Talk:Persians

Archives
Dec 27 2005 – Feb 27 2006 February 28 2006 – 8 Mar 2006 8 Mar 2006 – 5 May 2006 5 May 2006 – 23 December 2006

Pics

Where are the modern day pics of Persians with the afros as in ancient times? As far as I know, I can't find a tribe of Asians with afros. "300" must have been partially correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.93.188 (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

info-box=

-Don't you think there should be a reference to Afghanistan and Tajikistan in the info-box? They speak exactly the same language and have strong mtDNA similarities with east/north-east Iranians. (64.42.209.33 01:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

-New picture for info-box is needed

I::::: I disagree the people in the picture do not look very Iranian; except Kiarostami the others look more like Arab and Indian. (no offense to them). Moreover you have no proof that they are ethnic Persians/Fars. Lily Afshar is from a Turkic tribe called Afshar. Kiarostami has a Mazandarani Gilaki name. Kamran Vafa. Im not sure but I know many Azeris of this name. Babakexorramdin 00:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Seems good to me; hope noone minds the narrower version Image:Persian people 5.jpg for the sake of a leaner infobox. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks a lot.Sangak 22:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not that you should be Ok with it or not, but these persoans (with all due respect) do notr represent the Persian ethnic features. As I said ecept Kiarostami who could be an ethnic Persian (which he isnnt!), the other people (who are also not ethnic Persians!) do not look Persian but more like Arabs and Indians (no offense). My suggestion is just to put pictures from ordinary people at the streets. Babakexorramdin 09:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

@ Babakexorramdin: You write in a subtle way :-) . Please say what you want to say more direct. Some of us Iranians and Persians (even the people in the streets) look like Indians and Arabs. Part of our genetics is also black. That is fine. By the way I think you don't know what a REAL Arab should look like.

This article needs a lot of work overall and starting with the picture, it might be a good idea to do what was done with Azeris and Pashtuns, both articles I worked on and have an opening image not of famous people, but ordinary Persians. This is what most encyclopedias do and the famous people usage can be relegated to sections on history and culture instead which makes more sense. Tombseye 16:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To: Tombseye: You have switched back some of the "persian" terms to "iranian" at places that are inaccurate o at least debatable. Based on the above discussion on this page, I think the two terms should be used with care. Please discuss here where you want to apply "Persian" and where "Iranian" when referring to the history and culture of Iran. (Ghlobe (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC))

Reference to Tajikistan in the lead

Since when Persians are a minority in Tajikistan? --Mardavich 11:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That is most likely a reference to recent Persian arrivals from Iran rather than a larger socio-political statement. Tombseye 16:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

significant populations

Is for example, 2000 in Finland, really a "significant population"? I think the article will look better without such a long list of countries. --Rayis 22:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

why is afghanistan not included in the list? it is obvious to me that afghanistan has one of the most significant persian population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.84.89 (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Iranian and Persian

There is usually a recurring discussion about the use of the words Iranian and Persian. I think there should be some consistency with the instances where the words Persian or Iranian are used. The section on Terminology is useful and clear, however, when we continue in the article we see Iranian and Persian used interchangeably, moreover, if we are speaking about Persians (as in persians vs. medes) there is no way to clearly specify if individuals referred to as persians are Iranianss or specifically Persians. There has been a lot of mixture of blood between all the ethnicities in modern and ancient Iran and unless there is a consistent way of treating the two labels, we will end up misusing both of these words. I think whatever is decided on needs to be clearly explained in the article so others can use the same rules.

Some issues to consider are that the country has always been called Iran and never Persia (as stated in the article), that "Iranian" will exclude many Persians and "Persian" will exclude many Iranians. Many of the people who consider themselves persians in countries other than Iran might also not be ethnically persian, although they have the same language and culture (just like some Iranians). In the end, the article should respect all of these people and realize that in the end, we are talking about people who have very much in common and respecting this sense of unity and at the same time diversity is important.

Definite

[...] many Western sources [..] will label many non-Persian Iranians as Persians, which distinguishes nationality, not necessarily the Persian ethnic group.Also, many others who embraced the Persian language and culture are also often referred to as Persian, not necessarily meaning ethnic group, but rather as a part of Persian civilization (culturally and linguistically).

I think it's not clear to the reader when the article is speaking of the Persian ethnicity and when it is referring to people who embraced the culture (which includes all of Iranians and some non-Iranians). I also just read in wikipedia that even Cyrus was half Persian and half Mede, so now when we are talking about kiarostami or behbahani, are we using persian to mean they are ethnically fully persian? I believe there should also be more consistency between all of the pages relating to Iran, Persia, Iranian women, Persian empire, Persian people, etc. Finally, I recommend including a link to the "Iran naming dispute." It's very informative and I believe unbiased. If someone were to simply try to find out the right labels, the articles would each point the reader to a different direction. I believe the most useful pages are Iran naming dispute and Iran. --Definite 05:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Behbahani and Kiarostami are indeed persian for the simple fact that they are seen as persian by Kurds, Azeris etc (example:[1]). Persian is not a genetic/ethnic groups as Kurd are Azeri are. It is more a linguistic/cultural groups who is identified by other ethnic groups in the region as an "ethnic group". Sina Kardar 20:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I know about the fact that westeners use too often persian instead of Iranian, but the scope of this article is the Persian ethnic group. Or better said the ethnic Fars people. I am also opposed to group the Tajiks and Farswians into the same group. Articles about ethnic group, discuss always a clearcut ethnic group. Only with this article we have always difficulties due to the name confusion and that everyone sees it differently. Part of the problem are the Iranian-American community. It is unfortunate that the Iranian-Americans are not eager to use the correct term Iranian and use instead Persian every where. --Babakexorramdin 08:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic?

We should refrain from calling Persians an ethnic group. Persians are too mixed to be considered anything close to that. The main factor determining who is Persian and who is not is language. Shervink 13:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

The term ethnic may give the wrong impression, but it doesn't mean Persian is not an ethnic group. Just like how many if not all Jews see them selves as an ethnic group (ethno-religious), Persian can be seen as an ethnic group in the sense of an ethno-linguistical group --Rayis 14:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Some Jews identify themselves as a race separate from Caucasians, and nearly all Jews identify with Israel. Let me clarify that while employed at a prestigious American College I personally witnessed a few Jewish students explicitly articulate they are of the Jewish Race. Not all Jewish students identified themselves as being of the Jewish Race. These students may very well be a minority, but there are enough Jewish students that identified themselves as being of a different race to be noteworthy. Anti-Jewish bigots have also labeled Jews as a different Race in furtherance of racist causes. I am not a bigot, and think it is appropriate to disclose first-hand accounts in Wikipedia discussions so that editors may conduct their own research and incorporate independent findings that are later included in Wikipedia articles. My comment is merely a first-hand account of student responses and no disrespect what-so-ever intended. παράδοξος 04:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Persians are a fairly distinct ethnic group, related by common ancestry. All Persians do not share a common language, and the distinction is made. Persians can be of different religions and are geographically dispersed, much like Slavs. Jews consider themselves a distinct ethnic group, which is interesting because of the diaspora from Israel to Africa, Asia, and Europe thousands of years ago and a partial Jewish assimilation of their respective resident countries. παράδοξος 05:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The acope of this article is the ethnic group called Fars in Iran and is translated into persian in English. there are a lot of names' confuison. But still I think it should have been discussed the ethnic Fars, which I see is poorly done in many occasions here. --Babakexorramdin 08:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Population numbers

The upper and lower bounds for the population did not match the numbers given in the list. A simple addition gives the range 36-43 million.Heja Helweda 05:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Bold text

The ethnic Fars of the Persian Gulf Countries

I wonder how you have forgotton the ethnic Fars of the Persian Gulf ministates. They are not only the recent migrants but are also ancient ethnic groups there for example in Bahrain (a majority of people there are believed to be Fars/Persian or at least partially.

Babakexorramdin 19:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Babakexorramdin

Persian, Iranian articles Restructuring

Currently we have following articles related to this topic

• Persian people this article which refers to an ethnic group.
  • Persians is redirected to Persian people
• Demographics of Iran.
• Iranian peoples group of peoples who speak Iranian languages.
• Persian disambiguation page
• Iranian disambiguation page
  • Iranian (disambiguation) is redirected to Iranian
• Iranians which is the same as Iranian but not redirected

What is the problem?

• Wikipedia is designed to be used by ordinary people. And ordinary people when say Iranian or Persian are referring to the citizens of Iran or people from Iranian decent. But now these pages are disambiguation pages which is not necessary.
• In my opinion, Persian generally means a citizen of Iran but with current structure it is not interpreted at all.
• When we want to wikilink the nationality of a person to Iran or old Persia, none of the above articles are appropriate.

The solution

To solve above mentioned problems I think the articles should be changed as follows:

• Iranian (disambiguation) should be an indipendent article with contents of current Iranian page.
• Persian should be moved to Persian (disambiguation)
• Iranian should be dedicated to citizens of Iran and people from Iranian decent around the world.
• Persian should be redirected to the new Iranian page
• Persian people should be moved to Persian (Ethnicity). And many of unrelated stuff including the population of Iranian in other countries (which are not completely from Persian Ethnicity) should be moved to the new Iranian page.
• Demographics of Iran should be merged completely or partly in new Iranian page
• Iranians and Persians should be redirected to the new Iranian page.

Persian (disambiguation) and Iranian (disambiguation), be mentioned in the first line of new Iranian.

