

And for the sake of bursting your apparantly "semitic" nationalism, the Elamite Civilization existed around the same time as the Mesopotamian Civilizations, and the Jiroft Civilization predates Sumer. -68.43.58.42 21:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to have one question.

If you look into the pre-historic documents, both people of Iran and India are of same orgins "Aryan". Due to time and war etc.. people moved to different parts of the world and settled there life.I have gone through the lots of websites, all of them are showing the same..both belongs to Aryan origins.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bi-vu-ne (talk • contribs) 17:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If the article does not already have this information then get a reference then add. A referenced claim can not be disputed. Much. Kaeso Dio 17:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

So, what's your question? --86.135.183.219 (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Unattributed Quote

The following quote is unattributed. Who said it, and when?

"The Persians ruled for a thousand years and did not need us even for a day. We have been ruling them for one or two centuries and cannot do without them for an hour.[42]"

I see the citation, of course, but the context must also be given in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.61.81.231 (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that quote is from an Abbassid ruler. -68.43.58.42 21:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Words of Encouragement

I would like to thank you and encourage you all for your great work on this article. By working together, you have collectively "agreed" on Iran, including many Iranian editors with diverse background and international editors. You have molded something detailed and general, at the same time. This article represents CONSENSUS on what Iran should be at this time. It is not easy to reach consensus when some people want to rage war on Iran. This article has tested the limits of open source collaboration and I salute everyone for that. You have greatly helped Iran and the international community of readers by providing information for free through your free time. Nowhere else people can find so much information about Iran and related articles on the Internet (in english). Thank you all. SSZ (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this quotation goes well in here

“ بسی رنج بردم در این سال سی عجم زنده کردم بدین پارسی

For thirty years, I suffered much pain and strife
with Persian I gave the Ajam verve and life

”

—Ferdowsi (935–1020)

Cyrus111 (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Name Pronunciation

It seems that Alborz Fallah changed the pronunciation from ʔiˈrɒn back to iːˈɾɒn, including an audio recording of the pronunciation of the name. Regarding the notation, it is not possible to start a word with a vowel in pɒɾsi or any other Indo-European language, as far as I know. Also, pɒɾsi does not distinguish between [i] and [iː]. Regarding the recording, I know that Alborz Fallah claims to be a native pɒɾsi, but I have never heard a native speaker pronounce the name of the country or any other word in the language with [ɹ], making me doubt his knowledge about pɒɾsi phonology. DJ1AM (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)DJ1AM

• The audio is correct.There is no doubt about it.I'm a native Iranian living in Tehran and that's a word I hear and say many times in my daily life... But about impossibilty of finding a word that starts with a vowel in IE languages , I'm not the expert! Every IPA that is same as the audio is correct and other are wrong .
  Maybe (ʔiˈrɒn) is the IPA recording of the audio?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• There is a doubt about the audio. It sounds like an English speaker's pronunciation [ʔiˈɹɑn], not like a native pɒɾsi pronunciation [ʔiˈɾɒn].--DJ1AM (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)DJ1AM
• No problem if you insist on the IPA pronunciation writing, but I think omitting the audio is equal to deprivation of the Wikipedia readers. Anyway , if you think I'm not native Iranian , I will write the other sentence in Persian and ask other Iranian readers to uphold my view ! هم میهنان گرامی توجه کنند که بحث ما در مورد تلفظ صحیح " ایران" است : دوست ما می گویند که آی رن درست است و من می گویم ایران ، بنا براین کسی پیدا شود و توضیح بدهد به ایشان که من درست می گویم و فایل صوتی مرا حذف نکند ! سپاس --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

And if you are so interested in your IPA , then let's use this : !--Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sure you are a native speaker, but acording to every pɒɾsi I ask, your pronunciation is incorrect. If you want an audio file to aid people's pronunciation, record someone that does not have a speech impediment.--DJ1AM (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)DJ1AM

My dear friend, Alborz Fallah, is completely correct about the pronunciation. However, the audio file that is included is from Patchouli. It is not known if Patchouli was a native speaker or Iranian. He was banned for POV editting among other policy violations, so we cannot ask him. He pushed an anti-Islamic-Republic-of-Iran POV. The audio file does sound odd. Patchouli may have had, as DJ1AM believes, "a speech impediment." Please see [13]. Patchouli also recorded that. Either he had "a speech impediment," or purposefully pronounced it incorrectly (which I would not put passed him).--Agha Nader (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

DJ1AM I think it's better to change it only after we reach consensus.
You said " but according to every pɒɾsi I ask, your pronunciation is incorrect"; by the "pɒɾsi" , I don't know you mean Iranian or Parsi.If it's Parsi, then their pronunciation does not have anything to do with Iranians: their language is under influence of Indian and the Iranian(native) pronunciation of the official name is important.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• When I say pɒɾsi, I'm talking about people that speak the Iranian language that originated in pɒɾs. And I'm sure of the IPA spelling of the country's name, [ʔiˈɾɒn].--DJ1AM (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)DJ1AM

• Although the Fars Province is one of the Iranian provinces, but the the origin of the pɒɾsi people of India can't be considered a proof to accept their pronunciation as the standard pronunciation of Iranian country .If you still have doubt , then listen to the following Iranian anthem(Ey Iran) that is the most famous Iranian national antuem ,which is more famous than The Star-Spangled Banner in the USA , and note the pronunciation of IRAN: Ey Iran--Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Why would you put up the audio again when you said that you were not the one who recorded it as it may not be from a native speaker. All of the pɒɾsijɒn that I ask agree that audio file is incorrect. It will be removed until a native speaker's pronunciation can be put in its place.--DJ1AM (talk) 19:51, 05 January 2008 (UTC)DJ1AM

I did not put it there because technically I don't know how to record audios! But what's the difference?! As a native of Iran, I'm clearly saying that the audio is 100% correct, and I would pronounce it exactly the same that is recorded. Don't know what kind of a Persian did you asked, but I'm sure about the pronunciation and I did show you the best example in the anthem. You are insisting in your point of view, only by saying "I heard that from this or that person!"... I introduced you not only examples, but also other editors (Agha Nader) approved that the audio is right.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? (Agha Nader) said that "the audio file does sound odd." [ʔiˈɹɑn] is incorrect pronunciation.--DJ1AM (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)DJ1AM
• Well, don't want to mention what Agha nader said about it , any why I upload it myself . I can ask more than ten Iranian wikipedians to approve it . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading the pronunciation, Alborz Fallah. --Agha Nader (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It now sounds much more native should I say, the previous one, especially the "r", was a bit American to my ears. But I'm in no way an expert. --   Avg    02:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• This audio file is much better.--DJ1AM (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

