Talk:Iran

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

Grammar

Specifically: - Incorrect: "Different than" - Correct: "Different from" - - Incorrect: "None were" - Correct: "None was"

EDIT REQUEST: 2009 Elections

The part about the 2009 elections is clearly not neutral and hides some information in order to discredit the green movement and support the regime's thesis.

"The European Union and several western countries expressed concern over alleged irregularities during the vote,[129] and many analysts and journalists from the United States and United Kingdom news media voiced doubts about the authenticity of the results."

This is really not fair to only write this, if you want to talk about people expressing concerns over alleged irregularities during the vote, you should firstly talk about us (Iranians) first. Cinema directors (for example Jafar Panahi, Mohammad Rasoulof), usual citizens, bloggers, journalists, politicians, sportsmen (Karimi, Nekounam and most of the National Iranian Football Team during the game with Korea), actors (Pegah Ahangarani, Ramin Parchami), classic musicians (Mohammad Reza Shajarian), even Basijis themselves (see the Guardian's interview with defected Basijis, see Amir Farshad Ebrahimi, and many others...), & also people among the Iranian diaspora all said the votes were fraudulent. The most relevant file is the letter from the Interior Ministry exposed everywhere in Iran and even showed by Marjan Satrapi and Mohsen Makhmalbaf in European Parliament: http://news.gooya.com/politics/archives/2009/06/089337.php showing the real votes (Mousavi won with 20,000,000 votes followed by Karroubi who had 14,000,000 and Ahmadinejad only had 5,500,000). Mohammad Asghari, the employee exposing this letter was killed just after doing it !! (see http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF_%D8%A7%D8%B5%D8%BA%D8%B1%DB%8C ). You should also talk about the number of journalists arrested just before the elections, if everything was right then why so many arrests just before the elections ?? (You can see the names here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Iranian_presidential_election) You should also talk about the number of votes going down: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FakeResults_Iran.jpg You should also write that it is impossible to count 40 million votes in 2 hours. You should talk about the fact that during these 2 hours, the percentages stayed the same !!! You should talk about the fact that provinces that used to boycott in majority suddenly began to vote for the conservative party ! You should talk about the fact the green protests gathered millions of people while pro-ahmadinejad protests took people from all over the country with buses and couldn't even gather 100,000 people ! Unfortunately, I cannot edit the article, that's why I say "you". <

"Independent polls have not contradicted official turnout of 2009 election, which gave around 60% of vote to Ahmadinejad."

That is a joke and an insult to anyone living in Iran. I oppose the whole regime but if I am called asked if I do, I will obviously say I don't !!! You guys should start putting yourself into contexts before saying something and stop being naive ! This "independent poll" (only one) was made MONTHS after the elections, after Khamenei said anyone opposing the elections will be repressed harshly and hundreds were killed and thousands put into prison and tortured including some of my closest friends for contesting it ! What do you expect people to say ? Plus, on the phone ! That is ridiculous. And I suggest you to watch this video at 26:50 and you will understand what I am talking about http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/general/2011/11/2011118122637129536.html

Vote

The user Iranic has since a few days ago (a few weeks to be exact) has added a link on the top of the page that state "This article is about the modern state of iran for 'historical uses' see Greater Iran"

I find this addition inappropriate on multiple grounds:

1)Such a reference at the top of the article gives the wrong impression in that it makes it look like Iran's history is really that of this made up concept of "Greater Iran", perhapse advocated (if not entirely taken out of Context by Iranic) by a recent Professor Richard Fry Nelson. Iranic's reference is basically insinuated from Nelson's "footnote" on the link that the user Iranic uses. I believe it is a miuse of Fry's text as Fry really is referring to Iran's challenges through the ages at the expense of political and social changes of the imperial powers and the cultural signature it has left on its surrounding neighbours. He by no means intends to imply that Iran is part of this made up entity of Greater Iran which at best is a Cultural not a political concept. (This much is clear from UN, and CIA fact sheets). Furthermore this addition also has a pan-Iranian or even anti-Iranian implications all of which are highly suspect and possibily insinuate agendas not suitable for this article. This article is simply about the nation of Iran as a political entity, and its history is that mentioned in the section "History" section. I even had no issue with this user using this tag in the History section. Iranic however has a tendency to bolden text and alter them based on a few sources only. For instance he simply picks on a source that looks like an outdated paper by Frey Nelson and is possibly used out of context.