So what do you think? (Arash the Archer 19:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

I'm not a fan of redirecting Persian/Persians to Iranian. As a Persian born outside of Iran 27 years ago to longtime expatriates and raised completely divorced from the country of Iran my entire life, I don't feel that the adjective Persian has anything to do with Iranian people (as a nationality with 60% Persian people) or similar issues. It's nothing against Iran or Iranians, it's just a problematic blur. It was unsettling enough to see Persian women redirected to Iranian woment. If it would help, maybe there should be a careful explanation/disambiguation of the two. That's my opinion, I think the other changes sound sensible. --Bobak 23:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Population Range

According to my discussion with Ali Doostzadeh here[2], I changed the total population number. The previous total number did not match the numbers given in the table. I inivite editors to check it out for themselves. The previous range could not be derived from the table and this was damaging the credibility of a good article.Thanks.Heja Helweda 05:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

respectfully request stacking photos vertically (2X2) vs (4) in order to render infobox a smaller width. the current width of the infobox is too wide and impedes user experience. παράδοξος 03:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make it 2X2 but I think I fixed it and I think now its small enough. Also I added the names of these people with a link to them. --Behnam 07:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

FAKE history

Tired of reading fake persian history Afghanistan is not a persian speaking Country and the dari language is called Afghani not called persian this was imposed on us by biased historians and iranians. Fake history —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.5.197.224 (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Afghani is the Pashto language, NOT Dari. Dari is a form of the Persian language and was used by poets such as Ferdowsi under the name Parsi-e-Dari. During Ferdowsi's time only Pashtuns were referred to as Afghans (Avghoan or Awghoan) and thus the Afghan language was and is Pashto. The claim that Dari is the Afghan or Afghani language is totally false and was from the ruling Pashtun governments of Afghanistan. The only fake history here is the one these Pashtun governments teach and you believe. You're right not all of Afghanistan is Persian speaking, but over 50% of the population there speaks this language. So it is infact a Persian (Dari) speaking country. I am from Afghanistan myself. And please read the etiquette rules for discussion at the top. -- Behnam 04:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Tats

Just adding to the last point, why are Tats also listed as Persians? First of all there are 10,900 Tats in Azerbaijan, not 22,000. And secondly, even though Tats descend from pre-Islamic Persians who moved to the Caucasus in the 5th century, they have reshaped into a separate ethnic and cultural group by now. They are as much Persian as are Pashtuns and Kurds, and the Tat language is not mutually intelligible with Persian. It is absolutely incorrect to keep them on that list. Parishan 07:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The number you have listed here differs from the number in the Tats article. Although that has no sources, so why not bring references to back up your argument? it will make things easier to check the facts --Rayis 12:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually Tati of Caucus is SW Iranian language. It is the Tati of Azerbaijan region in Iran that is akin to Talyshi and a NW language. Tati unlike Pashtu/Kurdish is a SW Iranian language. Pashtu is SE. About the number of Tats, a 1926 survey say 28443. Unfortunately with the exception of ethnologue whose authors have admitted they hold unreliable information on Iran, I do not see any other 3rd party source right now. [3]. Although it seems ethnologue is basing itself on an 1989 census. But ethnologue has it correct that unlike Pashtu/Kurdish it is SW Iranian language. On the other hand this is from an Azerbaijani republic site (whose data on ethnicity is questionable according to some 3rd party sources): [4]. Note even Parsi's (Persians) of India are Persians even though they speak Gujarti. Also Kurds have various dialects and dialect variation does not necessarily constitute a separate group. --alidoostzadeh 17:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the last Soviet census of 1989 there lived 30669 Moslems Tats in the whole Soviet Union while 10239 were (still) living in the republic of Azerbaijan. In addition there were 18513 Jewish tats of which 5484 lived in the rep. Azerbaijan. The number of 22000 (I have seen that number in an rep. Azerbaijani site too!) could be correct when we regard the population increase and the fact that many citizens of rep. Azerbaijan which were living in other republic (e.g. Kazakhstan) have returned to their homeland. --Babakexorramdin 08:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The numbers for Tats (10,900 as of 1999) are provided here: [5]. The reason why there were more Tats in 1989 is because in the Soviet censuses (except for the 1926 census) their numbers were added to the numbers of Tat-speaking Jews, and the two were counted as one ethnic group [6], which they were not. However their linguistic relation to Persians does not make them Persian either. Just because Russian and Ukrainian languages belong to the East Slavic branch of Slavic languages doesn't mean that Ukrainians must be listed as Russians. Parishan 21:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but that census is from the republic of Azerbaijan not really a NPOV citation. Ethnologue separates Tat muslims from Tat jews and uses the 1989 census. [7]. It states 18000 based on the 1989 for Muslim tats and 24000 for Jewish tats. Also Tats are descendants of ethnic Persians, their dialect variation with standard Tehrani Persian does not make a separate group necessarily. I have spoken to a Tati person before from the republic of Azerbaijan in a forum and they consider themselves Persians. --alidoostzadeh 22:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an official source for Azerbaijan's population, and you have to concur with it unless there's a reason not to. Otherwise you can argue that all existing numbers for all ethnic groups mentioned in national censuses around the world are POV. Ethnologue obviously provides dated information on the numbers. The language of the Tats (and here your are contradicting your own source, Ethnologue, which qualifies it as a language, not a dialect) is certainly not a variety of Standard Persian because at the time Tats settled in the Caucasus, Modern Persian was not even around. But this is not important right now, since Tats should now even be on this list. Their descendance from Persians doesn't make them Persian: they developed on their own throughout centuries, underwent unique social processes and today speak a language that is distant from Persian in terms of mutual intelligibility. African Americans also descend from Nigerians, Ghanaians and other West African peoples, but we don't list them as such. And the fact that you have spoken to some unidentified Tat who considered him-/herself Persian doesn't mean that Tats refer to themselves as Persian, even if your interviewee was in fact who s/he claimed to be. Some forum discussion is anything but a valid proof. Parishan 23:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What is an official source? It is an official government source. According to Svante. E. Cornell: Whereas officially the number of Lezgins registered as such is around 180,000, the Lezgins claim that the number of Lezgins registered as Azerbaijani is many times higher than this figure, some accounts showing over 700,000 Lezgins in Azerbaijan. These figures are denined by the Azerbaijani government but in private many Azeris acknowledge the fact that Lezgins- for that matter Talysh or the Kurdish population of Azerbaijan is far higher than the official figure.( Svante E. Cornell. Small Nations and Great Powers. Routledge (UK), Jan 1, 2001, ISBN 0-7007-1162-7, pg 269). So I do not have to argue it is POV, some verifiable scholar who is more pro-Azeri has casted doubts on official numbers. And note even if this scholar did not say this, I do not have to concur with it either since no government has jurisdication in wikipedia. As per tats speaking Persian it is from an azerbaijani site[8]. It states here also the group is of Persian origin. [9]. --alidoostzadeh 23:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Travel-images.com doesn't say Tats are Persian and even if it did, it is not an ethnographic or a scientific source. It just says they speak a form of New Persian, which contradicts your other source - Ethnologue, which states Tat is a langauge and not a Persian dialect. Here's some food for thought from an independent source called Sociolinguistic Situation of the Tat and Mountain Jews in Azerbaijan by John M. Clifton, Gabriela Deckinga, Laura Lucht, and Calvin Tiessen [10]:

According to the 1989 Soviet census, 30,000 Tats lived in the Soviet Union, and of those, an estimated 10,000 were in Azerbaijan (Haciyev 1995). Many sources, however, in speaking of this people group, point out that these figures are probably low due to the fact that most Azerbaijani Tats are fluent in Azerbaijani. Grjunberg (1982:231) claims that “an overwhelming majority of Tats who live in Azerbaijan consider themselves Azerbaijanis, and the Azerbaijani language, equally with Tat, as their mother tongue” (translated from the Russian).

