Talk:Iran

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

Non-Aryan civilizations

[Pictures of Iran]: http://www.persian.asia/photos/album —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.1.197 (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Elamites are not even mentioned. We are metioning Alans and Sarmantian that where hardly part of country of Iran, but not one of the very first civilizations of Iran and the world? I would like to know what others think... Ddd0dd (talk) 08:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It is briefly mentioned in the section "history" , but the especial problem in writing a page about Iran is it's prolonged history , that makes any article outsize ! More than that , the Elamites are not directly connected to nowadays Iran , but all of the after-Medes are .Although they are very important , but the nation of Iran was built after their time.Same as pre-immigration Iranian-language peoples that could not be Iranian before creation of Iran .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I kind of understand your point, and I agree that they cannot be considered Iranian, however I still think that they had a great impact on Iranian culture, and their heritage was not lost altogether. And when it mentions in the article that "Iran" has a 7000 year old history, it kind of implies that we are considering them part of "Iran"'s hisotry...--Ddd0dd (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

In reference to the historical relationship between Nazi Germany and Iran during World War 2, I was wondering if someone would shed some light on this matter perhaps on the Iran History wiki page. I am sure your already aware that the changing of the name of Persia to Iran was foreshadowed by a visit by an anthropologist from Germany who studied Iran's history, archaeological sites and recommended to the Shah that he change the name to a cognate of Aryan, hence Iran. If this is not sufficient perhaps a mention of the war factory Hitler designated to be built in Iran during world war 2 so that he could use Iran's rail road system to ship goods, this was of coarse before the Russians and English invaded and replaced the Shah with his sissy son. I thought this would be an interesting article because most people are ignorant of the fact that Nazi Germany and Iran had international relations, supported by the 2 paintings Hitler himself drew for the Shah of Iran and which are still kept in an Iranian museum under the Islamic republic.

Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 00:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hunh?

Quote: After the Islamic conquest of Persia and the resulting Islamization of Iran, Iranians benefited their membership of a truly international society.

I don't understand this sentence, can somebody please review it? Maikel (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's non-sourced, user opinionated garbage...I say erase it! The Scythian 17:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Your action is swift and your foot is nimble. Maikel (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Iran have civilization and economy from 7000 BC so i suggest that change the time of 3200 BC to 7000 BC

it is really not fun to have that "this is not sourced". so did you check the reference given? in Cambridge History of Iran, I mean. by S. H. Nasr I mean. Please make a little effort then question others' works. Note: not every sentence needs reference: Go ahead and read until a point has been made and then you see the reference. (update: the quote is The Islamic conquest of Persia enabled the Persians to become members of a truly international society and to participate in a world-wide civilization in whose creation they themselves played a basic role. this is what after the Islamic conquest of Persia and the resulting Islamization of Iran, Iranians benefited their membership of a truly international society in my opinion means. of course we can make the quote even more interesting. any suggestion? --Xashaiar (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

benefited does not mean that before islam Iranians were not acting internationally. The fact is that Iranian activities after islam went (outside Asia and toward west) far beyond the traditional border of Iran in sassanid era. I leave it to others to find good wording. --Xashaiar (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Iranian Tourism

I can't find any data anywhere to back the assertion that "Iran is among the top 10 most-touristic countries" under "Economy." I can find data backing up the fact that it is between 68-87 on the list of tourist countries, however. The citation references an article in which the author makes about as empty an assertion as the Wikipedia article -- nowhere does he state the source for his data. "Some Iranian guy in an article about Iranian tourism" does not constitute an official source for this kind of information. Find a real source or get rid of it, please.

EDIT: The closest I can find is (http://www.payvand.com/news/07/aug/1181.html), in which the Iranian foreign minister, himself, addressed a conference on investment in Iranian tourism and told them that, "given a large number of cultural and historical sites, Iran is among top 10 top countries in terms of tourist attractions." Perhaps the article should be re-written to suggest that Iran "considers itself" among top 10 countries...

Islamic Civilization as Perso-Islamic Civilization

After examining the accuracy of some sources per WP:V policy, I found the following controversial and chauvinist claim not related to provided sources:

In fact this influential Persian presence that relied heavily upon achievements of Sassanids whose identity and continuity had to be assumed by the educated, has made the Muslim world itself long since come to accept Islamic civilization as a Perso-Islamic civilization and had the latter as the continuous uprising culture from eleventh century on.