POV article

it is clear that this article have it's own POV, but i have no problems with that. What i do have problems with is the description of Iran as having scientific commuinity which mets the westren standards of qulity, what is, of course, not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.184.240 (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the exceptional isolation they are submitted to, for political reason, and given the limited means in terms of instrumentation, and access to the foreign assistance (as opposed to the case for all Western nations), one can argue that Iranian scientists are exceeding the western standards in terms of innovation and achievements. Thanks for bringing that up! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.247.26 (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that, for example, the iranian nuclear project is (in sum) nearly 40 years old and still didn't yield one single A-bomb (while it probably would bear one soon, unless stopped by the USA or by others) even after investing large sums of money annually insted of dierecting this money to the rehabilitation of earthquake victems living in iran, and Given the extensive investment in scientific topics (espcially in physics), the very large incomes from oil the country have and Given the extensive technological and scientific aid it get from Russia, China, Germany and other developed countries (and no doubt that untill few yers ago they still had access to foreign assistance from all over the world-including even israel that export technological knowledge to iran, secretly , long after the revolution) and given that iran didn't made up any significant scientific/technological progress independently and that what was introduced to the irnian citizens as major breakthroughs or as indigenously developments like the "Saeqeh-80 " (jet fighter which is simply an american F-5E replication with iranian name and superficial adjustments) or the C-802 or the Azarakhsh or AGM-379/20 Zoobin the IMOD and others are all: designed around existing foreign weaponary systems and/or suffering from low quality and/or are totaly hoaxes (like the Shafaq) it is quite fair to conclude that the iranian regime doesn't enjoy from having a renown credibility and that to describe iran as ascientific superpower is unrealistic . The partial isolation of iran can not serve as an excuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.184.240 (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If they did not build the A bomb after 40 years that would be a good indication that they are not looking to build one in my opinion. For the civilian part, please remember that Iran went through an imposed war for 8 years, got economic damage of over a trillion dollars, had all its nuclear energy contracts with the West canceled. Iran is building TV sets for more than 20 years now and the technology is more advanced than building an A Bomb (A bombs were made before TV sets). I am not sure it is a lack of capacity in any way. For the rest, Shafaq airplaine is not a hoax necessarily because the website you refer to yourself does not mention anything like that (first flight foreseen in 2008 it says). For the rest, all nations copy each other before improving and innovating in the same field. May be you don't remember about how the Japanese car industry started (they were copying European cars in the 70's and 80's and they are now leaders in that field). Now you talk about how the economy should be managed ideally. I do agree with you that waste and corruption has taken its toll but which country has not experienced similar problems during the industrialization process? Finally, Israel has received all the external help it needed and look what has been achieved. Not much by their own means in my opinion. 69.116.247.26 (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

According to UN inspections Iran is not trying to make a bomb so no wonder they are behind in that area. Interesting that you mention television as the Iranians have a system that is technologically superior to what the USA uses. Also of interest is that in the recent innovation expo Iran ranked 5th for practical inventions. What else does Iran excell at? Biotechnology and fertility is very big in Iran despite the sanctions and the fact that there is no E-commerce (credit card companies are not allowed to deal with Iran). Hillary Clinton used Iranian doctors when she was trying to have a child. An iranian invented the artificial heart. Pretty impressive stuff considering. Wayne (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be legitimate to say Iran is above the third world (and significantly ahead of what would be expected) in the scientific community when one considers the fact that Iran is the #1 victim of Brain Drain, has been economically isolated from the United States for decades (along with US pressure on other European countries against expanding trade with Iran), but I wouldn't really put their scientific community (within the country) on par with the Europeans and certainly no where near America. It's an above average scientific community, probobly one of the best in Asia, and a startingly good one considering the circumstances, but it's not on par with Western Europe or the USA. Obviously if the diaspora were to return and Iran's isolation were to end and government interference would cease, then Iran would certainly be on par with the Western World (minus the scientific superpower USA) - the vitality of the Iranian diaspora speaks for itself and it is bar none the most educated diaspora in the world. But until that happens, I wouldn't call Iran on par with the West scientifically, although it is above average. -68.43.58.42 (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

To wrote that iran don't have military nuclear program and to expect people to believe it is oh, well....Recently iran admitted that it intending to develop a nuclear weapons for already many years now, the un didn't claim-at least not recently, that iran don't have a nuclear weapon program. Who did somehow closer statement was the controversial muchmad el bardaei, head of the [ [International Atomic Energy Agency]] and even he only said that he don't have enough information to determine , however, this month he had no option but to declare that iran delivered to the agency a nuclear warhead drawings (after it had no other option but to do so-it was a political trick that been done by officials of the iranian regime-their intention was to precede the americans and the europeans whose already took up the drawings from iranian scientist laptop), actually similar to pakistanians nuclear warheads (and by that admitted it's hostile intentions), that is, from the same technological source (pakistanian dr.abdul chan) that sold them the centrifuges technology during the 90'. However, iran had problems, for a considerable time, till lately, to make the centrifuges work (and even if the iranian intentions was only civilian they still dont have even single nuclear power factory working that suppling energy for civilian purposes (not that iran need such, after all it have immense reserves of oil and gas. and there is also no sense in the refusal of iran to give free access for inspectors to the suspected nuclear sites if they have no military purpose and this after that iran faced sanctions and having, for this and for other reasons, heavy military tension with no less than the world No1 military superpower –USA-what made the oil prices to rise all over the world and even drived the iranian regime to cast fuel limits on the iranian citizen (much because iran don’t have a developed distillation industry and so in a case of war the fuel storage could be very short ). the claims that iran don't have nuclear program are not serious ones, it is like to said that israel don't have nuclear arsenal because no body outside israel have seen an israeli A-bomb. The iranian president himself declare that now iran have 7000 activated centrifuges- clearly, no country have what to do with so many of them, unless it intending to have a nuclear weapon. I didn't hear that iran have the 5th place in submitted patents-but it make no difference as what is more important is the quality of each patent and unfortunately it won't be too risky to bet that it is low, but i might be going wrong about it and i would be very happy if it is the case. Any way-please add a source for this argument you made. The most educated diaspora in the world is not the iranian, you are seriously misinformed about it, even if it is highly educated-and all of the examples you made (few) are for scientist who flew iran shortly after the revolution, get western education and are opponers to the radical islamic regime there (lets admit it: iran executed many homosexuals without even giving them a decent trial, and iran have a barbaric 'justice' system-that's why one of the most known regime opposers tongue been publicly cut off and the iranian TV keep broadcasting advertisement asking people not to take the law to their hands, or else they could find themselves executed (there are pictures of hanged citizens in it))- the iranian universities are not excommunicated by other world universities and still not even one of them is within the list of best 500 world universities. Can you name even one revolutionary scientific/technological original iranian made achievement since 1978? As i see it, and many others. iran is, sadly, a third world country by any mean. Finally, if compared with Israel-than the argument that Israel get all the help it needed is some how unsupported, Israel is isolated from it's own neighbors, don't having contracts with most of the Muslim world and been through many wars and yet all of it's universities are within the best 500, including one in the best 100 and the technion which is one of the 50 world's most outstanding educational institutions in engineering and computer science. More, it's population is much smaller than this of Iran and yet-far more advanced than Iran is in any aspect-the Israeli economy is surely first world economy (the Israeli incomes this year are about 210-230 billion dollars (only 3 billion of it, or less, are from external aid and there many people in Israel who oppose to it as it make Israel to depended on USA dictates) for only 7,000,000 citizens while, unlike Iran, it have no natural resources and Iran's incomes is around 600 billion dollars for a population almost 10 times bigger) and unlike those of Iran based upon the most innovative hi-tech industry in the world and other innovative industries mainly (here is one source but you better check out for that matter). Israel probably had nuclear weaponry as early as 1963 while it was still poor and small country surrounded by enemies -by people who know better about the Israeli project the story is that Israel didn't have back then heavy industry and so the French were willing to help Israel and to supply the nuclear reactor but in return received Israeli technical and scientific nuclear knowledge which helped them to build their own nuclear program (today this reactor was improved by the Israelis and it is capable of producing 10 bombs each year this knowledge astonished the world as no other reactor this size can do something even close to it. More, Israel is the only country that successfully active laser based uranium enriching process that produce meaningful amounts of highly enriched uranium) -no less, and any way the chief of the French nuclear program was, if I'm not mistaken, Jewish, and so many of the French nuclear scientists- as it was for USA and UK (Israel and French had nuclear capability around the same time) . The Israeli weaponry industry is a way more sophisticated than those the Iranians have and evidently it sells in many billions each year to most of the western armies and to others. It is funny, but few months ago Iran to convince the Indian air force to sell it it's Israeli avionic systems for SU-30 jet fighters- Iran been told to be focused on the Israeli systems and to prefer it over French systems and etc as the Israeli avionic systems are well known around the world. Unlike Iran , Israel did suffered from many attempts to isolate it academically and to cast academic embargo over it- however, the contribution of the Israeli scientific community is so intense that it didn't passed, any way –the Israelis have figures like Yuval Ne'eman and they do have Nobel prizes for economy and chemistry and Jews that had their education in Israeli intuitions won Nobel prizes for physics and etc -according to some the Israeli community have at least 30 scientists (him for example) who by no doubt deserve the Nobel prize but only political reasons, probably, are standing against it. If we are talking about Jewish diasporas-so there is no question that these are the most educated diasporas in the world and believe me-their achievements are without no possible comparison. The Israelis which immigrated outside Israel are may be the most creditable community for their abilities. I don't think that there is any nation that would done better than Israel under the same constraints. Now, we can compare Iran to other countries as well-but as long as it having this regime it wpuld remain third world country —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.242.202 (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are they treating me like their KING and Lord then? (I am 100% Iranian genetically)