But like I said, the numbers for the Tats are not an issue. The problem is, the present-day Tats are not Persian, regardless of whom they descend from. All ethnic groups descend from someone but so what? You can go over the entire source and you won't find a single phrase that would imply these people are/speak Persian. So far I have named you a bunch of ethnic groups that are related to each other as much as Persians are related to Tats; but they are not considered to be parts of one another. You have not commented on them. Please provide an adequate source for your claims, otherwise they stand no chance. Parishan 03:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ethnologue says Tati is very close to standard Farsi. If you notice, ethnologue denotes dialects and not ethnicity. Tati in caucus unlike Talysh is SW Iranian language. Talysh is closer to Kurdish. For example Azerbaijani is not one dialect in ethnologue but considered a south and north dialect by ethnologue. But anyways I am refered to ethnologue only for the census section since it stated a 1989 census. Now per Tats. Tats are descendants of Persians during Sassanid era as you stated. Thus they are Persians. It is not like they went to another continent from Africa to America. Your analogy did not make sense with regards to continents. A good portion of the caucus was was Iranian speaking before Turkification and Tats are remnants of those population. The term Persian is broad and does not denote just a particular Tehrani dialect. Tats are descendants of Persians settled during the Sassanid era thus they are Persians. Much like Indian Parsi's who even now speak Gujarti(an Indian language) and not standard Persian, they dress like Indians and their food is more Indian like.. but they are Persians (Parsi). Persian is not limited to only speakers of Tehrani dialect. As long as the Tats are descendant of Persians from Sassanid era.. that is all that is needed to classify them as Persians! If you are descendant of Persians and you know you are descendant of Persians (tats say they were settled during the time of Anoshiravan), then that is all that is needed and you are Persian regardless of dialect variation or etc. So Persian is a broad term. Much like Kurdish which has various dialects (dialects of Kurdish are much further than say Tehrani Persian and Tati Persian) but they are considered Kurdish. Same with Arabic where egyptian dialect of Arabic is not mutulubly intelligble to Iraqi dialect, but they are considered Arabic people even though in this case their history is different. Also no the ethnic groups you named Kurds, Pashtu speak Iranian languages of different classification. Pashtu is NE language. Kurdish is NW language. Tati/Tehrani Persian are both SW languages (the tati of caucus is SW where-as tati of NW Iran is NW) And also Kurds and Pashtuns, both being Iranian speakers, are not descendants of settled Persians during Anoshiravan's time. --alidoostzadeh 03:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I need more than your reasoning because I already argued that listing Tats as Persians would be like listing Ukrainians and Russians, Azeris and Turks, or the German and the Dutch under single ethnic groups just because of language similarities and common roots somewhere down the road. You must provide a more or less reliable scienific/ethnographic source that states something like "Tats are Persian" instead of claiming that they are Persian because they moved out of pre-Modern Persian pre-Islamic Iran once upon a bright blue moon. So far you are basing your argument on assumptions. Parishan 05:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Again you are comparing apple to oranges. Ukrainian and Russian are Slavic. Azeri and Turks are Turkic. But Tat and Persian are not just Iranic but also Persianic (SW language). And I did provide you an example, Arab and Kurds and Parsi's of India which are geographically more relevant. So I have brought enough counter-examples. --alidoostzadeh 11:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I can draw you similar analogies: Ukrainian and Russian languages are not just Slavic, but East Slavic. Azeri and Turkish languages are not just Turkic, they both are Oghuz Turkic. German and Dutch are not just Germanic but West Germanic. Yet you don't see the speakers of those languages being called what they are closely related to. Arabs who live in Iraq and those who live in Morocco generally consider themselves Arabs whereas most Tats call themselves Tat, Daghli ("mountainer"), or by the name of the villages they come from (ex. Lahij). Parishan 00:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My friend. You arleady gave me that analogy. But I gave you counter-examples: Parsi's of India, Arabs, Kurds (who speak variety of languages some of them closer to Persian than other Iranian dialects). So one can take a minimalist approach or a maximalist approach.. the definition of every ethnicity has always had boundaries and is not clear. But Tats are Persian because they are descendants of Persians like Parsi's are. And here are some sources from Azeri sites: Isolation made Lahic a very atypical Azeri village: Tat, a dialect of an old Persian tongue remains to this day the primary language in Lahic and a few surrounding villages.[11] Instead, like everyone else who lives here, they use an ancient Persian-based language called Lahic[12] and one from National Geographic: In addition to Azerbaijani, people in Lahic speak a dialect of Persian found nowhere else, which has no written form. . [13]. Isolation made Lahij a very atypical Azeri village: Tat, a dialect of an old Persian tongue remains to this day the primary language in Lahij and a few surrounding villages. For centuries, the valley people have spoken, at various times, Azeri, Russian, Farsi and Arabic, but here in this mountain village of about 2000 people Tat remains as strong as ever. [14] and The people consider themselves to be Persian in origin [15]. Note all these where from either national geographic or Azeri site.. as long as the people consider themselves Persian origin that is sufficient. Parsi's (Persians) of India speak Gujarti (not even an Iranic language but an Indo-Iranian one of Indic family) and they are Persians (Parsi). --alidoostzadeh 01:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to read my replies carefully. I said the following about what you claim is a counter-example: "Arabs who live in Iraq and those who live in Morocco generally consider themselves Arabs whereas most Tats call themselves Tat, Daghli ("mountainer"), or by the name of the villages they come from (ex. Lahij)." You dismiss my arguments about the language because you argue that language is not an issue in determining one's ethnicity. That's fine with me, but I would appreciate if you yourself stick to your judgement and don't use the language factor as a proof. This leaves out the National Geographic. As for the Azerbaijani website; again that is not a scientific/ethnographic source and stands no chance against the 54 page research article called Sociolinguistic Situation of the Tat and Mountain Jews in Azerbaijan which I presented to you earlier, which was put together based on actual real-life interractions with dozens of Tats from all over Azerbaijan, and which not only doesn't say one word of the Tats' possible Persian self-identity but clearly states that many of them choose to consider themselves Azerbaijani. Tats are a distinct ethnic group; neither do they feel as part of some general Persian ethnic body, nor are they one from an ethnographic point of view. Parishan 04:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think what I brought above is clear. Azerbaijani is a nationality so of course a tat can be Azerbaijani and many minorities according to the source write azerbaijani on their card (perhaps to get better position or etc as I have sources with this regard as well in USSR countries). And also Tat's have been around for a long time. The word Tat itself was used to refer to Persian. Rumi's son also uses the word Tat as well in equivalent to Persian. Language is only one factor for identity as I said not all. And it is obvious Tats consider themselves descendants of Persians. So that is enough reason to classify them as Persian and of course as I said there is no real boundaries for ethnic identification. The criterion I am using is the same as Parsi's of India. They also are Indians (nationality) and say they are Indian. But at the same time they are Persian (Parsi) since they are descendants of Persians. So descent is sufficient here criterion and as I said determing ethnicity for many group is not even clear for scientists let alone lay people. But since Tats consider themselves as descendants of Persians that is sufficient. The national geographic site also says they speak a dialect of Persian. The azeri sites should support your POV but they don't. And note all that is needed is some sources to say Tat's are Persian and that is sufficient. And the main criterion I used beside the Persian dialect was the fact that Tats are descendants of ethnic Persians. That is a sufficient criterion for Parsi's of India and so it is sufficient for Tats. --alidoostzadeh 11:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Parsis are aware of their Persian identity and the linkage between them and Iran, whereas Tats for the most part are not, and no tourist website (I don't care whether it's Azerbaijani or not) can prove otherwise. I don't know how to make this clearer: I need a ethnographic source; a source by some kind of academician that proves what you claim is true, and that if you in fact approach a random Tat and ask who s/he is, s/he'll say "I am Persian." No scientific source - no proof.

2. You can call the Tat language whatever you want, but it does not qualify as a dialect of Modern Persian. An average Persian and an average Tat simply will not understand each other without undergoing language training. Even Ethnologue does not bring up any mention of Persian. It's a major linguistic difference that cannot be disregarded if you are taking that factor into consideration.

3. Azerbaijani is not only a nationality. In fact, back in the Soviet times it only applied to ethnic Azeris. If Tats choose to consider themselves that (and they don't "write" anything on their cards; in Azerbaijan ethnic background isn't mentioned on official documents, and people are considered for jobs if they are not Azeri), that should tell us something. For one thing, that they do not refer to themselves as Persian.

4. Yes, Tats descend from Ancient Persians. So what? That's what ethnic groups do - they descend from each other. But that is not enough evidence to claim that they did not undergo any change. Today Tats are called differently, they speak a different language, they lived in isolated communities for centuries, they have absorbed different cultural elements... Like I said, the only fact that their ancestors moved out of Ancient Persian over 1.500 (!) years ago is not enough evidence to claim there's no cultural, social and linguistic difference between Persians and them nowadays. Parishan 20:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Again the definition of ethnicity is not clear for any group and one can take a minimal or maximalist approach. As long as they are descendants of Persians they are Persians. Tat as a word is translated as Fars in Kasghari's dictionary. Indeed Kashghari uses Fars in Arabic and Tat in Turkish. Persian itself have various cultural, social..differences like Arabs and Kurds. There could be many criterions for defining an ethnicity and sufficient could be one of descent or dialect or etc.. Another could be of dialect. For example:Tati is an Iranian (New Persian) sub-dialect that in 1926 was spoken by 87020 people(Guido Kisch , Historia Judaica, 1961, pg 63) and also numbered several thousands; the Tats is or Tads), descendants of Persian(Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University By Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Published 1953, pg 7). So here are two valid sources and they correspond with the Azerbaijani sites I brought. It is just sufficient to note 1) some sources have mentioned Tati as a sub-dialect/dialect 2) Tats claim descent of ancient Persians of Sassanid times. 3) Tat is used in Turkih for the word Fars in Arabc in Kashghari's Turkic dictionary. Ethnic identification is not always clear (actually it never is for middle east and large groups) but I think the three criterions mentioned are enough. Tats might not be like Tehrani Persians but neither are Bushehri Persians like Tehrani Persian in every aspect. But there is sufficient enough criterion to mention them as Persian and sometimes a group is classified in multiple groups at the same time (Egyptians being classified as Arabs and also ancient Egyptians who did not speak Arabic). And finally look at the definition of Arab, it shows that there are various criterions and not just a single one. --alidoostzadeh 00:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

All credible sources clearly state that Tati language is a dialect of Persian. Khorshid 03:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That is true.. a good deal of neutral sources were brought. But in addition we noted that Tats are direct descendants of Persians who settled during Sassanid times and also the word Tat in the Turkish section of Al-Kashgari is used for the word Fars (Persian). Given the fact that there is no single definition of ethnicity is not clear for any group in the middle east and caucus, I think the above is sufficient. --alidoostzadeh 03:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your neutral sources indicate that Tats descend from Persians or speak a variety of Persian. That's not enough evidence as none of them clearly says that "Tats" is just another name for Persians living in the Caucasus. Claims such as "as long as the people consider themselves Persian origin that is sufficient" are POV and original research. If you choose to rely on valid sources, here's a scan of a 1886 Russian source where Tats and Persians are listed as separate ethnic groups. The subsequent Soviet censūs, namely that of 1926, 1970, 1979 and 1989, as well as the Russian census of 2002 identify Tats and Persians as two different ethnic groups. These are neutral sources, and you can't get more official that this. Parishan 07:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Tats speak a special Persian dialect. I brought my sources and I am not going to get into this discussion again. USSR/Russian census can distinguish between Persians immigrants from Iran and Persian-dailect speakers from the caucus. But both are Persians in the wide sense of the term. Kurds speak variety of dialects (some of them much different than Tati and Tehrani Persian) as well but they are considered one group: Kurds. Tats, Tajiks, Persian speakers and etc. are considered Persian in the wider sense of the term. There is no clear cut definition for Persian or Arab or any old element in the area. Each group has had it's own history and is defined definitely. Arabs for example speak a variety of dialects and with the exception of Arabian peninsula are mainly arabized people. Parsis of India who speak Gujarti (not modern Persian or archaic Persian but an Indian language) and migrated from Iran 1000 years ago are Persians (Parsi). So in this sense Persian dialects can not be excluded. And Tats speak a Persian dialect[16] which according to Miller resembles how mediaevil Persian must have been. Also let me note a major Iranist: Gernot L. Windfuhr, Persian Grammar: History and State of Its Study where he clearly states: Tati-Persian spoken in the east caucus and also this one: The Caucasian Jews speak a special Persian dialect, Farsi-Tat,[17]. The term Persian is not like the term Azeri, because it's history is different. It can include groups who have developed various difference (like Zoroastrian Parsi's of India who have a culture that is not exactly like the normal Shi'i Persian speakers of Iran) but are descendants from Persians. Where-as language by itself is not sufficient demoninator for example Hazara speak Persian unlike Pasis of India, but are not Persians. How one defines an ethnic group is arbitrary in many aspects and sociologists do not have one definition, but common criteria like speaking similar dialect and being descendant of old Persians is sufficient in this case. Because even Parsis of India who are descendants of old Iranians speak an Indic dialect today are listed, there is no reason to not list tats. I have put in the box that they speak an archaic Persian dialect. Heck tats are more Persian than your average Tehrani Persian speaker, since they are descendants of Sassanids Persians and speak a more archaic dialect. --alidoostzadeh 13:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethnologue defines Tat as a separate language and does not relate it to Persian or even prove their mutual intelligiblity. The linguistic assessment of the Tat that I referred to earlier doesn't either. Official demographic reports from three (!) consecutive centuries distinguish clearly between Tats and Persians (and that's never the case for Arabs, so I would recommend that you drop this erroneous analogy). Just because you made up this notion of something called "Persians in the wider sense" does not stand a chance against official sources. Parishan 23:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethnologue is not a reliable source, although it is a source. They make lots of mistakes which they themselves admit to. Just thought I'd mention that.Azerbaijani 23:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