The provided sources:

The following references give comprehensive analysis and clarification of the terms "persian presence" and "perso-islamic" and the relation to Sassanids and the impact on Islamic cultures:

• Marilyn Robinson Waldman, Toward a Theory of Historical Narrative: A Case Study in Perso-Islamicate Historiography, Published by Ohio State University Press, 1980, ISBN 0814202977, p. 30
• Richard M. Eaton, The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204-1760, Published by University of California Press, 1996, ISBN 0520205073, p. 28
• Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), The Persian Presence in the Islamic World, Published by Cambridge University Press, 1997, ISBN 0521591856. p.78.
• P. M. Holt, et. al. The Cambridge History of Islam: Volume 2B, Published by Cambridge University Press, 1977, ISBN 0521291380. p. 501

The sources use the term Perso-Islamic as a way to refer to Islamic Iran or something done when Persia was part of the Islamic Empire. It does not support the claim that the Muslim world sees the Islamic Civilization as Perso-Islamic or Arabo-Islamic, will delete the claim if a non-valid and clear source that respect WP:V is provided. Bestofmed (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC).

check the sources given. The source Cambridge history of Islam says explicitly was has been added. Removing sourced materials can be reported to admins.--Xashaiar (talk) 10:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I checked the sources and It is me who is going to report them unless a clear source that respect WP:V has been provided. I noticed that someone has removed a sourced material from the same book. I mean some editors here are putting only what please them from both the Cambridge history of Islam and Cambridge history of Iran. Both book do mention the importance of the role played by Persia but they did not credit it for everything neither said that the Islamic Civilization was a Perso-Islamic as whole. The book said : "...the Muslim World itself, without necessary putting this judgment into analytical terms, has long since come to accept Islamic civilization as 'Perso-Islamic synthesis`...". If you compare the quote to what said in the article, you will see the assertion tone added to it although the source used a reluctant tone (mainly: without necessary and the quotation marks). Bestofmed (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC).

That's called selective quote. Wikipedia:SYNTH prevents you from doing that. I was modest enough not to put the quote from the book cited that: perso-islamic civilization had as its typical product "Taj mahal". We have summed up the 4 sources to conclude that: Islmaic civilization is nothing but Perso-Islamic civilization. If necessary I will bring up even more provacative quotes from Ikhwan_al-Safa books.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• you have added "as part of the new Empire" from Nasr article which does not say this. This is against wikipedia rules.
• Moreover you added "the vast number of works written in arabic language" that were written by Iranians. You should add this one. To reach WP:CONS I invite you to find 10 most important books on science written in Arabic language and we check who wrote them. Ok? I guess this is fair. The Consensus will be "the vast...written by Iranians" if out of 10 we get 6 of them written by Persians.
• you have added "antiquity work in Arabic". This is non-sense. Either you do not understand "antiquity" or you do. In each case that must be removed. Page 396 states explicitly: QUOTE Islamic science came into being in the 2nd/8th century as a result of the vast effort of translation which made the scientific and philosophical traditions of antiquity available in Arabic. CANT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THIS QUOTE CONTRADICTS YOUR ADDITION? AND YOUR ADDITION REFERS TO THIS!!!!!!--Xashaiar (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it is a historical fact, Iran was part of the Empire and in addition the book mentions clearly how this new membership to an empire (even calling it truly international) stretching from old Persia to Europe has opened new doors not only to Iranians but every nation part of it.