There is only ONE human race. The rest is ILLUSION and MYTH. 69.116.247.26 (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

How is Israel relavent to this thread? Israel was never poor. Almost all of the Jews that migrated to Israel came from industrialized nations with education. As for its isolation in the Muslim World - that is entirely irrelevent. Israel is the only non-European state that is allowed to have scientific grants from the European Union. Moreover, the primary economic dilemma in the Middle East is nationalization and high government interference (ironically in a region that is religious and hates socialism/communism). Most of the Middle Eastern economies have been oil based and haven't carried significant trade leverage for decades. Oil is conducive to capital, but it is not conducive to labor, nor has it proven effective when it comes to diversification of an economy. The money from oil never gets redistributed. The only thing any of the Muslim countries (in the Middle East) have been capable of providing Israel since 1948 is oil. That's about it. Before oil was being pumped, the only countries in the region that weren't predominantly tribal were probobly Iran and Turkey. It is not like the Israelis were ever planning on actively trading with their Arab neighbors in the first place, so I don't see how that could possibly have been an economic setback for their economy. All 22 Arabic-speaking states have an economy smaller than that of Spain - it's not like isolation from the Arab World is as threatening to an economy as isolation from the United States. Almost 40% of Israel's exports go to the United States (which would be considered relatively low by previous Israeli standards); it seems Israel wouldn't fair too well in the event of American sanctions and a EU moratorium on scientific grants to the Israeli scientific community either. Further, it is foolish to say Israel simply "has no resources." The only resource the Arabs have is non-labor conducive oil. Most of them have very little access to the water, and with the exception of Egypt, Lebanon and Turkey, none of them have strategic trade positions on the Mediterreanean as Israel does. Prior to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006, Lebanon was booming and rapidly developing its economy since the end of Israeli occupation and Civil War before that. Turkey continues to boom. Egypt, similar to Iran, has too much government interference. Even so, Israel is entirely irrelevent to this thread. I'm assuming you are either anti-Islamic/Islamophobic, or you are simply blatantly pro-Israeli. Regardless of your political convictions, you need not lecture us on Israel. No one here cares. Iranians actually have the most educated diaspora in the world ever since 1979 and is considered to be the #1 victim of Brain Drain in the world. I could provide sources if you aren't aware. I agree with you that Iran should not be considered on par with the West scientifically, but it certainly is superior to much of the third world in this respect. Turkey, for example, is an industrialized nation, and its scientific community is not that significantly superior. -68.43.58.42 (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Article size

This article is too big! I was delighted when I saw that the history section was smaller than the last time I saw the page. Let's keep the good work up and shrink it even more. For example the Iranian revolution... was way too detailed in events. events must should be more summarised e.g. The hostage crisis should be like this:

On (date) the American embassy was seized and x diplomats were taken hostage. By (date) all of the hostages were released due to diplomatic agreement. America hasn't yet executed their end of the agreement.

Or something like that. Also can the government section be slightly summarised?Ardeshire Babakan 13:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

i dont understand why evryone is being such a hard ass on size by sumerizing and deleting you lose information, maybee make a seperate article instead -Nikou- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.34.97 (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

More detailed information is ONLY FOR THE MAIN ARTICLE AND SEE-ALSOS! THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE FOR! Too much text will bore the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardeshire Babakan (talk • contribs) 16:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

wel before deleting the hard work many people have put in make the side articles and add a link to it -nikou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.72.204 (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Cuisine

Who thinks the cuisine doesn't deserve a subsection all to it's self? It is dwarfed by Our art and literature and it hasn't got any defining text. It should either be a part of the introduction of the culture or preferably not mentioned at all. Give me your views.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the U.S.A. article has one so it should fly, but for a subesction you would need plenty of information (I'm not sure if it is dwarfed because of the fact it has little in being unique from many other countries in the region). Bretonnia (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

actually it is very different than the food in other countries in the region. Siavash1989 (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Then making a subsection for Cuisine should work out fine. Bretonnia (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Culture section dilemma

Pejman47 and I have come to a dilemma. We disagreed on this text in the culture section:

The Sassanid era was an important and influential historical periods in Iran Their cultural influenced Roman civilization considerably[102] and so influencing as far as Western Europe,[103] Africa,[104] China and India[105] and also playing a prominent role in the formation of both European and Asiatic medieval art.[106] This influence carried forward to the Islamic world.