At least it's more reliable than Travel-images.com. Parishan 23:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Arabs have different criteria. Persian has a different criteria. Hispanic is different. Spanish is different. Each historical group, specially those with long history, is different. Your demographic report (and that from imperial russia) distinguishes between immigrant Persians to the caucus and native Persians of the caucus. And no one claimed they are exactly the same. Both groups are though persians. You seem to want to apply your own criteria for any group. As long as 1) Tats are descendants of Persians (confirmed by multiple sources including republic of Azerbaijan) just like Parsis, they are considered Persians. 2) And some academic sources say they speak Tati-Persian and speak a Persian dialect, that is sufficient. Wikipedia’s policy of inclusion is about verifiability not truth. Professor Gernot Windfuhr of Michigan University is much more reliable source than ethnologue (which I e-mailed a while back and they admitted they made major mistakes for their numbers and it is run people who translate the bible and it is not an academic site and even ethnologue confirms very close to Farsi! Plus ethnologue considers Parsi's of India as different, but they are also Persian). And in the end Wikipedia’s policy of inclusion is about verifiability not truth and for me to say Tats are Persian is sufficient to just mention they are descendants of Persians from Sassanid era. I do not need the language aspect anymore, because Parsis are included as Persian with the same criteria which you have ignored several times now. Also I have seen samples of Tat and I did not have a problem understanding it, but we are repeating the same argument. I am not going to try to convince you more than this and I think it is good idea you asked Tombeyese. He also says it is really a concept that does not have clear boundaries (which he agrees with me). Note the user Tombeyese says it is hard to say and he says:as a Persian subgroup would require linquistic similarity. Now I brought the book by Persian Grammer from Professor Gernot Windfuhr and he calls it Persian-tati. [18]. So as you can see, Persian allows subgroups according to Tombeyese. That is the first point. Besides you constantly ignore the fact that Parsi's are considered Persians even though the speak Gujarti mainly. Ethnologue also says very close to Farsi (which they mean tehrani farsi). Here is another: "tati is a (new persian) sub-dialect[19]. I am not going to try to convince you since it is impossible. But Tombeyese says it can go either way , but if I can show linguistic similarity then it is Persian. And I did that. My sources have mentioned it as sub-dialect of Persian and even ethnlogue has said very close to Persian. Also do not confurse tats of Iran which speak a NW dialect like talysh and Kurdish with Tats of Caucus who speak SW Iranian dialect like Persian. I am not going to continue with this anymore, because it is repeating the same argument. But if Parsis are India are considered a sub-group of Persians, then Tats who have more similarities with your average Persian should be included. Because I am not going to have time, you have no right to remove it unless other users also agree. --alidoostzadeh

According to the last Soviet census of 1989 there lived 30669 Moslems Tats in the whole Soviet Union while 10239 were (still) living in the republic of Azerbaijan. In addition there were 18513 Jewish tats of which 5484 lived in the rep. Azerbaijan. The number of 22000 (I have seen that number in an rep. Azerbaijani site too!) could be correct when we regard the population increase and the fact that many citizens of rep. Azerbaijan which were living in other republic (e.g. Kazakhstan) have returned to their homeland. --Babakexorramdin 08:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)--Babakexorramdin 15:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Iran and this article

I see that no one from WikiProject Iran has yet given this article a rating or an importance rating. I really think that should be done soon, this article is very important. --Behnam 17:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

How is it now? I gave it a B because its a pretty good article, and I gave it high importance because an understanding of Irans ethnic composition is important in uderstanding Iran itself.Azerbaijani 17:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks alot. --Behnam 17:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox photo

File:Persians.jpg

So what's the issue with the image currently in the infobox? There seems to be multiple reversions going on, and I haven't seen any recent discussion here over why it should be removed. Please discuss and maybe we can find some middle ground. --Bobak 19:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The main issue most editors have compained about was that Zoroaster was not a Persian. --Behnam 19:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Would it satisfy everyone if we simply took Zoroaster out of the line-up? (Frankly, I thought that particular photo looked a little too much like it was from a children's story book) --Bobak 20:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at these two options, linked offsite for now:

• Three Persians (just removing Zoroaster)
• Four Persians (swapping Zoroaster with a confirmed Persian)

Do either of those work? --Bobak 20:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Bobak, I am with you, both are OK with me. --Pejman47 21:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please just remove Zoroaster from the lineup. Keep four, as that seems to be more typical on Wikipedia. And just for the record, the image creator and I did communicate a bit over user talk pages. The Behnam 05:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

All right, as per the above, I've swapped the original with Image:4Persians.jpg, in a derivative work of the original PD-self image. --Bobak 14:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, already had a revert/counter to the old one: if you have a problem with the new, anonymous photo, suggest a replacement. This is about feedback and collaboration. --Bobak 15:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's put a picture of Ferdowsi then. It is true, Zoroaster was not "technically" Persian but he was Iranian. The term Persian is not clear cut really. Sometimes it refers to Persian speakers, sometimes to Persian speakers and other dialects of Persians, sometimes it is used a geographical term, sometimes it refers to all Iranic speakers. All definitions are valid in their historical context and setting. --alidoostzadeh 18:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd definitely support Ferdowsi as a replacement, especially since his work has been quite definitive in Persian culture (being the "national epic"). Also, unlike Zoroaster, Ferdowsi himself was actually a part of the standard 'Persian culture' of the region. Although Zoroaster and his work became part of the Persian culture, he himself, being dated nowadays to around 1000 BC or before by mainstream academic sources, lived before the emergence of THE Persian culture. So I support Ferdowsi.

Of course, the article specifies "This article is about the Persian people, an ethnic group found mainly in Iran," so Ferdowsi, being from Khorasan (instead of Pars), may be argued as inappropriate. Perhaps his ancestry needs to be known, but I think speaking Persian and contributing a monumental work of literature to Persian culture in addition to probable Persianate ancestry should be enough to include him here despite living in Tus. The Behnam 19:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Persians don't just live in pars. Khorasan is a major cradle of Persian civilization as well. I am glad we agree that he should be included. So I hope we can replace it with a ferdowsi picture. --alidoostzadeh 00:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As i have noticed that there are some people who claim that Zoroaster is not a Persian, please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranians#Religious_figures . if the pic should be removed then shall the name zoroaster be removed from this article.

no, Iranian in there is a nationality. Zoroaster is completely Iranian. And it is useful to read the comments of Ali in above--Pejman47 20:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Persian and Iranian are two different things. Also, Iranian has 2 different meanings. Iranian: 1.citizen of Iran 2.Iranian peoples (Iranic people). Zoroaster was not Persian nor a citizen of modern Iran, but he was Iranian (in the 2nd meaning, since he was a Bactrian). --Behnam 21:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

please read the headings of this aritcle http://www.crystalinks.com/z.html where it stands "Zoroaster the persian prophet" btw "list of Iranians" was listed under the "persian people" and does mean to discribe persians.Balu2000 22:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, crystalinks is the exact opposite of a reliable source. Iranica, on the other hand, notes that Zoroaster was not western Iranian (such as Persian) but rather from somewhere in the East. Other academic sources are willing to point to specific regions in Eastern Iran, but that is aside from the point. The point is that Zoroaster was not a Persian person, and hence shouldn't be pictured as such. He was Iranian (probably Bactrian), but not Persian. The Behnam 19:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"Crystalinks" doesn not fall under WP:RS. I have removed the problematic photo and swapped in the above discussion 3Persians since it was also uncontroversial. Wikipedia is about discussion and collaboration, please do not remove the photo without gaining consensus. --Bobak 21:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The Behnam, doesn't that also go for Bahar Soomekh? She is Iranian, but not Persian. Parishan 23:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

While I don't know much about her, a quick look at her Wikipedia article indicates that she is a "Persian Jew." I'm not sure how that isn't Persian, though if you contest her inclusion I'm not stopping you. All I care about right now is keeping Zoroaster out. The Behnam 03:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

thumb I have made a new image for the infobox and it should solve the problems. It includes 4 ethnic Persians who are very important in Persian history. All the images used here are PD so we can use this freely. I made this very quickly at work and I will make a better one soon, so if there is any improvements or changes please let me know. --Behnam 21:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for 2 images of Achaemenian kings. Otherwise it is fine. (Arash the Archer 21:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

Ok, I will take out Darius. Who should I replace him with? --Behnam 21:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a horrible picture of Ansari, it should be replaced. Also, why is everyone in the picture bearded (except for the woman), its kind of funny and unrepresentative dont you think? It kind of promotes the stereotype of Persians having beards (they always show these angry bearded demonstrators yelling "death to America" on tv).Azerbaijani 22:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I made this quickly on my lunch break at home. I will make a better one when I get home tonight. I'll take out Darius and replace him possibly with the last Shah and I'll crop the Ansari picture. If you have any other pics to use please let me know, but please keep in mind that they have to have proper liscenses. --Behnam 22:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now uploaded a newer version of it in higher resolution and now it looks great. Previously I just used PAINT from work, but now I did properly and it looks really nice. Let me know for any improvements to be made. --Behnam 02:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good for now, none of those photos should have problems. I think this is a pretty good middle ground. --Bobak 15:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I suppose that it is OK, though I do wonder why we have two Achaemenid kings in there. Maybe Darius should be replaced by a modern woman of importance for balance? Perhaps giving women half is an undue weight of its own considering that this is about Persians (where men have been in charge most of the time), but I think that it is better than placing undue weight on the Achaemenid kings. Any ideas? The Behnam 19:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

For modern persians I suggest the following images.