About Arabic, it was the language of science at the time and by no doubt the universal language of the Empire in general and most translators were Arabs (including Arab Christians and Jews). Most scholars including Persians were taught in Baghdad or other major Arab cities (of course with the exception of later independent Persian dynasties) especially under Abbasids that is why their output is in Arabic. About the books written by Arabs I am not going to argue about this because I sensed a race supremacy tendency in your tone it suffices to mention Al-Andalus which was basically founded by Arabs and Berbers enabling the Western renaissance (I took this example but I am afraid you will claim that Al-Andalus has been flourished because of Persians). Finally if you want to do some statistics, you will find that Persians were the second most influential scholars after Arabs (I am ready to compile a list of Arab scholars to compare). If someone reads your comments he will presume that all praise should be given to one "race" as if for instance a titre d'exemple Ibn Khaldoun: The father of demography, cultural history, historiography, the philosophy of history, sociology and modern economics; Averroes: The person behind the idea of secularism and major polymath in logic, psychology, Arabic music theory, and the sciences of medicine, astronomy, geography, mathematics and physics; Abu al-Hasan: The famous mathematician and father of algebraic symbolism. al-Batani: The first to determine the solar year, he founded some major trigonometrical relationships and Nicolaus Copernicus based his work on al-Battani's observations and results; Al-Kindi: Founder of Arab and Islamic philosophy and a distinct polymath. He was the first to write a treatise on cryptography, cryptanalysis and frequency analysis and thus seen by some a the founder, he was the first to write about music therapy; and many others, were nothing compared to what Persians did. I have one question for you, don't you think that some parts are very chauvinist? Bestofmed (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC).

First of all I have reported you here because of your disruptive edit that I commented earlier. Now 1. your first sentence "Well it is a historical fact,...part of it." is your OR/POV. The sources given in the text mentions no such thing. I was modest enough not to include provocative quotes from that book. 2. We have not added Ibn Khaldun's quote. If you want we can suggest it here and after WP:CONS we can do that. However that quote would mean: Arab contribution to science is 0 (this is a big zero). 3. I understand that you want to add that arabic was a lingua franca. I added that for you. But do not forget that arabic language used by scientists was the work of Iranians. See my addition and the sources given. I chose a source so that no accusation will be accepted. 4. YOU SHOULD STOP USING TALK PAGE TO CHAT. WP:RS and WP:V are what count. 5. You should not give reference to my additions, but changing the sentence as you like. You have done this twice. 6. The question is not race, and this is in violation of WP:good faith. 7. You must first write here what is the problem, suggest a solution and wait for WP:CONS

Your comments on Averroes, al-Batani, ... are unimportant here. Those are iran unrelated characters. (you seem to be unaware of two lists in wiki: 1. Persian scientists and 2. arabs. Count them and report back here)--Xashaiar (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not want to refer to you but reporting is done according to Wikipedia guidelines and policies not in admins's pages. Second, whatever Ibn Khaldun (who is Arab) and Ikhwan Al-Safa (who were probably Arabs) said was what today is called self-criticism. Now back to our discussion and let's stick to it please and be constructive. You said in your addition about Arabic: "Even in developing the scientific Arabic prose itself which differs in style from that of Quran, Persian scholars like Ibn al-Muqaffa had a major role.." but the author said "Although perhaps it is an exaggeration to say that Persians created philosophical and scientific Arabic, it is certainly justifiable to state that they had a major role in its development." Moreover you added later "The contributions of Iranians in Arabic language is however not limited to scientific prose needed by themselves" which is not what the source mentions and implies disputed claims. Finally please read the WP:CITE to avoid plagiarism. I am opening a new discussion about possible improvements to this part so we can rich a consensus. Bestofmed (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC).