I believe that this text is advertising Iranian culture and not only neglects giving the reader a better understanding of what Iranian culture is, but advertises it's importance.

Pejman47 however, sees that the influences of a culture is an important part of understanding that culture.

To prevent an edit war between us I have posted this on the talk page. Please post your views here and say who you agree with and make suggestions.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.PersiansAreNotArabs.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.9 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Persians are not Arabs"? Of course we are since there is only ONE human race. By the same token Arabs are Sweedish and Sweedish people are Chinese and Chinese people are Nigerians :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.247.26 (talk) 05:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's like saying Europe is North America because they're both continents. Or Venus is Mars because they're both planets. Or I'm you because we're both people. --86.135.183.219 (talk) 10:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that we are part of the SAME human FAMILY[14]. This holds true for your example of Venus and Mars, as well, who are literally my sister (Zohreh) and brother (Bahram). 69.116.247.26 (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Country pronunciation

Could someone please confirm that the sound file at the intro comes from a native speaker?--   Avg    23:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It does not. 82.210.112.69 (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The pronunciation is correct, but maybe it's not from a native speaker. I'm native, but I don't know -technically- how to up load the word, but the present pronunciation is correct . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

no its not native at all. Khorshid (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

International Sanctions

Folks I've amended the following line

Iran has come under international sanctions since December 2006, because of its civilian nuclear programme

to

The United Nations Security Council imposed international sanctions on Iran in December 2006 for not suspending its uranium enrichment programme having been instructed to do so after being assessed as failing to meet Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty safeguard obligations. Despite the U.N. security council resolutions, Iran has in practice faced a wide variety of U.S. imposed international sanctions since 1979.

for 2 reasons
1) It's factually inaccurate and misleading. 2) It reads like international sanctions are something new for Iran which of course they aren't.
If anyone can improve it and (please, please, please) maintain NPOV please do so. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

FA nomination

I think that the Iran page has come to a stage where it is good enough to become an FA and Also it is very hard to find any improvements that we could make. So I am proposing that we renominate the Iran page for FA status. If U think the page is ready to be nominated then say so!Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The article did not meet the FA status as of today but I think it was a great idea. It is always a good opportunity to improve the article further. For that reason alone we should do it at least once a year! :)69.116.247.26 (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Geography

Since Turkey article does not define that country as part of Middle East we should not do the same here. Iran is only Middle Eastern from the Euro POV. WP is a global encyclopedia. Even according to the Middle East article its usage is controversial and not necessarily accurate. I suggest we keep it out of the intro or rephrase as "being part of the geopolitical territory of Middle East". Also according to Middle East article: "The Middle East is a historical and political region of Afro-Eurasia with no clear boundaries" Meaning its usage is becoming more irrelevant as time goes by with the world becoming more global and less Eurocentric. BTW that article also contradicts itself in certain points. Khorshid (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree; regional terms are ambiguous. Central Eurasian, Southwest Asian, or West Asian are all more appropriate. -Rosywounds (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say central Eurasian, as it describes its position the best and it links Iran to its Cultural cousins in Central Asia and the Caucasus. Moreover Middle East is a very Eurocentric terminology and is defined from the position of the West. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The article

No serious efforts have been made to condense certain portions of this article, particularly the history section. I am going to begin condensing it. The article is rich in information, but it is too diffuse and cluttered to be seriously considered for FA. Moreover, I think we need to go over it to fix some grammar. I hope others will make serious efforts as well. I just condensed the Mossadegh/Pahlavi section; I don't think it lost any valuable content, despite the fact that I was able to shred off 2 entire paragraphs. -Rosywounds (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Before I make such a radical change, I was going to come here to discuss. Would anyone oppose to merging all of Iran's pre-Islamic history into one section and Arab Conquest until the Safavids into a second section? And then, we could merge Pahlavi era/Operation Ajax with post-Islamic Revolution and just have that like a section on modern Iran. Right now we have 6 headings under history; those merges would put us down to 3 (which, quite frankly, is more than enough). -Rosywounds (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with U. I give you my full support.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the size of the history section is too large to nominate the article for FA status. At the same time, I suggest we move any details to the main articles so nothing is lost in terms of past contributions.69.116.247.26 (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

to 07fan about Persia

Iran has been Iran since the Sassanid times and you can see this name on Iranian coins and documents. Persia was not used in Iran. Untill the begining of the 20th century it was erroneusly used by the Western countries and nowadays the Iranian Americans call themselves Persian instead of Iranian, mainly due to avoid hostile behavior by the Americans there. Other than that the name has no added value. Im not going to revert your editions because they are harmless (bald letters were not necessary though). Just to let you know thast Iran is correct and Persia is wrong. Strictly taken Persia is only Ostan-e Fars, a region South Western Iran.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Iran's map color

Please read the discussion on US map color here. Basically, it says that red is not neutral for a map color. I suggest we change permanently Iran's map color from red to green (as it has always been). SSZ (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to change that once but my edit was undone.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh its a country! I'm sorry I thought Iran was a giant lake of fire, what with the 'Death to the Zionist Entity' and all.--mitrebox (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it supposed to be ajoke or is this what you have learnt in your elementary school?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Cities

The Major Cities section shouldn't contain a list of cities with information oon them. I'm going to rewrite it so it is the way it is supposed to be, i.e. in prose and mentioning about four or five cities not 8!Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