File:Persian people 4.JPG

Simin Behbahani, Abbas Kiarostami, Karmran Vafa and Lily Afshar

Thanks. Sangak ^Talk 20:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but we have had this talk before these people are either not ethnic Perdsian or do not look like Persian. I do no know what is Kamran Vafa but it this picture he looks more like Hawaii, Behbahani iss Persian but looks Arab. Kiarostami is Mazandarani nut could abe seen as Persian. Lily Afhsar belongs to the Turkic tribe of Afhsar but here she looks more like North Indian. So I would say no. Moreover these are not real Hot shots, brings up some football players etc.... thanx Babakexorramdin 21:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I have found your comments a bit strange. What do you mean by "Persian looking"?! How do you know that Kiarostami is Mazandarani? How do you know that Lily Afshar is Turkic, judging based on family name?! This photo has several advantages over the one used. The number of women and men are equal. It contains both Iranian living in Iran and out of Iran. It contains leading Iranians in science, literature, cinema and music. The photo used in the article lacks all these crucial points and it only contains two kings, one poet and one tourist (this is not about science, Sir!)! Sa'di photo is not a real image. Perhaps my photo has one drawback, and that is its exclusive addressing of modern Iranians. This can be solved by one or two replacements. The photo used in the article has a major problem, and that is having US flag with the photo of Ansari. I am afraid to say that the photo used is a terrible choice. Sangak ^Talk 20:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Is Sadi's photo persian looking??! Is Cyrus photo persian looking?! Is Anousheh Ansari persian looking?! Sangak ^Talk 20:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

To begin with I think the painted pictures of Sadi and Cyrus inappropriate visually but they certainly are good enough for the purpose. As for Kiarostami: familynames countainig Kia are Mazandarani. You might argue that the familynames with Kia is also found elseweher, but Kiarostami is typically a Mazandarani familyname. And Afshar: yes based on the family name. It clearly shows her descent. As for Mr. Vafa: I dpont know his ethnic origins but he clearly does not look like a Persian in this Picture; maybe another picture is better. he is too dark for a Persian and his facial features are not persian. Simin behbahani is not too dark for a persian but she is also not an average Persian looking person. As for Ansari: I do not know her ethnic origins, but I agree with you that the USA flag might hurt Iranian feelings. But again this is about Ethnic persians all around the world. What I propose is the picture of the little girl in golgoli dress, which is recently removed from Iranian peoples article. that picture is appropriate for this section. Then another appropriate picture would be of athletes. E.g. some Shirazi athlestes such as mehrzad madanchi and Afshin peyravani Babakexorramdin 13:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Tats included in the total population (in the info-box)?

Just curious, if Tats are included in the population total while they have been classified as a sub-group in the article... then why aren't Tajiks included in the total? I think we should either include both of them in total or keep both out of the total. What do you guys think? --Behnam 03:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Tats are not a unified group. While the Moslem tats of rep. Azerbaijan and Dagestan might have been migrants from other parts of Iran, the Jewish Tats are more likely to be Khazars. There are also tats in Qazvin province who are locals of there. The Persian-speakers of Turkmenistan are also called Tat who are in fact the same people as the Persian-speakers of Khorasan in North Eastern Iran and Farsiwans of herat in Afghanistan. Tajiks however are a different people, See the discussion below. BTW I am not involved in the edition of the Box as I see it as very inaccurate anyway!Babakexorramdin 14:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy of incluison of "Subgroups"

Well let me begin this way. If the Persian-speakers of Khorasan are regarded as Persian then Farsiwan in Herat can be too. But Caution is called for Hazara. Hazara are a Mongolian or Turkic people who are lingually Persified, so strictly taken they are not Persian. Similar things can be said about the Tajiks. Tajiks (and Uzbeks) are the decendents of ancient Iranian tribes (notably the Soghdians in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan and Bactraians in Afghanistan) and Turkic tribes. These people however have adopted Persian language and do have an Iranian culture. They are therfore Iranian (and not turkic or Mongolian!) people. But They are not Persians! More strongly the Parsis of India have Persian decent, but do niether speak Persian nor have an Iranian culture. Moreover the story says that they are from Zanjan (modern day Azeri region of Iran!) and not from Southern Iran (Modern day Fars/ ethnic Persian) region of Iran (they they might have went into their ships from Southern Iran). Not for nothing is their first village called Sanjan. In the memory of their city of Zanjan! The only thing Parsis have kept from Iran is their religion. Their culture is not very Iranian, but more British with Indian elements. They spoke Gujarati once but now they speak English. Many go even that far to deny any relationship with Iran. So the level of subjective awareness (of ethnic and racial connection to Iran) among them is also not that strong. Babakexorramdin 14:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Farsiwan referes to Shia Tajiks. Yes Tajiks are descendants of Bactrians, but they are also descendants of Persians who fled Pars during the Arab invasion in mass numbers. Their culture is the same and they share the same history and heritage. Also Tajik was used as a synonym for Persian. Please the Tajiks article for more info. I do agree about Hazaras though, they should not be included. --Behnam 17:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Behnam I dont need a wikipedia article to know what is a Tajik. I have had better sources. But to clarify the myth. There has never been a massmigration of Persians into Afghanistan and Central Asia. I do not know who has made up this fable. Yes there has been migration but the nature of it was different. They were the Persian Mollas, missionary who were involved in the Islamization in Central Asia and hence the Persian language was broyght there together with islamization. About the culture I should say they (and their neighbors Uzbeks)indeed have an Iranian culture, but it is still distinct from that of Persians. Moreover their colluquaial dialects (I dont say the written language!) is deviant from persian. I think that there is more justification to categorize the Lur as Persian than the Tajiks as such! Moreover the distinct statehood and its history adds to a distict identity Babakexorramdin 18:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The fable is accepted among notable historians. Richard Frye is quoted in the article Tajiks. A Mass migration of Persians also explains the victory of Persian in the eastern Iranian lands, while the Eastern Iranian dialects perished (except for a few smaller languages). The more archaic form of Persian spoken in Central Asia is closer to Middle Persian than modern Iranian Persian, pointing to the fact that the speakers of the Eastern dialects of Persian are related to the first Persian-speakers who moved to this region. Afghans, for example, say "au" for water, comparable to the Kurdish "aw", while Iranians say "āb", based on the written Dari standard. This also points to the fact that the Modern Persian language was re-introduced to the western Iranian lands from Central Asia, where Persian had survived the Arabic invasion.

Even if we leave all of this aside, your comment still does not make sense, because the modern "Persians" are not really "Persians", but a collection of many Iranian peoples who at some point adopted the language of Fars. Remember that "Fars" is only a small part of Iran, located in the south, while the rest had its own Iranian-speaking, but non-Persian population: Medes, Carmanians (origin of the name "Kerman"), Parthians, Eossians (inhabitants of Susa), Utians (ancient inhabitants of what is now Baluchistan), Sagartians (origin of the name "Sistan", in the past known as "Sagistan"), Hyrcanians, Amardians, Arranians, etc. Some of these people spoke languages different from Persian, and some of their descendants still speak a different language: Kurdish, Mazandarani, Bakhtiari, etc. If we were to call only those "Persians" who are directly descendants of ancient Persians (assuming that there are "original Persians" left), then the actual number of ersians would be less than 15% of Iran, I guess. But the point is that everyone is considered a "Persian" who speaks Persian, and who has an Iranian (Caucasian) origin. "Tajiks" are such a people, and they can trace their origin back to early Zoroastrian Persians who fled to Central Asia, along with the entire Sassanid family. Many prominent Tajiks of past, who were not even native Persian-speakers, are considered "Persians" today: Farabi (who spoke Sogdian, as evidenced by his own writings), Biruni and Khwarizmi (whose native tongue was Khoresmian), etc. Even Ferdowsi was rather a "Tajik" than a Persian, because he strongly identified himself with the traditions and myths of Khorasan (his hero Rustam was born in Zabulistan to a Kabuli mother, his hero Siawush died in Khorasan, etc) and with the Tajik Samanid dynatsy (Ferdowsi's Shshnama was started by another Tajik poet, Daqiqi of Balkh, who was a Zoroastrian Sogdian). As you can see, it is - culturally and historically - impossible to seperate Tajiks and Persians. Keeping aside the fact that "Tajik" is a Turkic word and means nothing more than "Persian".

it is not important what Frye thinks. Frye supports a hypthesis while there are others too. I do not want to speak on the fact that the Sogdians and bactrians are most likely not exterminated by Persians, but they rather changed their language. One thing is for sure that Persian versions in Afghanistan, uzbekistana dn Tajikistan are not more archaic. there are dialects in Afghanistan and Tajikistan which are not intelligible with persian. Persian of uzbekistan however is more close to the literary standard persian. Persian of tajikistan especially is not closer to middle Persian; it has many Turkic words. The only thing they say is archaic in them is some syntaxies and the vowels. But noone has ever heared of the spoken language of the old times. The syntaxes are however evident, because most of Persian litterature comes from Uzbekistan and in general the greater Khorasan, so logically these medieval syntaxis were closed to the local variant of Persian in central Asia. Moreover there are features in baxtyari and fars dialects (e.g. W instead of b) which are very archaic. Archaicness is preserved in many dialects in different levels. Babakexorramdin 21:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It is important what Frye thinks, because he is one of the leading and most important scholars of Iranology. In this regard, it is rather unimportant what you think. And, without being insulting to you, I hoestly doubt that you have any significant knowledge of Iranology or a deeper understanding of the subject. Strong differences between dialects is nothing uncommon. The southwestern dialects of German, spoken in and arround Koblenz, sound like a totally different language to someone from Hamburg. But despite these difference, these languages are classified as German, and their speakers as Germans. The difference between Arabic dialects (Iraq vs. Maghrebian vs. Egyptian) is much much bigger. It is almost impossible for someone from Marakesh to understand someone from Kairo. The difference between Persian dialects is less significant, because the written form of all of these dialects is identical. What differes is the use of vowls and their pronounciation. There are also small differences in the use of vocabulary (Iranian Persian uses more foreign words of Arabic and Turkic origin while Afghans use more archaic Persian words, or, in recent times, use certain English words). Upper classes of educated Persian-speakers have no problems in understanding each others. Ahmadinejad does not need a translator to communicate with Hamid Karzai or Emamali Rahman. At the same time, all three can read and understand Dari poetry. As for Bakhtiari: you should read the respective article in Encyclopaedia Iranica. The word Bakhtiyari is derived from Bactria and points to an original East Iranian Bactrian origin. And while you are at it, you should listen to this song sang by an Afghan Hazara. It is a poem of Rumi.