Ikhwan al-safa are not arab. and no: The author says: It is well known that the Arabic prose connected with the religious sciences such as Qur'anic commentary and hadith differs in style from the prose of scientific and philosophical works. Persian scholars like Ibn al-Muqaffa' had a major role in developing this scientific prose, and the whole class of clerks and civil administrators which was so responsible for the cultivation of the sciences in the early Islamic centuries consisted mostly of Persians, who entered the civil service in large numbers. Although perhaps it is an exaggeration to say that the Persians created philosophical and scientific Arabic prose, it is certainly justifiable to state that they had a major role in its development. Now the part scientific prose needed by themselves comes from his arguments+1000s of other sources that say: Iranians made almost all the scientific developments. So saying "needed by themselves" is a reflection of this. Even this quote is not the perfect one because even Arabic prose connected with the religious sciences was developed by Iranians: Tabari and Sibawayh. But I chose not to mention this. One reason is that the article is 12kb over sized.--Xashaiar (talk) 07:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, if I could find the source, around 80% of the Arabic language as it is today was developed by Persians; this was noted by an Arab scholar, not a Persian one. On an unrelated note, we should put in here that the most beautiful sounding dialects of the Persian language are missing from Iran, and can only be found in Afghanistan, haha! I shouldn't be admitting this as a Pashtun, but Hazaragi makes my heart flutter. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 09:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Just one last comment before opening a new section. It is indisputable that the Arabic language was influenced by Persian and Persians and beyond that by many other languages and nations but all of this was part of a larger cultural and linguistic exchange. We cannot stick to one view or perspective. No major language in nowadays is pure. For instance Persian has a significant number of Arabic loan words which make up more than 50% of the vocabulary according to some statistics (mainly done by Koppe, Humbert and Osmanov while studying the Persian language lexicon) which is quite weird because they are from two distinct language families (one is Semitic and the other Indo-European). Particularly in the Middle Ages, Arabic words increased from 10-30% to some 50% in the 12th century which was a major element in the forming of New Persian especially after independence from the Abbasids and the rebuilding of the Persian Identity. Moreover, this influence did not stop at the verbal and writing levels but went further to the adaption of a modified version of the Arabic alphabet which is still in use today. Another interesting fact is that most borrowed words were used to express abstract concepts and scientific theories (i.e. mots savants); that was one of the reasons why most Persian scholars chose to write their scholarship in Arabic (other factors exist of course). I am not under-estimating the value of Persian language but wanted to show the other POV not mentioned here. By the way, the article is about Iran so it is better to mention changes occurred to today's Iran language rather that of Arabic.

>>to Pashtun ismailiyya: I will ask one of my Afghan friends to speak it next time ;), he is Hazara and I call him Hassan (mirroring from the marvelous The Kite Runner by Khalid Hosseini)! Bestofmed (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

Violation of the principal of NPOV and non relevant claims

I want to open a new discussion in order to rich a consensus about some sections of this article, mainly the part History of Iran in the middle ages.

I have some objections to this section because it violates:

• the principal of neutrality: All the mentioned views are given an excessive undue weight and asserted as being judged as "the truth".
• Simple Formulation principle: No simple formulation is used. All expressions were used to assert opinions themselves. Moreover, other POVs were not included but sometimes removed or moved in the name of WP:CONS. The editors should attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that this opinion has, not asserting it. One important principal is that editors should not imply that any one of the opinions is correct. Citing one source or hundreds of sources does not make an opinion a fact. See WP:ASF for more details.
• Verifiability: Some cited sources were used selectively to include specific biased views. The idea expressed by a source should be expressed fully, for instance in one source the author has some reservations but they were not included. e.g. One author said that it is an exaggeration to credit Persians the development of scientific Arabic, or "..without necessary putting this judgment into analytical terms.." when he talked about the Perso-Islamic term (he even used quotes for that term).

..and includes:

• Biased writing to an ethnic group: No popular opinions of one's area, country, culture, language, ethnicity, etc. should be considered as a fact. Most included claims credit one ethnic group and marginalize others.
• Plagiarism and copyright: The section is full of plagiarism with many paragraphs taken from someone else's work in both verbatim way or with a minimal changes. Most ideas were copied verbatim from the Cambridge History of Islam and the Cambridge History of Iran which are both protected by copyright laws. According to Wikipedia policies plagiarism should not be removed immediately but responsible editors should paraphrase the copied content as soon as possible or their contributions will be removed without notice.

I have some notes too about how the present content is relevant to the topic. Most claims are mentioned in an isolate way, in other terms you cannot find any reference to how Persia was run under the Islamic Empire and nothing talks of the socio-political aspects of that period. The section talks about Iranian contributions to Islamic Civilization without mentioning the wider context and simply was limited to represent it as a simple continuation of pre-Islamic Persia. It shows a biased POV basically aiming to show that the Islamic Conquest did not have any effect on Persia and only sell one idea: Persia has given much to this civilization but the civilization gave nothing and changed nothing. It is important to show how Persians played a major role in it but we should not cite only a part of the truth (half-truth = worst of all lies). I think we should talk more about how this conquest transformed Iran: the social life, the political life, language, culture etc. Previous sections are the right place to talk about pre-Islamic Iran.

Before closing, a very useful interesting quote by Arthur Schopenhauer for this discussion: "Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts as a last resource pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and happy to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority."