2)Technically this attribution is improper and misguiding. The page to which it link the so called "Great Iran" is a page I believe made or heavy contributed to by Iranic and I checked the sources in that page and the content and it is basically mostly baesed based on personal experiences and original research rather than actual facts (WP:original research)

3)If such an addition is made to this article it should not be done through one user's persistent reversal of other people's addition into his own version: Namely Iranic's change of the header without any regard for other peoples' input simply citing a few outdated sources. It is clear that if I continue to reverse his addition he will simply go into a reversal and edit war which seem to, in large, plague Wikipedia. He also has a tendency to change data which seems to contradict his assertion. (For this see the recent changes in the page "Greater Iran" after I reversed his addition here citing that it is a "Cultural Continent" citing Encyclopedia Iranica which is at best questionable as a source. Upon feeling that his argument is questioned he went to the page Greater Iran and erased some data and changed the content to match his own assertion). Again I intend not to question his objectives or his impression but I disagree with his changes as they seem to be based on personal experiences rather than actual sources.

4) Wikipedia governs by the principle of the MOST COMMONLY AND WIDE SPREAD facts based on valid sources. Neither of which this concept of "Greater Iran" offers. It seems on the surface to advocate Pan-Iranianism but in reality it minimizes Iran's contribution and blocks direct access to a good historically accurate and eclectic source. (see Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Article titles).

5)A quick search of Google books shows only Nelson as the author and also offers an interesting link showing the dangers of this type of newly created concepts. See [[1]]

Therefore instead of petting myself against user Iranic I invite you to let us know whether you believe this addition on the top is warranted or not: If you agree please let us know by reflecting your opinion. But please do not turn it into an argument. I like to hear from you and we will have a consensus in a few days time hopefuly.

So what should we do, erase the link it for its problems, or keep it? Share with us your OPINION (does NOT matter if you are a established user or not. This is everybody's encyclopediae) Dr. Persi (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not waste my time or yours over this. your "interesting link showing the dangers of this type of newly created concepts" is a fiction novel "this novel is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents either are the product of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously."

This article is about the term "Iran" and as I already mentioned, Iran in modern and pre modern eras has had two different meanings. Consequently what Ferdowsi called Iran in Shahnameh is not the Iran we know today. Richard N. Frye is one of the leading scholars and Iranologists and also a Full Professor at Harvard university. According to Frye: Greater Iran is the Iran which in the past so the word Iran in the past referred to the "greater Iran"

"I spent all my life working in Iran. and as you know I don't mean Iran of today, I mean Greater Iran, the Iran which in the past, extended all the way from China to borders of Hungary and from other Mongolia to Mesopotamia"

Iranic (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment While I agree with Dr. Persi in his/her concerns I see a possible way to satisfy Iranic's demands. Why not just put Greater Iran as a top link in the history section? (under "see also") I remember the same kind of discussion was made years ago on this talk page and someone argued that China and historical China were not the same and needed two different articles. The reaction was mute. I think someone also pointed to the possibility of a "hidden agenda" (which might be true) to split Iran (as the neo-con in the US have stated in their published documents). Nevertheless we must assume good faith (i think) and the above solution should be acceptable to everyone (I hope). My 2 cents. 81.62.66.15 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC).