I am not into these theories. Bakhtyari caomes from Bakht+yar+i Bakhtyar is somone with whom luck is friend, litterally. I assume that you have never been in Iran otherwise did not say these bogus theries. The same way some of the prominent anti-Iraninist scholars never been. sorry if I was too harsh. it was not personally meant, but generally my point was that people who only rely on some books by others miss the point

okay first of all persians in iran if you consider subgourps are about 65% of the population is persian.

persian is an ethnic group okay. persians in iran are also lurs,gilakis,bakhterians,and mazandaranis. also some small speakers like lakis, pahlevis (middle persian speakers), sangsars (old shirazi dari),and tat (middevil persian speakers) and dari speakers do still live in iran being more then 2 million and they are the purest persians out there.

also the tajiks being 27% of afghanistan,hazaras,fariswans are all persian afghanistan itself is 50% persian tajikestan is 79% persian.

and some other persians all over the world the population will be more then 70 million. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.255.27.157 (talk) 00:35, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

What a BS he is creating. If i start to coreect you i need surly more than 10 hours, fucktoon idiot. btw, Pashtuns say Abey and not Aw. Aw is the verbal language of Parsi while Ab is the term you use in books. So Pashtoons has stolen it since Pashtoons don´t know what water is and also never knew..just smell on one..--Aspandyar Agha 15:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Mumtaz Mahal

I think we may not delete Mumtaz Mahal from the section "Women" : Not only Iranian influence in her is evident , but also in Taj Mahal itself . More than that this topic is about ethnic Persians, and that makes the beauty of Mumtaz Mahal relevant to this article.--Alborz Fallah —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

minor grammar error

The sentence:

"They also inhabit in neighboring countries particularly in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. However; Nick Teresko referenced, in these countries they are usually thought of as a sub-group and are referred to as Tajiks"

represents a mis-use of a semi-colon and makes for a rough sounding sentence. It would probably be better stated as:

"They also inhabit in neighboring countries particularly in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. However, as referenced by Nick Teresko, in these countries they are usually thought of as a sub-group and are referred to as Tajiks.

This is still not quite right, but makes more sense. Who is Nick Teresko? Instead of mentioning that he referenced this, the primary source should be cited instead. That is the appropriate way of doing this.

Halogenated 14:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ansari?

Why is Ansari listed as a "Great Persian" on the title picture? Couldn't we come up with anyone more worthy (than some buisiness woman who spent alot of money and went to space...)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.193.254 (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, there are many Iranians (Actors, Comedians, Beauty Contestants, Models, Athletes, Nobel prize winners, Economists, and several others) that should have their picture instead of her. In addition to that I don't believe we should have both Cyrus and Darius, only Cyrus the great is enough and you can put someone else instead of Darius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.85.9.1 (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Persians in Canada

That figure of 88,000 Persians in Canada is incredibly outdated, there are more Persians living in Toronto alone let along all of Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.85.9.1 (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Lurs,bakhterians,tatis,mazandaranis,gilakis,tajiks,tylish are all persian and speak a language related to pahlavi or a mix. just like a turkmen is turkic.

this claims are dumb and anti persian. i am getting a feeling that they put this stuff up to divide people. 

the pahlavi shah was from mazandaran and he was a persian nationalist.

their culture,language mostly is related to pahlavi (middle persian),and behaviour is persian and the most imporntent thing is that they consider themself persian also. so please correct it and dont try to use your divide tactics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.27.157 (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A conceptual problem

I think we should make one thing clear here. Are we talking about ancient Persians, or about modern Persian-speaking people. It is obvious that these are two very different things, as "Persian" in the sense it is used for someone like Darius the Great does not necessarily (or even remotely) apply to a modern-day person like me whose mother tongue is Persian. If it is the former, we should not be talking about modern language as the criterion. If it's the latter, we should not be linking the modern thing to the ancient one, and we should then definitely remove the achaemenid pictures from the top of the page. Shervink (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are Afghan people not included in the list of Persian people living in different countries?

According to my Iranian friend, Afghani people are also Persian, because according to the Wikipedia article on Afghanistan, 50% of their population speaks Persian. So they must be Persian people if they speak the Persian language. So can we include Afghanistan in the table of countries in this article? Please comment! AppleJuggler (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

By Persian in this page is meant an Ethnic group in Iran which is called Fars in Iran. Persianspeakers of Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan as well as the Tats of the rep. Azerbaijan and Daghestan are not in the same category. But the Persianspeakers of the Persian Gulf countries of UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain are of the same ethnic origins. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)--Babakexorramdin (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. You have a good point. However, I found the following paragraph relating to the Afghani people's ethnicity on the Internet:

"The Tajiks (Tadzhiks), are the second largest ethnic group in Afghanistan. They live in the valleys north of Kabul and in Badakhshan. They are farmers, artisans, and merchants. The Tajiks speak Dari (Afghan Persian), also an Indo-European language and the other official language of Afghanistan. Dari is more widely spoken than Pashto in most of the cities. The Tajiks are closely related to the people of Tajikistan." -- from: http://www.afghanistans.com/Information/People/EthnicityLanguages.htm

If the Dari Persian-speaking Afghans are of Tajik origin, and, if according to this 'Persian people' Wiki article Tajiks from Tajikistan are considered Persians, then Tajiks in Afghanistan are also logically Persians. Do you not agree? Hope to hear your view on this. AppleJuggler (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Tajiks of central Asia are Persian speaking but I wouldnt call them Persians. This article deals about the ethnic group in Iran which speaks Persian and is called Fars in Persian language. TRhere ais continuity between the Fars of Iran and ancient persians but the Persianspeakers of Afghanitsan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are originally non-Persian peoples who are lingually persianized. They stem from the East Iranic peoples of Bactrians and Sogdians--Babakexorramdin (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case, then I shall remove the reference to Tajikistan from the long list on the right-hand side of the article which contains countries where Persian people are found. Also in accordance with your argument, I have removed Tat-Persian speakers from Azerbaijan from that list as well. Please correct my edits if I am wrong. Thank you.AppleJuggler (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats Ok and right, Tats and Tajiks of other countries could be mentioned in a footnote as people who also speak forms of persian but they do not belkong to the main list. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have undid all my previous edits. I will leave it to the experts to debate on this. I am not knowledgeable on this issue. All the best. AppleJuggler (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wild population figures

Could some reliable sources be used for these figures?

800,000 Persians in Turkey?

50-70 million Persians? the total population of Iran is 65-70 million, including 15-25 million Turks, 5-7 million Kurds, a few million Arabs, Baluches etc...

The 50 million Persians in Iran link does not state that there are 50 million Persians in Iran, the source is a hoax http://www.economist.com/countries/Iran/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-FactSheet

Seen as though Ethnalogue is used for sourcing Persians in UAE, Bahrain, Iraq, it should be used for Iran as well.

Population 22,000,000 in Iran (1997). Population includes 800,000 Eastern Farsi in Khorasan, Gilan, Tat, Bakhtiari, Lur. Population total all countries: 24,316,121 http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=pes

According to CIA 51% of Iran is Persian, around 30-35 million.

Torke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.0.143 (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ethnologue has commented thaat their statistics on Iran is not reliable. Here is an email a while back on their number on Azeri:"Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I am not able to locate the original source from 1997. In line with your calculations we agree that the figure is likely closest to 11,000,000. We will do further research and update our figures for the next edition. Yours, Ray Gordon Ethnologue, Research". Encarta has 60% while CIA factbook puts Persian/Persian related dialects to 58%. I also did a calculation of ethnologue (actually another user posted it a while) and their population of Iran is short 5 million from the groups they have mentioned.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

New Opening

I wrote a new opening and will follow-up with citations soon. Constructive comments are welcome and hopefully this article can be upgraded to a featured article in the not too distant future. Peace. Tombseye (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally disagree with this article. Persian is a wider concept and does not just include Persian-Dari speakers. I would look at the definition of Persian in www.dictionary.com Persian and Iranian were used synonymously until the British started narrowing down the term in the 20th century. If you look at Qajar documents, Laki, Luri, Shomali , Talyshi and etc. were considered simply as "Fors-e-Qadim" (Old Persian). So I am not interesting in having this article as featured since the term is being reduced by some sources to just one version of Persian [[20]] where-as after the fall of Achaemenids and specially after the Sassanids, the terms Iranian and Persian basically became synonymous. Hence Abu Rayhan Biruni who says "The people of Khwarizm are a branch of Persians" where-as the Chorasmian Iranic language is Eastern Iranian language while Dari-Persian is Western. Note I use the term Dari-Persian to emphasize one version of Persian. So I think some work needs to be done with this regards. [21], but there should be an article on Persian-Dari speakers I suppose but the introduction should have a historical discussion on the issue. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ali. I agree with you on a number of these points. I also think that these sub-groups such as the Laki, Luri etc. are Persian can and should be included. I would also, now that I've been thinking about this, include the Tajiks and even mention the Hazaras as it seems racist to exclude them just because they are more Mongol than other Persian-speakers. Iranica's been the best for me in terms of orienting where this article should go. I think that the sub-groups can keep their articles and also be included in this article. I would keep the parameters within one main aspect, especially with the infobox, that they all be Persian-speakers (or even distant dialects). Then under a related people section mention the more distant groups such as the Parsis and even the Turkic groups who have intermingled etc. This was something similar with the Pashtuns where I kept it within the scope of Pashto-speakers, but mentioned the closest relatives (the Persian-speaking Pashtuns and Hindkowans) and then put in a section about the more distant Pathans of India who are partial descendents. For example, with regards to the Luri, their case is similar to how some Pashtun groups are distant, but still within the group for a variety of reasons. Anyway, my plan then would be to indeed re-do this article and go with including all Persian-speakers and regional dialects. If we agree then the intro will have to change again. So let me know what you think. Thanks. Tombseye (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Please also see: [22], I will be expanding it with couple or more sources. Basically the term Persian due to its being old has several meanings as you noticed:1) Inhabitant of Iran 2) Historical relation with Persia (Iran) 3) Descendant of Iranians who have a pre-Islamic past in the region 4) Parsis of India 5) Persian-Khurasani speakers, Chorasmian speakers, Old Azari speakers and almost any Iranic language speakers. 6) Called Tat, Tajik, Ajam by non-Iranic speakers and eventually these terms were adopted by native Iranic speakers. I think it would be a challenge to encompass all these terms, but I would like to see if you can do it, since you seem to have the energy for this undertaking. Note the Parsis of India do not speak an Iranic language but they speak an Indic language, yet they are Persians. So I think the introduction should as you say be all encompassing in terms of its scope and then discuss Persian-Dari speakers of Iran and related groups..--alidoostzadeh (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff Ali. I've read a lot of this myself and Iranica points to a lot of the same as well. I will incorporate as much of this as I can in the intro and (both of us hopefully) put some sources. After that a slow process of section by section rewriting will be in order. Your help with sources would be appreciated so that we can get this article looking like Azeris and Pashtuns. Tombseye (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Replace Ibn Sina with Ansari

PS The Pictures should have people all Iranians from all groups respect Darius and Cyrus were a good choice but Anosheh Ansari just payed to go to Space she didnt study Aeronautics or contribute anything. She is fine in the Iranian-American pictures --Mohammad (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)MJM

Afghans?