Finally, I prefer resolving the mentioned problems locally in a civil and constructive way, thus please be civil and remember no personal attacks! I am trying to avoid the CCN for now. If we do not rich a consensus or the discussion diverges to personal attacks as the previous one, all opinions violating the NPOV due to chauvinist and nationalist sentiment will be reported to the CCN noticeboard. Others, including personal attacks, will be reported to relevant noticeboards. Bestofmed (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not a forum the first thing you should know. Next let's see: you say the principal of neutrality: All the mentioned views are given an excessive undue weight and asserted as being judged as "the truth". Be specific about a sentence that you think gives undue weight, and do not accuse us. If others agree with you I will find better version. (update:) This is not a page for Islam, it is the page of Iran. So obviously we concentrate on Iranian matters. Therefore no need to mention about other people/countries/cultures.--Xashaiar (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Xashaiar, you said "Therefore no need to mention about other people/countries/cultures." while you added almost two paragraphs discussing Arabic and no word about Persian. In addition who said talk about Islam? I said clearly we should talk about social life, political life, languages, culture etc. of Persia in that period but discussion was limited to science and the Arabic language. The section is part of History of Iran but where is the historical facts? Bestofmed (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

Where is historical facts? All the section is about history.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Bestofmed, Just say what is your specific problem in that section? --Wayiran (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wayiran, I will try to be more specific by analyzing some parts of that section. I apologize if I was not clear enough.

• Iranians continued what was set-up by Sassanids but in much larger scale and with a more universal scope. *plagiarism* *WP:ASF* *undue weight* *WP:V*: Mainly skipping some facts. The reader of this idea will assume that Iran continued to live as it was before the conquest with no effect. In addition larger scale, universal scope thanks to what? It seems that the reasons were neglected although interestingly they can be found in the same source.
• Therefore blossoming of Persian literature, philosophy, medicine and art became major elements of the newly forming Muslim civilization. *WP:ASF* No indication soever what pushed toward this blossoming? May be the previous sentence but it has some issues explained above.
• The Islamic Golden Age which is characterized by the development of science owed, to a large extent, its importance to the vital contributions of Iranians, and reached its highest level in 10-11th centuries a period in which Persia was the main theatre of scientific activities. *plagiarism* *WP:ASF* *undue weight* By analogy I can find hundreds of sources that said the same thing about Arabs or Turks for instance. It is important to highlight who has the opinions and discuss them without embrace. I support this idea but it should be reformulated in a neutral way.
• In fact this influential Persian presence that relied heavily upon achievements of Sassanids whose identity and continuity had to be assumed by the educated, has made the Muslim world itself long since come to accept Islamic civilization as a Perso-Islamic civilization and had the latter as the continuous uprising culture from eleventh century on. *plagiarism* *WP:ASF* *undue weight* *WP:V*: Undue weight because it is the sole opinion of the author and some others and not accepted widely by the mainstream academia. The author himself said "..without necessary putting this judgment into analytical terms.." and used quotes which shows clearly that this claim is questionable and should not be taken as factual (the use of In fact which infringes clearly the ASF principal).
• Even in developing the scientific Arabic prose itself which differs in style from that of Quran, Persian scholars like Ibn al-Muqaffa had a major role. And the whole class of clerks and civil administrators which was so responsible for the cultivation of the sciences in the early Islamic centuries consisted mostly of Persians. The contributions of Iranians in Arabic language is however not limited to scientific prose needed by themselves, but also in Arabic poetry. These contributions by Iranians are characterised as "the lively and graceful fancy, elegance of diction, depth and tenderness of feeling and a rich store of ideas". *some plagiarism* *WP:ASF* *undue weight* *WP:V* *non-relevancy* It undoubted that Arabic was influenced by the Persian languages and vice-versa (according to statistics 50% of Modern Persian has Arabic origins, see section above). I strongly agree to show that Persians were given key-positions and played an important role in the administration but unfortunately this section continues the undue weight and includes half-truths. The verifiability is questionable too because the author said clearly that it is an exaggeration to credit Persians the development of scientific Arabic. Intelligent readers will ask why Iranians chose Arabic for scholarly works in the first place if they developed it for themselves? Regards. Bestofmed (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

Please be succient, but you don't seem to know the meaning of WP:OR, which is exactly what you are doing. Wikipedia is not a forum. As for why Arabic was promoted as a scientific language has to do with it being the language of the Quran which was the basis of the common Islamic empire, but Persian eventually developed its own scientific and philosphical works by the 10th/11th century. As per Plagarism or OR, any sentence can be rewritten. As long as it is not an exact paragraph. Plus it can be quoted with the ("").