The word "Iran" is a word to refer Iran since the Sassanid era. In that era the country which was known as Iran, was in fact the "Greater Iran". Even today in academic sources, sometimes they refer to historical and cultural Iran (Greater Iran) simply as "Iran". So, the usage is somehow ambiguous. Those readers who seek specifically for historical and cultural Iran (Greater Iran), should be able to get to their desired article. In order to solve this problem, we can add a sentence at the top of this article to say this article is about today's Iran, for historical and cultural Iran (greater Iran) in particular, please refer to the "Greater Iran". In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with that sentence, and I see no reason for its removal. --Wayiran (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Greater Ian is not OR at all. It a historically continuous fact and it's backed by lots of highly recognized reliable sources; Few are here or elsewhere such as google books and so on. If one see the history of Greater Iran article, s/he can easily realize huge number of disagreement and attacks as well against it. This has made the article be written in a very clean and encyclopedic way, so it's useless to call it a POV article. If Dr. Persi goes to more detail and say exactly what is OR and unverifiable in his opinion, I can help to clarify it as much as I can, but making general comments, since this topic have been discussed several times on many pages before, seems to be useless. --Aliwiki (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

With all respect to user:Dr. Persi, I believe user:Wayiran is right. There is nothing wrong about that sentence at the top of the article mentioning Greater Iran. In fact 09:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Iran

Could someone check the last few days edits at Portal:Iran/Intro? The page could do with some more watchers. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Heavy propaganda about Iran-Iraq war

Examples:

1. Estimates of killed Iranians range from 195.000 (official) to 300.000 (unofficial) deaths, not "500.000 to one million" as mentioned in article. There is a LINK with many reliable sources which proves that.
2. Alleged using of "child soldiers" is considered as heavy anti-Iranian propaganda (showing that Iranians don't care about lives of own children), and here in article it's prominent even by photo (highly doubtfully person is U-16) and with ridiculous claim about "95.000 dead" (?!). According Iranian laws, no person can participate army or voting under age of 16 (academic source: Iranica). Iran also officially denied that (UN source)--109.165.184.85 (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

              Iran lies, though, remember that.  I see you have fallen prey to the Iranian propaganda machine.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blocky1OOO (talk • contribs) 00:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC) 

Seeing is believing, and I don't see anything from you Blocky.--2.97.33.86 (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Culture of Iran needs attention

This article is an essential Iran-related article and needs to be reviewed by a specialist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.203.202.130 (talk • contribs)

unverifiable claim

the claim that 95,000 iranian children died in the war is from the ny times. this is not a scholarly source, and its an OPINION page from 1988 at that...are there any other sources that can verify how many children actually died? and even if this is true, which i doubt -- not because iranian regime wouldnt have deployed them -- but because no other source can confirm this -- it doesnt belong in iran wiki article. move it to iran iraq war or something.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/19/opinion/l-child-soldier-treaty-has-wide-support-697888.html?src=pm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Demographics - literacy

The article misquotes from the CIA World Factbook, stating that the literacy rate is 83%, while the source says that it is 83% in males only, 70% in females, and 77% across the entire population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.75.63 (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

philosophy

Forgot to add Omar Khayyam, Khwarzimi, Ghazali, and perhaps Nimatollahi to the list below.

"Among important contributors to philosophy in Iran are Zoroaster, Jamasp, Mardan-Farrux Ohrmazddadan, Adurfarnbag Farroxzadan, Adurbad Emedan, Iranshahri, Farabi, Avicenna, Ali ibn Sahl Rabban al-Tabari, Suhrawardi, Nasir Khusraw, Biruni, Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi, Abu Yaqub al-Sijistani, Nasir al-Din Tusi, Qutb al-Din Shirazi, Mir Damad, Mulla Sadra, Mir Fendereski and Hadi Sabzevari." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Tehranwnight34w.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Tehranwnight34w.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Tehranwnight34w.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo of the Cyrus Cylinder with Incorrect Subtitle

In the section "Pre-Islamic Statehood", there is a photo of the Cyrus Cylinder. The caption reads "The Cyrus Cylinder a document issued by Cyrus the Great and regarded by some as a charter of human rights". By whom? All the information I've found says that it is simply an account of Cyrus the Great and has almost nothing whatsoever to do with human rights. Amend this or support it with evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esterhammerfic (talk • contribs) 15:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)