answer to inferno abt Russia and Kazakhstan

you said that Iran has no borders with Russia and Kazakhstan and that if we include them then we should also include other states (in the Souths). Dear friend, you should notice that the Caspian Sea in different than the Persian Gulf. Aside from the territorial waters Persian Gulf is an international body of water. Therefore Iran is separated by international waters from Oman and UAE. But Caspian see in not international waters. it is an internal sea (lake) and belongs to the litoral states. There is no agreement on the division of oil resources, but the internal sea character of it is not in doubt. Caspian sea is therefore can be seen as territory/condominium of the litoral states. Therefore Iran has borders with Kazakhstan and Russia but not with those Arab statelets you proposed.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The statement that "There is no agreement on the division of oil resources" is incorrect and absurd and testifies to an utter ignorance of the international law at best. Iran has an agreement with Soviet Union (1921 and 1940) that the resources of the Caspian Sea are to be divided equally between Iran and Soviet Union. When Soviet Union fell apart, Russian Federation publicly announced that all international agreements binding for Soviet Union would remain binding for the newly independent states (legally, this falls under the heading of "the principle of the succession of states"). This naturally includes the aforementioned agreement between Iran and Soviet Union concerning the resources of the Caspian Sea. The much trumpeted claim that resources of the Caspian Sea should be shared equally between all the nations bordering on the Caspian Sea is devoid of any legality — it is just an unfounded claim and worth nothing (similarly as regards the lie that "There is no agreement on the division of oil resources"). Legally, Iran has and maintains the right over 50% of the Caspian-Sea resources and all the other nations (i.e. members of the now defunct Soviet Union) bordering on the Caspian Sea should come together and decide on how to divide the remaining 50% between themselves; Iran has no role to play in this decision making. If it is true that Islamic Republic of Iran is now aiming at 20% share of the Caspian Sea resources (which I doubt), then there is no word to describe such act but betrayal of Iran's rights. It seems that the old Russian Imperialism in Iran is still alive and well! It is ironic that on the one hand Iranian authorities constantly issue anti-imperialistic slogans against "the West" but at the same time seem (as I indicated above, I doubt that Iran would rescind her above-mentioned treaty with the now defunct Soviet Union) intent on selling out to "the North", just as Iran did in the 19th and the first half of the 20th century (above all else, one should not forget the shameful Golestan and Turkamanchai treaties which were nothing but overt sell outs). Those interested, and not suffering from intellectual indolence, may deign to make an Internet search on the subject matter. See, for instance: [15]. --BF 23:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes this is what I say, while there was a contract diving 50- 50 % after the collapse they do notagree on this. Then Iran came with a formula of each 5 litoral get 20% but they want t give Iran only 11-13 % which is unacceptable. The best thing is 50% for Iran and 50% to Russia as an heir of the USSR, if Russia wants o give the litoral states their share, each get 12,5 % , but then I ask why nt divinding on 15 republics? Because the whole USSR and not only the litoral states got 50%.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You did say "There is no agreement on the division of oil resources", which I maintain not to be true! People may say all sorts of things, but the fact is that the issue has to my best knowledge never been referred to any international court for arbitration. When last year President Putin was visiting Tehran, almost all newspapers where parroting the same misinformation (the same misinformation in your above text), which is sad. You cannot play into the hands of a host of illiterate journalists (excluding Simon Jenkins of The Guardian for whom I have the highest respect) who increasingly reproduce the texts handed down to them by the officials whose motivations can be anything but pure. It is clear that Russia and all her former republics want a bigger share of the resources, but this does not mean that what has absolutely no basis in the international law (the link I presented yesterday makes this abundantly clear) should be given credence on the Wikipedia pages. --BF 19:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

With reference to the above discussions, I should like to propose that the above facts (most clearly discussed in [16]) be brought up in the Wikipedia entry of Iran, lest the fiction of "There is no agreement on the division of oil resources" be made into reality before long. --BF 19:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

well u are right maybe the better formulation was that there is a pact/ contract but the former Soviet Union do not respect it. Unfortunately Iran is too "soft" towards them. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that if International Law counts for nothing, then Iran should also declare the Golestan and Turkamanchai treaties as void. To get an impression, you walk over the Aras River, and you will see places like these that Iran lost through these shameful treaties: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. Recall that these treaties were made between two dynasties which no longer are in existence! And I am serious in saying that should Iran's 50% get reduced to 12%, then Iran should absolutely renege on these two treaties, or at least make them part of a grand re-negotiation of issues by which 50% should get reduced to 12%: if the situation on the ground has changed to the degree that 50% can get diminished to 12%, then nothing else should be held as inviolable. It should never be a one-way street, otherwise they should be open with the people and put boards on the borders and openly announce "For Sale". As for Iran being "too soft" on these issues, Iran, like any other country, consists of people and if the people in charge are soft it must be owing to the ignorance of the general population of Iran of some basic facts of their history. Insofar as I can recall, the history books from which I learnt history of Iran (ages ago), did only mention the names of the above two treaties; the contents of these treaties were never disclosed to us. If this is the level of knowledge that one may assume of the people of their history, then this so-called "softness" (which seems to me to be indicative of a softness of their collective mind) does not come as a surprise. Of course, Iran having pushed herself into her present position, Russia can dictate whatever she wishes and who can blame them for that? Iran was in this position a century ago, and like an abused individual seems not to be able to avoid falling back into the bosom her abuser time and time again. Kind regards, --BF 21:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Our problem is that today there are people in Iran and Persheeyans in the USA who feel more at ease with Arabs and Pakistanis than with the real Iranian world. Ask them abt Ganje and Teflis they will shut up, ask them abt Dubai and they will BS for hours--Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Babakexorramdin, I do not subscribe to the sentiments as expressed by you. Humans are humans, no matter what their origin, race, sex or religion. We are all members of the same family, namely the great family of humanity. We are all brothers and sisters and should see each other's diverse cultures and religions as asset and not as liability. As it happens, I have come to know people from all corners of the world and have not noticed any fundamental difference between any of them; through our differing cultures and backgrounds we naturally respond to things differently, but on the most fundamental level we are all the same beings, whether Persian, Arab, Jew, European, African, etc. Amongst the people that I have known have been three Arabs, and I count them amongst the most kind and courteous people I have ever known in my entire life (when I once told to one of them of the name of my late mother, his immediate reaction was "What a beautiful name! I shall give that name to my child if it turns out to be a girl"). Love for Iran and Iranian culture should not blind us to the richness of other cultures. With reference to Pakistanis, to whom you explicitly refer, two things deserve mentioning. The owner of the Kebab shop in my area is a man from Pakistan. From the first time that he met me until today, whenever he sees me he calls me "my brother" — and he started doing this on knowing that I was Iranian (I have never seen him calling any of his other customers as his brother or sister). Secondly, please find some photographs of Pakistan, and you will immediately notice that as an Iranian you are able to read all the things on the boards hanging in the streets (the same applies if you look at similar photographs from India). You may not be aware of it, but prior to the rise of the British Empire, Farsi was the official administrative language in India (and Pakistan was until some 60 years ago part of India); all official documents in India were written in Farsi and the aristocrats spoke Farsi at home. Did you know that the mother of the late Benazir (Bi-Nazir) Bhutto is an Iranian from Isfahan (to be explicit, from Nasr Abad — see the website of Mr Mohammad-Ali Abtahi, the former Deputy of President Khatami: [22])? She speaks fluently Farsi in pure Esfahani accent! Have you read the Persian poetry of Pakistan's national hero Mohammad Iqbal? (In Iran he is best known as Eqbal-e Lahuri, Eqbal from Lahore.) If not, please do that and you will notice that his poems rank amongst the finest of the Persian poems (when I was young, I knew several of them by heart). The point I raised above was aimed at bringing up the fact that as a nation we are generally uneducated in our own history. For instance, I am not aware of any Iranian newspapers ever making a point that Iran's attempt to raise 12% to 20% goes against the very fact that according to International Law Iran already owns 50% of the resources of the Caspian Sea. With kind regards, and above all, please never look down on other people! --BF 06:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Babakexorramdin, with reference to what you mention concerning Ganje, it seems that the people to whom you refer must be illiterates. Have they not read the works by Nezami-ye Ganjavi? Nezami comes from Ganje (Ganjavi literary means "from Ganje") and if some Iranians have never read Nezami-ye Ganjavi, I have no choice but call them utter illiterates. I have just checked it, and Nezami has already a Wikipedia entry: Nezami (coming from so-called Ganja). Kind regards, --BF 07:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Behnam, I have no intention to discriminate Arabs or Pakistani nor are we talking about the Kebab shoop in your neighborhood. We are talking about the geopolitical disorientation and as you said the illiteracy. I do not mean it in a literal sense though. Yes too many Iranians do not know what is the Iranian world. The anti-Iranianist lobby in the West and the Persheeyan/ persian TVs in Los Angeles are contributing to the propagation of disorientation. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Babakexorramdin, I apologise since I appear to have had misunderstood you. I am not living in the USA (so that "Persheeyan/persian TVs" are just black boxes to me), nor do I get my information about history from a TV station — although in the past I have seen some so-called history programs on some TV channels; they all look like opiates to me, as they take the information that covers at most half an A4 page and stretch it to a program lasting for one hour, enacting all the minor events in hazy images accompanied by some trashy background music (as though people had no imagination); have always wondered who would watch such trash, but apparently some do. It is perhaps time for someone with the right intellectual attitude to build a nice blog in which to discuss matters worth discussing, while managing to leave aside party-political issues which so much polarise Iranian community abroad; my personal experience is that in most of the blogs Iranians just exchange insults with one another, a pretty miserable state of affairs I must say. Incidentally, sometimes ago I put a message here: [23] which you might like to read and act upon. In the meantime I have also written to TehranAvenue, offering to write a comprehensive piece on the subject matter, but they have thus far failed to even acknowledge receipt of my letter (a very typical habit of Iranians). Kind regards, --BF 22:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Its good to know where is the source of this misery. One more thing to add is: There have been some attempts in order to prsenet the Iranian history and culture to the public, but unfoprtunately some Iranian political groups notably the monarchists tend to hijack them and contaminate them with nonsense. E.g. if someone writes down an article about the past achievement of Iranians in the Achamenid or Safavid etc... period then there are always empty-headed monarchists who steal that article and put in their website and claim: " You see monarchy is a good thing.". If you write about the Kurdish language, some Fars ethno-nationaliaist will write: " You see Kurds do not exist, they are just Sunni Fars/Persians". If you write osmething on the Turkic-speaking Iranians, then some Pan-Turkists/ (with their American and israeli supporters) will write: "Sumerians were Turks" and nonsense like this. Violation of Iranian culture and history is a widespread phenomenon and the anti-Iranianist lobby is strong, but there is no reason for keeping silent. the independent scholars should always do their best in order to resprent the Iranian Culture and History as it is.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Babakexorramdin, few short remarks. As you may know, the official policy of Wikipedia is that if you (or anybody else for that matter) feel that others should not be using your text, you should not write it for Wikipedia. It is therefore a given that when you write something for Wikipedia, you must assume that others will use your text in a manner that suits them best and you have nothing to complain about. If you wish to maintain your copyright on your written text, you should, for instance, create your own blog and type at the bottom of each page "Copyright"; this allows you to sue anybody who without your written permission uses or abuses your text. Therefore my suggestion would be that if you feel strongly about certain matters, you (possibly with the aid of some of your like-minded friends and colleagues) set up a weblog and copyright your material. As it stands, your complaints are and remain just expressions of your personal frustration; legally, you are nowhere. As for "the source of misery" to which you refer, it is a question which sociologists, anthropologist and historians are best placed to answer. Although I am neither, I have a theory for that; being an untested theory, it is however worth nothing. You can gain some insight into this issue by reading a report that CIA has written in 1977 about the Iranian society (this top secret report was made public in 2000), which is very insightful as to the way in which Iranians interact with one another. For details please consult the New York Times file: [24]. At present I do not recall whether the above-mentioned CIA file is included in this batch or not (I do however recall that I read that report around the same time as I was reading this batch). Finally, I propose that we close this discussion here, as the correspondence is becoming almost a book. Kind regards, --BF 22:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC).