As per undue weight, these are well known scholars plus quotes by Bernard Lewis should be added as well : [1]. You will not find hundred sources like you claim. It is not a conspiracy theory. For example Ibn Khaldun(and I suggest we quote him verbatim):"It is a remarkable fact that, with few exceptions, most Muslim scholars both in the religious and intellectual sciences have been non-Arabs ... Thus the founders of grammar were Sibawaih and, after him, al-Farisi and az-Zajjaj. All of whom were of Persian descent. They were brought up in the Arabic language and acquired knowledge of it through their upbringing and through contact with Arabs. They invented the rules [of grammar] and made it into a discipline for later generations. Most of the hadith scholars, who preserved traditions of the Prophet for the Muslims also were Persians, or Persian in language and breeding because the discipline was widely cultivated in Iraq and regions beyond. Furthermore, all the great jurists were Persians, as is well-known. The same applies to speculative theologians and to most of the Qu'ran commentators. Only the Persians engaged in the task of preserving knowledge and writing systematic scholarly works. Thus the truth of the statement of the Prophet becomes apparent, If learning were suspended at the highest parts of heaven the Persians would attain it. ... The intellectual sciences were also the preserve of the Persians, left alone by the Arabs, who did not cultivate them. They were cultivated by arabicized Persians, as was the case with all the crafts, as we stated at the beginning." excerpt taken from: "The Golden age of Persia by Richard N. Frye, Professor of Iranian, Harvard university Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London 1975 Professor Richard (Emeritus) was a Professor of Iranian and Middle Eastern studies at Harvard University. pages 161-162". If it was the other way around, I am sure Ibn Khaldun would have mentioned it as well. So in Wikipedia we stick to WP:verifiability, WP:OR and WP:RS. If you don't like some of the giant scholars of the West, then a forum is better medium. (Note by Iraq it means Arak-e-Ajam (Persian Iraq)) although modern Iraq had a large Persian population at least up to the Mongol invasion. Thank you.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The connection witht the Persian empire is clear as well as Ibn Khaldun remarks: the Persians "were most versed in those things because sedentary culture had been firmly rooted among them from the time of the Persian empire".--Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Nepaheshgar, thanks for your proper answer. And Bestofmed: I have problem to understand you, we have found rewording of what the sources: The Cambridge history of Iran, The Cambridge History of Islam, A Literary history of Arabs say. Direct quote makes you unhappy, and indirect rendering too. So what is your position? Let me mention just one of your problem. You say

Iranians continued what was set-up by Sassanids but in much larger scale and with a more universal scope. is *plagiarism* *WP:ASF* *undue weight* *WP:V*.

My answer: This is a direct rendering of The Cambridge History of Iran vol. 4 page 396: quote In a sense the scientific activity of this period continued what had been begun during the late Sasanian period, but on a much greater scale and with a more universal scope. No serious person consider this plagiarism: It is fine to quote scholars in wikipedia (in our case we are quoting S. H. Nasr, be careful he is simply the undisputed top scholar). And if you read WP:RS and accept that we have given reference to top scholars and not just "somewhere published matrerials" you see that we are not violating anything. WP:ASF is also fine. We have mentioned facts: You can not deny Ebn Muqafa. We stated FACTS about him. That's it.