In old ages Afghanistan was a central place of Persia. today most of afghan people talk persian.But is there any small groups of persians in Afghanistan?! it is impossible .So why the persian population of Afghanistan is not listed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.191.122.15 (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

J1 is found at up to 9% in Iran (similar to what Turkey has). Most of it is from the southwest. It is an Arab genetic marker (it originated in Arabia, or perhaps North Africa), which brought small strains of African blood with it. But there is no recent (10000 ybp) african specific admixture in Iranians (which supports that persians never had slaves). The mongoloid component is entirely paternal, and hits a peak of 8% (I forgot where it is highest). This is less than the scandinavians of Europe have (more like 12.5%). The Iranians with the least admixture are confined to the eastern and 'northern 1/4' of the country. And dark skin in Iranians is also a post-LGM phenomena, which has effected southern europeans as well (the climate shift). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zadeh79 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

adding more historical pictures of Persians

for a country that has helped the civilized world such as the Persians have, it seems the pictures of prominent persians is lacking to say the least. --GrecoPersian (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Iranian

The underlying component of Iranians is Elamite, or at least Proto-Elamite. The Elamites were a, Proto-Semetic, Proto-Aryan, group of primary Caucasoids (cold adapted peoples). The are represented by Y-chromosome haplogroup J, which later flooded Europe and the Middle East with the Neolithic (agricultural) movement. Haplogroup J, in turn, gave rise to HG J1 (Semetic) in southern Arabia. J also gave rise to J2 (in either Eastern Turkey or the Zagros mountain range). HG J2 (along with R1 derivatives, which may exhibit spatial correlations with HG J2) is often assumed to be IE, by population geneticists.

Colonies?

In the opening paragraph, a sentence states "Significant colonies of Persians reside overseas in North America and Europe." What is that suppose to mean? That there are actually COLONIES of Persians in the North America and Europe? I hope you guys know the word Colony has many political implications. The population of Persians in North America and Europe are immigrants to their respective countries, not Colonists in service of a foreign nation. I suggest replacing the word "colonies" in that sentence with "populations" or "numbers" etc. Akaloc (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Bold text

Guys, i put a link in the main page,about Iranian/Persian inventions, if anyone wants to Add anything more to it, please go ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.142.110 (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Persian" is an unknown ethnic term in contemporary Iran

Indeed , such [ethnic] divisions as Persian or Turk(Azeri) in Iran is not in common contemporary use . The local identity of Iranians are now mostly based on the geographical location of individual and not by language . That means if you ask some one about his ethnic identity , he will answer I'm from Isfahan ( Isfahani ) , Mashadi , Tabrizi and etc; and not " I'm Persian " . So I think it's better to mention on text , that many Iranians are not aware of lingual-race ethnic identity , but geographical identity instead .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To add from the Wikipage Ethnic group:

"Ethnic identity is also marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness and by common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioral or biological traits"

In Iran , the most important figure in grouping people is cultural (including religious) and racial-linguistic differences is often is not important(or even understood).
As a result I think the whole article needs a re-write for mentioning the fact that the term Persian is a historic term now not in contemporary use ... --Alborz Fallah (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Persian people → Persian speakers

I'm proposing that this artcile (Persian people) be moved to "Persian speakers". The reasons behind the proposal are as follows: 1)Persian speakers don't call themselves "Persian" as a distinctive term or subbranch of "Iranian". 2)"Persian" is equivalent to "Iranian" in English.

I suggest that the article be started with something like:

"The Persian speakers of Iran are the amalgam of Iranian peoples and indigenous inhabitants of Iran before the migration of Indo-Iranians."

and continues with mentioning and describing the heritage/descent of Persian speakers that include: Tappeh Sialk, Jiroft culture, Shahr-i Sokhta, Elam, Medes (which contains Hamedan, Tehran, Lorestan, Esfahan), Persian Empire, Parthia, etc.--Raayen (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Agree : As I mentioned above , for considering an ethnicity , there have to be some elements :language , history , self-identification and etc. For "Persian Ethnicity" , non of them is present.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree: I wasn't born in the Islamic Republic of Iran and have no connections to it, my family moved away in the early 1970s. The Persian people still exist, and make up a little over 50% of modern Iran --which is a multi-ethnic country with Lors, Kurds, Azeris, Armenians, Arabs and many more. Thanks, but facts just don't match the request. Good heavens these ethnic/nationalist agenda pushes create so many requests from year to year. --Bobak (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Agree: "Persian" = "Iranian" in English because Iran was called 'Persia' from 6th BC until 1935. Still the terms 'Persia' and 'Persian' are common for 'Iran' and 'Iranian'. "Persian-Speaking people" are more exact title for this entry. Also when we use "Persian Carpet", "Persian Food", "Persian Cat", they are not an ethnic group! they blong to Persia or Iran.--Pejman (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: How about as a possible compromise we simply rename the article to Persians? That way there is no confusion over whether they are a "Persian people" or "Persian-speaking people." And Pejman, we're talking about the ethno-linguistic group here, not the nationality. Khoikhoi 18:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Using Persians will change nothing . The ethno-linguistic group with the name of "Persians" was a historical group that gradually changed to show all of the Iranians because of Iranians using the Persian language as their national language.In modern times , that doesn't show an ethnic group. There have to be a difference between a historical entity and modern one,at least an explanation may be add to the article.Many of the Iranians can't simply count themselves as member of any ethnic group at all : just simple Iranian of city X , Y or etc... --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm a little late to this, but there are numerous problems to be faced EITHER way. For example, there is a Tajiks article at present and they are, in essense, eastern Persians, who speak a dialect related to that of Nishapur and Gorgon at least since Islamic times. With that said, Persian-speakers self-identify as Persians when they are not in Iran so there is a group that claims to be "Persian". Growing in Los Angeles I encountered MANY people who stated they were Persians OR occassionally Turks (Azeri or Azari), Kurdish, and one Baluchi. I think this article can remain, BUT explain that Persians are not unlike Arabs in that they have absorbed many different elements and are not a 'race' per se and that there are regional variations and dialects. We can do this by including as much information as possible as to why Persians aren't always simply an ethnic group as we commonly know them in the West. They are more like the Poles before the creation of Poland, a supra-ethnic nationality that spanned other groups (thus, although people spoke different languages like Turkish and Persian they might still identify as Iranian) like Lithuanians, Belorussians, and even Tatars and Polish Jews. Some interesting historical study on what Persian means can be found in Richard Bulliet's A View From the Edge (he's fluent in Farsi and its various dialects), a Prof. at Columbia. I took one of his classes myself and he makes some similar assessments, BUT still used the term 'Persian' or Iranian interchangebly AT TIMES. What also needs to be clear here is that in MODERN times things have changed. Indeed, in the 19th and 20th centuries people changed quite a bit. The Italians are now considered an 'ethnic group' but were not until they were united and so today even people who once spoke different languages are considered 'Italian'. Similarly, people in Iran spoke Persian, Turkish, Arabic etc. and yet all identified themselves as Iranian, but not always as some claimed a regional (like Khurasan) or even municipal origin. To be honest, all I can say is that this article can be much improved by putting in more information as we need to, somewhere, give mention to a Persian-speaking people in some capacity. And since "Iran" is an ancient term that all of the Iranian speakers likely used to identify themselves, at least in very ancient times before their languages split up, the fact that today Persian speakers have claimed it makes this all the more confusing. This is why when I re-wrote the intro I wanted to add, for example, that Persian and Iranian have been historically synonymous (even though Iranian includes all the groups of Iran and can also refer to Iranic peoples in a way similar to Germanic) and the usage of Iranian as self-identification was not that common with Kurds and Pashtuns (although many Tajiks are I believe Pashtuns who became Persian-speakers along with other eastern Iranians). My suggestion would be to leave the article as is, 'Persian people' which is relatively innocuous, and add information with citations to clarify that many different groups can be considered 'Persians' and how many are also bilingual and closely associated etc. Tombseye (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: There is such ethnic group as Persian and they are as much of an ethnic group as others are. According to the CIA World Fact book, Persians are an ethnic group making up 51% of Iran. This group of people is not referred to as Persian-speaking people by any scholarly source. WikiPersianHistorian (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree: I do understand the concerns of the people who have proposed the move, but I'd have to disagree for now, as the term Persian in modern context has enough usage in English to merit an article. However, I suggest creating a parallel article called Persian-speakers to include Tajiks and other non-Iranian groups. --07fan (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Dear Tombseye, it is innocuous, but doesn't conform with reality. The growth of using "Persian" among some Iranians in USA, is not because of their desire to show an ethnicity, but the view of Iran in the west after the revolution and pronunciations like "I-ran". Also the "Persian" word is seemingly more romantic for them. I have encountered many other ethnic or ethnolinguistic groups that also use "Persian" and "Iranian" interchangeably. On the other hand some of them even don't use "Iranian", let alone "Persian", because being Iranian is something from the past for them, they don't feel any attachment to Iran anymore. Are these People "Persian" or "Iranian", I should say none, because they don't want to be. I think two most notable considerations should be the equivalency of Persia to Iran and Persian to Iranian. As another user mentioned "Persian carpet" doesn't mean that they are woven by "Persian speakers". The other consideration is that Persian speakers inside Iran simply don't call themselves "Persian" at all (I mean its Persian equivalent: Farsi), and those near to them in language in central Asia are called Tajik and Farsiwan which simply means "Persian speaker". You said "they have absorbed many different elements and are not a 'race' per se", that is why I think the title of the article should as much as possible clarify the content.--Raayen (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand all of that, especially the romanticized usage of Persian by ex-pats, BUT speakers of a language being referred to as a group is quite common (outside of colonial regions like the Americas) and from an encyclopedia perspective this article isn't written for Persian speakers (who need no clarification as to what they call themselves), but for people wanting to learn about them. I believe something like Persian-speaking people might work as well in this regard. For the average person reading this article, Persian-speakers will appear a bizarre title for an article since one might ask why this information is not simply included in the article on the Persian language. I tried to insert info. within the intro regarding the synonymous usage of Persian and Iranian, BUT some people feel that Iranian is not exclusive to Persian speakers, which is true in certain respects. In addition, one could go further and write an article called Persian-speaking peoples of Iran for specificity in this case. If it's just Persian speakers or Persian-speaking peoples, then it should logically include Tajiks etc. So how do you feel about Persian-speaking peoples at any rate and a bigger scope for this article?Tombseye (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems if others want to learn about them, it is more reasonable to directly show how the people really distinguish themselves. The title may appear strange to some, but it is because of our tendency to differentiate people according to race. The sociologist Max Weber has remarked that "the whole conception of ethnic groups is so complex and so vague that it might be good to abandon it altogether." Your remark about whether to include Tajiks or not is well put. What do you and others think about the following titles?