who was talking abt wikipedia? read my message. I was talking abt Media in general (also radio tv) and hence weblog is of no use. It is not a legal issyue, it is an issue of attitude. And an advice to you: listen more to people before condemning them too easily.

Maybe I am a hitorian/sociologist/ anthropologist, maybe I am not. Does not matter. I know what I am saying.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Babakexorramdin, you are already showing the very symptoms about which you were/are complaining: you are being aggressive towards me, while at no point over the course of the past days have I been disrespectful towards you. Please read your text and realise what I mean ("read", "listen", etc. — you may not realise that I may be as old as your father, if not older). Furthermore, I do not believe that I "condemned" anybody; I only said that Iranians rather than talking to each other on blogs, exchange insults with each other (you yourself have already taken the first steps towards that goal). This is an observation that you can readily verify; I have seen exchanges which I have not felt able to read, so debased is the language that some of these compatriots use. To be frank with you, I absolutely do not understand why you have felt necessary to respond to my utterly respectful texts in the way that you did? (I told you earlier that the TV's that you mention are black boxes to me; as a matter of fact, I have come to see almost all of the traditional news media as utterly useless; the level of their analyses and commentary is substandard and appalling — I get almost all of my information about the world from blogs that I consider good and reliable.) As for what the media do, it is nothing new; manipulating information has been one of the first things that humans mastered and brought to perfection almost immediately after they became bipedal. Complaining about this phenomenon will change nothing, except that after complaining one may feel better. You can bring about change by countering the flow of dis- and mis-information. Send letters to newspapers (each newspaper has a readers' column), send e-mails to TVs (all TVs have a public-relations department), make appropriate programs and put them on YouTube, etc., if you feel that someone is spreading lies. Being disrespectful towards me will change nothing, not least because of the fact that never in my life have I been party to any conspiracy; have not sold my soul (at least not yet) to any group or organisation — am only a great believer in the primacy of human dignity. In the event that you may wonder, I deeply feel about all my compatriots, no matter what their beliefs or political preferences; also even talk of aggression against Iran sickens me to the core of my being. Somewhere I also referred to "(a very typical habit of Iranians)". For the record, it was I who wrote a letter to Majlis in Tehran asking them to donate an appropriate photograph of the building of Majlis to Wikipedia. Did they acknowledge receipt of my letter? No! (My e-mail system is capable of tracing the trajectory of my e-mails, and I know for certain that they have received my letter.) Did they donate a photograph? No! If you check the history of the photograph of Majlis, then you will realise that as late as two days ago I saved it, for the second time, from being deleted from Wikipedia. Compare the quality of the entry on Majlis of Iran with that of the American Congress. Do you see any difference? If yes, then that shows you how great is the distance that we Iranians must still go. You will realise that an appalling entry on Majlis only strengthens the hands of those who seek to portray Iranians as barbarians (as recently as a week ago, standing on the other side of the Persian Gulf, the American President juxtaposed Iran and Al-Qaeda, naming them as the greatest dangers that the world now faces!). I should say, rather than getting worked up about the petty "Persheeyan/persian TVs", make an effort and improve the quality of the Wikipedia entry on the Majlis. Wish you success. This is, incidentally, my last correspondence with you. --BF 08:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I offended you, but to be honest I experienced the way you responded a bit disrespectful, trying to teach things and not listening. I appologize if you did not have such intentions. On the Majles (I wont write it down as Majles): I am not an expert on that issue, but If I can do something please telle me. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

