Talk:Iranian etiquette

The opening line of this article is not neutral. Do something about it. YechielMan 00:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is entitled "Iranian Etiquette", but that's not really what it is. It's a guide for foreign visitors on how to act in the Islamic Republic. I think this page should be merged with taarof and everything on this page that doesn't fit witht hat page deleted. Arspickles17 04:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Arspickles17[reply]

I agree. This page is completely original research and most of it is irrelevant. Take for example this sentence "Iranian officials are extremely sensitive to references to the Persian Gulf, and insist that this internationally recognized name to be used. It is highly recommended to avoid using 'the Gulf' and especially 'the Arabian Gulf' when addressing this body of water as it has throughout history been called the Persian gulf." It has nothing to do with Iranian etiquette, it is probably original research as well. Another example is "Western music and dancing is also banned in Iran. However, the visitor may notice that even shared taxis openly play the music of their choice." This has to do with Iranian laws or maybe culture, but definitely not Iranian etiquette. I am not sure that much of it can be salvaged though. Agha Nader 02:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]

OPPOSE Taroof link is clearly given. I don't see any "original research" in this article.

Please elaborate on your "oppose" vote and respond to the examples I have given of OR. Please read WP:OR, it states "original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position". There are no published sources cited in this article. The information in the article is solely the views and experiences of the author. Furthermore, WP:OR defines original research as an edit that "introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position". You say you don't "see any 'original research' in this article", do you see any sources cited? If not, then it is original research. Agha Nader 23:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]

OK, regrading the Persian Gulf , it is a fact that the National Geograpic and others had to appologize because of it. What IS needed are citations but this is NOT in any way "original research" as you say (Google "persian gulf national geographic"). It's the same for music and western dancing. Another person said above: "This article is entitled "Iranian Etiquette", but that's not really what it is. It's a guide for foreign visitors on how to act in the Islamic Republic" Well, that's exactly the definition of what etiquette is.

I am sorry, I guess I should just take your word for it. I mean you are so convincing that the exact definition of "etiquette" is a "guide for foreign visitors on how to act in the Islamic Republic". But really, you will have to provide evidence. Your testimony is not good enough. The exact definition of etiquette is "conventional requirements as to social behavior; proprieties of conduct as established in any class or community or for any occasion." Please see [1]. If you can provide a source that says the exact definition of etiquette is a "guide for foreign visitors on how to act in the Islamic Republic", then I will believe you. You will have to provide a source that "Iranian officials are extremely sensitive to references to the Persian Gulf". It is not sufficient that you provide instances of them being sensitive, (even those you give aren't sourced). Really though please read WP:OR before you comment again. Agha Nader 16:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]

Sorry, but I have nothing more to add at this point. I read your link but maintain ALL what I said before.

Please sign your name with four tildes (~). Otherwise I won't know who is posting the comment. I am sure have nothing more to add. This is because the article is purely OR, and you can't give me a reason why it isn't. Please see [2]. It says the "primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting." If you do not sustain your "Oppose" vote with arguments, then it will not count. Agha Nader 22:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]

Oppose if anything, Taarof needs to be merged in to this article --Rayis 23:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

OK reading the article I can see what the problem is. Taarof would have to be merged in here, if this article was in fact about Iranian etiquette! but it is not! but also I think it is a copy from a website which if I find I will make sure it gets deleted so it can be rewritten --Rayis 23:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]