1)Persian-Speaking Iranians,

2)Persian-Dari speakers of Iran.

The reason for the second is that "Persian" has been used historically for some other Iranian languages too.--Raayen (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand and we would, BUT for many people a simple rendition of people is to identify them with their mother tongue. That aside, I think we agree that race is something of an arbitrary construct and not relevant as to how to render this article. I would suggest then that we simply write is as Persian-speaking peoples and include the groups of other articles (while leaving them intact and create a section about Persian-speakers of Iran at the top or close to it). That way, as you say, we can directly show how people distinguish themselves as well since Tajiks do view themselves as 'Persians'/Iranians as well. It would require more work, but would be worth the effort as it would great improve this article. What do you think?Tombseye (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understood, your view is to keep the current structure with making improvements. I agree as the main purpose for the proposal was to retitle. Your point about leaving the other articles intact is important because there are some restraints about calling Tajiki, "Persian"!, let alone naming Tajiks as Iranians/Persians. So to summarize my understanding of your view: We move the article to like "Persian-speaking peoples" or "Dari Persian-speaking peoples"; write about those of Iran at the top or close to it; then a short describtion about other Persian-speakers (Tajiks, Hazaras) with links to their original articles.--Raayen (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Keeping it mostly intact, BUT with changes yes. Re-title it Persian-speaking peoples with a focus in this case on Persian speakers in Iran, BUT with added mention of Persian speakers elsewhere as well in subsequent sections. Thus, it would start (after the terminology section, which could be shortened a bit with references) with Persian speakers in Iran and then Tajiks, Hazaras etc. (in fact Tajiks and Hazaras could be one section so as to save space and list individual articles as 'main articles' as well). In addition, in sections relating to culture and history, we could also make mention of cultural divergence outside of Iran with regards to the Hazara or the Parsis (who mostly use Persian for liturgical purposes) and it would not take up too much space (a sentence or two at most). So what do you say? Tombseye (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO, we should probably make somewhat of a clarification by first going into detail what the definition of "Persian" is -- then we can make a section called "Persian speakers in Iran" or something like that. A concern about moving this page to "Persian-speaking peoples" or something similar is that we have a ton of articles about scientists, poets, etc. which are called "Persian" in the intro. See Avicenna, Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī, and Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī. If we move this page, then what will these people be called? I think it might be better if we make this page a very general article and then have a separate article for "Persian speakers of Iran" or something like that. Khoikhoi 23:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Tombseys, that is nice. Khoikhoi, you have found a great pitfall, thank you. Tomorrow I will write a general article for "Persians"/"Persian people". Then those articles you mentioned will have more descriptive "Persian" links too.--Raayen (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You're going to create a new article instead of moving this page? What I suggested is that we make this page more general and not have it only refer to Persians of Iran. Then we can create Persians-speakers in Iran or something like that. But the pages I mentioned should still link to "Persian people." Khoikhoi 01:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my words were confusing. I meant doing exactly as you said. I will write a new content for "Persians"/"Persian people" and we will copy the content of this article to "Persians-speakers in Iran" and improve.--Raayen (talk) 09:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The new "Persian people" article is ready with all its deficiencies to be improved by you. Please people, speak out, what is your view about the name for this present article:
1)Persian-Speaking people,
2)Persian-Dari speaking people.
or anything else?--Raayen (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• I prefer "Persian speaking people" . There is still no standard definition of the word "Dari" : Some think that means the "Court language " , some use it as "Afganistani dialect of Persian" and some think that means the "Persian that is literally correct" .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'm OK with either plan: making this article more general and then creating another article for Persians of Iran OR just doing it all in one article with somewhat more discussion about the Persians of Iran in this article. As a supra-'ethnic', the Persian-speakers are interesting testament to the Persian language as a lingua franca of the past that assimilated people who at some point knew it as a 2nd language etc. (not unlike the Poles or the Germans before Nazism). So what plan does everyone prefer? I know Khoikhoi's with the 2 article plan so a quick show of hands will suffice. This seems like a good solution to this problem.Tombseye (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I see your point Tombseye. However, right now the more important thing is improving the article. Instead of name changing the article, let's address the points that you raised in the article by providing more information. WikiPersianHistorian (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better if we just made this article more general without renaming or creating any new pages. Britannica's article on Iran for example ([23]) says "The predominant ethnic and cultural group in the country consists of native speakers of Persian. But the people who are generally known as Persians are of mixed ancestry, and the country has important Turkic and Arab elements in addition to the Kurds, Baloch, Bakhtyārī, Lurs, and other smaller minorities (Armenians, Assyrians, Jews, Brahuis, and others)." Yes it is true that the term "Persian" as an ethnic group is not used in contemporary Iran. People in Iran typically identify first by nationality and second as the province they come from. But I don't think that renaming this article "Persian-speaking people" would help in articles such as al-Khwārizmī. Khoikhoi 07:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, it helps and will be more clarifying. Now Al-Khwarizmi has a link to this article which is simply about Dari Persian speakers and mostly those with Iranian nationality. Al-Khwarizmi was neither an Iranian national (no meaning at the past) nor he spoke Dari Persian as his mother tongue, but he was a "Persian". With the new content for "Persian people" this problem will be solved.--Raayen (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I was reading some of the votes regarding the article's name change and at least 3 people (WikiPersianHistorian's among them) are against it. So how about as Khoikhoi says, we just keep this article's name and expand its scope further to include groups that are historically viewed as 'Persians' in the past (with the usage being clear that it is from the Greeks) and explain its proper designation and how it does not coincide with local usage and then create a new article on Persian-speakers in Iran? We can explain that 'Persian' is not a precise ethnic designation nor is it one that is used by Persian speakers who simply view themselves as 'Iranians' or in terms of their localities. Everyone agree with this approach? Tombseye (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:WikiPersianHistorian is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Please disregard the opinion. Kingturtle (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear 07fan, if you follow the discussion, it seems that is nearly what we have finally decided to do.--Raayen (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Persian speaking people was created. Please help to modify and improve the content of both articles.--Raayen (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be called Persian-speaking people of Iran to specify that it is about Persians in Iran? It's too similar otherwise. Thanks and I'll do my bit as time allows. Tombseye (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank YOU. You and others helped not to have a wrong action.--Raayen (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I move the page to Persian-speakers in Iran or Persian-speaking people (Iran)? (the page Raayen created, not this one) Khoikhoi 04:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, {{Ethnic groups in Iran}} is now in both articles. Should it remain in both or only be in one? Khoikhoi 05:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What about adding a passage to the opening of the article that the Persian ethnicity was a historical term with different meaning now , and not to change the whole article ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said we should change the whole article. I just thought that we agreed that Persian-speakers in Iran would be the best title for Raayen's new page. Now we have Persian people and Persian speaking people. The title of the latter should be more clear. Khoikhoi 05:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the other article should be re-titled Persian-speakers in Iran (or the other alternative, just as good). I guess if there are no objections, go for it. Cheers. Tombseye (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Title

This article is not about citizens of Iran, this article is about the ethno-linguistic group, which according to the CIA Factbook, account for 51% of Iran's population today. For an article about citizens of Iran, please see Demographics of Iran. Pejman, if you want to change the title of this article, it's best to go to WP:RM in this case. Your move is simply too controversial to be done without discussion. Khoikhoi 01:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Khoikhoi, the request is in the previous section. I think he moved without knowing it.--Raayen (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Anyway, the western concept of ethnicity does not fix exactly with the groups of old world . In the western countries , an ethnic group is distinguished by language and race . In the old world , that is impossible because neither that groups identify themselves as so nor the language and race can be considered with a known border e.g Tajiks, Farsiwans, Kizilbashs, and Hazaras, can't be differentiated based on neither language nor race from the so-called Persians and among the Iranians themselves like the Lors , Gilakis and most of Azeris, there is no sense of ethnic identity.The title " Persian speakers " is a more simpler one and there is no controversy and problem in finding the primary language of a person. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• What is Controversial?! If you take a look to English documents and book from old times until now you will note that in many occasions PERSIA=IRAM, PERSIAN=IRANIAN. Persian carpet does not belong just to "Persian-Speaking people".

"Persian-Speaking people" is more exact title for this entry. CIA also is not a reliable source. --Pejman (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's controversial because this page was at "Persian people" for about two years now, and strangely enough, no one seemed to object until now. It is obviously controversial because I see people opposing the requested move as well. The bottom line is that page moves like this need to be made at WP:RM first before making unilateral changes to the title. It doesn't matter whether you're "right" or not. Anyways, I'm glad there is now discussion on this and hopefully we can continue until there is a consensus. See my suggested compromise above. Khoikhoi 18:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• I think Khoikhoi is right. It is controversial in the context of moving in Wikipedia. That was why it got proposed in 29 June. But the word "controversial" is not fixed throughout all the other contexts. I mean the new name is simply much more credible.--Raayen (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)