IRI section

The Islamic republic section should have more information about more recent history. I shall add MAJOR events up to 10 years ago. Please do not add anything insignificant which is mentioned before e.g. new sanctions.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Milestone

The Iran page has reached a milestone in it's history. For the first time in years this article is now UNDER 100kb long. We shouldn't let our efforts go to waste and we should maintain it and even shorten it further.

I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the article, either by adding text, or removing non-POV, too dettailed, irrelevant or incorrect and non-factual text.

I also suggest that we merge the Safavid,Af... section with the Pahlavi era section.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Saddam's reasons

Saddam's reasons for attacking Iran is described in great detail on this page, but they are not explained on the History of the Islamic Republic of Iran page. I thought that the main articles should be more detailed? I thought that sections with main articles are supposed to be more general?

I will transfer the text to the History of the Islamic Republic of Iran section. The reasons of Saddam's strike are not part of our history, rather the politics of Iraq.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Geography pic

Which pic would you prefer in the Geography section?

File:Asiatic cheetah.jpg

Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the latter; it seems more appropriate than a wildlife picture. Moreover, it shows snow and the mountains, which would help dispel myths that Iran is entirely desert. -Rosywounds (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought that too. Wildlife isn't even mentioned in the section. I have seen at least two FA articles which have satellite images (Japan & Canada)Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC

I think we have now addressed almost of Iran's problems(the article!;-)) and so I now nominate it for FA. I hope it is accepted.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Bold text

Safavis-pahlavi merge

I have tried several times to merge the Sfavid, Afshar, Zand and Qajar period with the Pahlavi section. It is obvious that these two periods of Iranian history are connected. In both sections colonial powers influenced Iran greatly. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be merged. Both sections are relatively small. Also the other sections span over 1000,800 and 900 years and it seems odd if this section only has 400 years of Iran's history. If we merge these two sections it will span nearer to 500 years which makes it more balanced.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You can make a title like Monarchy in the modern period etc... or the Iranian Shia monarchy.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Some general remarks

Dear All, I wish that the intention to nominate this entry for FA would have been announced publicly and clearly so that interested people would have had chance to comment on its contents and quality. Below I present some of my comments which as yet may be incorporated into the main text:

(1) Concerning "settlements dating back to 4000 BCE", I believe that the correct figure should be 5000 BCE. This is based on the fact that Avesta is already considered to be 7000 years old. See the book by Siāvash Avesta (Hasan Abbasi) "Ā'ín-e Avesta — Haft Hezar Sal Pishineh Tammadon". The third printing of this book is dated "7024 Ā'ryāí-e Mitrā'i". Personally, I do not know how reliable these dates are, however, 7000 years is in very good accord with the recent archaeological findings in Tangeh Bolaghi and Darreh Bolaghi. Consult for instance: 7000-Years-Old Mass Grave Discovered in Bolaghi Gorge, Life Goes Back to 10000 Years Ago in Bolaghi Gorge. That these cannot be Iranian propaganda is testified by the fact that the last-mentioned mass grave has been uncovered in collaboration with a group of German archaeologists. For details, please consult:

• Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (German Archaeological Institute), Iran: Darre-ye Bolāghi (in English).

(2) The title "Supreme Leader" is a mistranslation; according to real experts, it must be "Supreme Jurisprudent"; "Supreme" for Velāyat and "Jurisprudent" for Faqih (recall Velāyat-e Faqih). In case of doubt, please ask about the details from Professor Juan Cole (University of Michigan). His blog Informed Comment is one of the best and most authoritative on matters related to Middle East in general and Iran in particular. The other person who may be consulted on this matter is Professor Farideh Farhi (Independent Scholar and an Adjunct Professor of Political Science at University of Hawai'i, Mānoa). In my opinion, she is one of the most qualified authorities on all matters Iranian. She regularly contributes to Informed Comment: Global Affairs. As an aside, you may ask her (as well as Professor Cole) to be kind enough and comment on the contents of the present Wikipedia entry on Iran and possibly suggest improvements.

(3) The punctuations in the present entry are not perfect. What does the comma following citation [9] do? Further, when a citation is given at the end of a sentence, it must follow the closing dot; as it stands, citation [4] is correctly placed, but citation [8] is not.

The above were my comments for the time being; I shall return if I have more to say. In the meantime you may ask that the reviewers put reviewing the entry on hold until further notice (i.e. until various shortcoming are corrected). With kind regards, --BF 22:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC).

Euphemism

Can I infer from this [25] that "urban settlement" is the new euphemism of civilization? --Pejman47 (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry too much. The statement has been reverted to state the obvious: the 6 thousand year 'continuity' of the civilization(s?) in Iran. 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Maps, Military section, Geography section, and recent edits

I counted at least 10 maps of Iran for the entire article. May be we can replace some with pictures? I also merged the military section with the paragraph about foreign relations as per other similar articles: See Japan (featured), USA and others.

I also moved the geography section up for same reason. See Iran on the French Wikipedia (featured).[26]

I remember that a while back someone re-organised the sections to the current form(i.e. Etymology, history,politics, geog, admin divisions etc.) and everyone thought it was a great edit. I don't think this change is the best change. But something could be done about the admin divisions and geography. Maybe a merge? Thank you for your enthusiasm and contribution. Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Contributions to Science

I wonder if it's vaild at all to discuss Iran's contribution to science and technology relying on the example of Persian scientists who live and work outsied Iran, and who are probablly all of them citizens of Western countries. I think since the article is on Iran, it should stick to what's inside Iran. If you want to discuss the work of these scientists, I think it should be in a section on "Iranian Immigrants in the West", or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.69.1.21 (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The history section is too big

We need to trim it further. We need to MOVE the rest to the main articles. I am not a "specialist" of the history section but I think we should give a clear mandate to those who are able in that field.

I think triming 30% of the section would be appropriate. NO INFORMATION WILL BE LOST (JUST MOVED TO THE MAIN SUB-ARTICLES).

Please state your approval or opposition below. Thanks.

• APPROVE
• OPPOSE Because Iran is one of the oldest countries of the world , then it's natural for it's history section to be so long .This debate was previously discussed here Vote on trimming the History Section.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I remember this subject was discussed but I forgot there had been a vote already. Secondly, I would like to add that the recent history of Iran (1988 - 2007) has not been added yet. We should probably make some room for it also, if we want to have the article nominated for FA status. So far it was NOT included because it was attracting many trolls to Iran's page, mainly because of the news surrounding the Iranian nuclear programme (I am not sure I want to include this part as of yet for the same reason). Also people tend to report "news" and wikipedia is not for that (see WP:NOT). Nevertheless, at some point in the future, the history section will get (30%??) bigger than it is today because of it. 69.116.247.26 (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Look at the Turkey page. The Iranian article needs to have something different to other articles; a WOW factor. It needs something to set it apart. I think we should have a history section slightly larger than the Turkey one. The politics could also be shortened a little. As some of you might have noticed I started a major one-man effort to shorten it and beat it down to a reasonable size and the article was under 100KB. But instead of maintaining it's small size the information came flooding back into the article. As I have done many times before, I will show my full support to shorten the article.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment:Iran is not a special little snowflake.--mitrebox (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I think it does need further trimming, particularly the Iran-Iraq war section. Turkey and Japan both provide excellent models for countries with very ancient histories. As I had stated prior, many of these FA class country articles do not have a huge amount of headers; I think we are capable of slowly transitioning towards a merger of all the history sections. It would make the section much more fluid. -Rosywounds (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, for this article to be promoted to FA status there is no need for further trimming. But still there is some unsourced stuff in there with "awkward wording" that should be corrected.--Pejman47 (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Iran image crisis

I quickly counted the number of images in the article and we have 42!!!!! The turkey page only has 24.

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-number of images on the iran(not featured) page!

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-number of Pakistan(featured) images

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-number of Turkey(featured) images

I will remove a few of them. I shall smite whoever stands in my way!(just kidding;-)) Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Comparing it with other articles without giving any independant reason is FALLACY. I even saw that you deleted the IsmaillI picture, why? Did you know what you were doing? If only one pictue from the Safavids and Qajars should be selected, there is no other choice than him. List the images that you deem redundant here and ask for comment. If no objection was received delete them in 24 hours notice. Cheers. --Pejman47 (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree here because generally more images is a good thing. Having more than enough is never a problem. Most articles have fewer images because people don't want to go through the hassle of copyright licenses and whatnot. This is an area where more is always better. -Rosywounds (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images articles should avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other, as this happens in several paragraphs in the Iran article it might be a good idea to remove some pics. --Victor12 (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to discuss the deletion of these images. Ideally SOME BUT NOT ALL of these should be deleted:Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have an alternative suggestion - why not put the images on a rotation template so that we don't need to remove any images? Green Giant (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Great idea; but I absolutely hate the Yakhchal/flower image and the mountain/grassland picture is misleading, so let's delete them anyway.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• 
  Avestan isn't mentioned in the article. we could mention it in the culture section but it is not spoken so it is not important.]]
• 
  two maps is not good for one subsection, although it does show some important places. we could replace it with the green map which defines it's NE border or we could replace it with a picture of an artefact.]]
• 
  I added this picture but I don't know how to relabel it. If someone would volunteer I would be very happy.]]
• 
  Good picture but FOUR images are too much for a subsection. It is a bit colourless.
• He is important in history, but the question is: Is he important enough?this image is also colourless. Generally, the history section needs colour
  He is important in history, but the question is: Is he important enough?this image is also colourless. Generally, the history section needs colour
• 
  this is a good image but yet again it is slightly dull. I think it should stay.
• 
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chemical_weapon1.jpg] would show something that was happening to people and put a picture into people's minds that a war was going on
• 
  two images in such a small section is not right. Also, two scenery pictures are too much. Note that theyboth have green grass, but anyone who has been to Iran knows that Iran is not that green and I think two pictures showing green grass is misleading.
• One or two of the following images must go. This one only shows the English side of the note. Also, it is not the biggest note in Iran, there is now a 50'000 rial note too
  One or two of the following images must go. This one only shows the English side of the note. Also, it is not the biggest note in Iran, there is now a 50'000 rial note too
• 
  I think this image should stay, but it isn't what I think, it is what everyone thinks]]
• as I said before, this is only a picture of a massive hotel(not that common in Iran) built on an island not connected to mainland Iran(obviously) built by Germans. The island isn't even mentioned!
  as I said before, this is only a picture of a massive hotel(not that common in Iran) built on an island not connected to mainland Iran(obviously) built by Germans. The island isn't even mentioned!
• People have questioned this picture. I think we have two options:
  People have questioned this picture. I think we have two options:
• File:Delete the image and merge the tourism subsection with the main economy section or Leave it be until a more relative image arrives
• 
  I don't like this image. It has a wierd shade and half of it is filled with roses. This image is obviously to promote tourism or something.
• I added this image as a temporary replacement for an image with copy write issues. the culture section has three paintings and we have to remove one. We might remove this one; a great piece of art by a famous artist which is temporary,
  I added this image as a temporary replacement for an image with copy write issues. the culture section has three paintings and we have to remove one. We might remove this one; a great piece of art by a famous artist which is temporary,
• Or this one, which has been in the article for ages and won in a pole. This is also a fine specimen of art
  Or this one, which has been in the article for ages and won in a pole. This is also a fine specimen of art
• this is a good image, but one too many in such a small sports section. Removing the azadi picture would be like cutting the article's hands off
  this is a good image, but one too many in such a small sports section. Removing the azadi picture would be like cutting the article's hands off

Another image question

Which image is better?

• 
• 

Origins of carpet weaving

They predate the Persians. Xenophon is a primary source, and you cannot use primary sources without violating Wikipedia policies on OR (since you are not a scholar and do not have the expertise to critique or analyze primary sources). Further, Xenophon wasn't alive when the first carpet ever was ever made, so its a weak example for this situation. Even more, the Greeks assumed all innovations by Easterners to be of Persian origin, since that was the ruling class. [27] History of carpet making is too obscure to be claimed by one group. The previous wording was so flowery I thought Mohammad Reza Pahlavi wrote it. -Rosywounds (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The oldest known known carpet of the world is Scythian origin. Then there is Baharistan carpet of Sassanids. I suggest this sentence from the above link you brought be modified and put in there: "There is no doubt, that even Iranians can’t claim to have produced the first hand-made carpets, but the evidences specially finding carpet named “Pazirik” proves the great role of Iranians in creating this valuable art.". We can say that "There is no consensus on the origin of the first hand-made carpet, but the disocvery of the “Pazirik” carpet proves the great role of Iranians in creating this valuable art". --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with Iranian contributions to the art being mentioned. We can include that. I don't think we should definitively say that we KNOW that the Persians were the first to make them, though. The wording should also remain neutral if we wish to present it. -Rosywounds (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I agree we do not know who made the first one..So I included the neutral wording above. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)