Finally please stop OR and using wikipedia as a forum. If certain things are bothering you, you need to bring reliable sources that are 1. in the level of our sorces (The Cambridge history of Iran, The Cambridge History of Islam, ..) and 2. dispute explicitly what we have added. Read my comments and that of Nepaheshgar once more. I repeat, bring contradicting claims from reliable sources then I will listen to you.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes in Wikipedia we work with valid sources. If there are sources that contradict other valid sources absolutely, then we can mention it. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I do agree we need to put more on life in the medieval ages. By the way Richard Frye also states: "The remaks of Ibn Khaldun are not in dispute but the extent of Iranian influences on Islam, the Arabs and the Arabic language needs to be examined and classified. I propose to discuss these influences under the following rubrics: administraion and government, religion and philosophy, science and medicine, commerce and crafts, the fine arts and finally literature and language, where the rise of the New Persian language and poetry will be treated". So if a distinguished Professor from Hardvard states they are not in dispute, then there needs to be at least some equally distinguished Professors of Iranian/Islamic studies that say the opposite. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can be specific and write a sentence or two from each of these. Specially Frye gives good one/two page summary of each of the Iranian contributions to these fields. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Bestofmed, I suggest you to read this article, to understand the issue better. --Wayiran (talk) 09:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems that the majority misunderstood me. I am not here to negate the contribution of scholars of Persian descent to the Islamic Golden Age; that is absurd. I am concerned with the undue weight and the absence of NPOV in this section, in addition the misrepresentation of some reliable sources notably the Cambridge History of Iran (picking only what please some editors). I wanted to stimulate a discussion in order to rich a consensus on how we should modify this section as Nepaheshgar pointed out, but it seems, to some reasons I am not aware of (may be chauvinist or nationalistic), this is not going to work. I appreciate what Xashaiar said, I will add my contribution to this section in order to make it more balanced and neutral. Nevertheless, I have some comments. Whoever read the Al-Muqqadimah will notice what the term arab means; it is not the same connotation of nowadays. Ibn Khaldun used the term to refer to Bedouins or what he preferred to call sometime: The Desert Mind (the typical example of primitive society in his book). In addition you should read the whole 6th chapter to understand that he was discussing an early period of the empire scientific history, he mentioned later the decline of science and culture in Persia and noted that Cairo was the center of knowledge at the time. Anyway that is not our main topic but wanted to make sure that Ibn Khaldun's full view is cited. About the Arabic language, first I thank Wayiran for the link but again I am not questioning the influence of Persian language on Arabic (Arabic was influenced by Persian, Turkish, Berber etc.). The problem is that is a one-sided view. There is no single word about the influence of Arabic on Persian and how it was a major building block for the formation of New Persian which resembles Modern Persian; that is an element we should mention because it is about the History of Iran. I will add the missing views as I said very soon and then will appreciate any comment afterward. Bestofmed (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC).

I do agree with much of your edits, specially also Islamic influence on Iranian culture and Arabic influence on Persian language. But you are taking an Arab nationalist view of Ibn Khaldun and Arabs. Arab simply means Arab speaking by the time of Ibn Khaldun and not just desert Arabs. Note in that quote he is saying Arab and 'Ajam and Fars.. obviously, Arab is not the same 'Ajam. I will include the parts of your edits I agree with since they are a large number of edits. You have for example quoted Ibn Khaldun where-as it is the job of the scholars to quote it (since he is a primary source). There is no proof that Sibwayah was an "Arabized Iranian" based on secondary sources. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nepaheshgar, It seems you are not aware of the WP:ROWN. Even if you are right, you cannot revert a whole content which was mostly supported by inline-citation, because of one term or because my contribution was "large" as you said, that is a form of Wikipedia OR. I am reporting this edit war to the administrator's noticeboard (including you and Wayiran).

About Ibn Khaldun, that is not the nationalists Arab view, Bernard Lewis in his book The Arabs in History said clearly "Ibn Khaldūn's use of the term Arab in his history seems to indicate a class of people and not a group. Most scholars believe that, in many instances, Ibn Khaldūn uses the name Arab to mean bedouin." While Ibn Khaldun is a primary source, his work has been reliably published (by a university press mainly Princeton University) so it may be used in Wikipedia (see WP:NOR for more details) but nevertheless I agree with you we should have more sources, I will provide them soon. Bestofmed (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC).

“Additionally, the Arabic script replaced the Aramaic script for writing and simpler Arabic forms replaced the cumbersome and limited Pahlavi formations.” Ironically even though I prefer Bestofmed's version if I had to choose, how in the world do you mention something so opinionated like “cumbersome and limited” about the Pahlavi script, but yet don't mention the Persian contribution of the Nastaʿlīq script which has had endless influence on how several languages are written?

I feel both versions have bias. One leans towards a view that backwards Bedouin Islam is hopelessly in debt to Persian civilization and would be nothing without it, while the other leans towards a view that Persians were a group of backwards people who could only ever realize their full potential through the heroic Arab introduction of Islam. To be honest, I think both views are exaggerated but contain fundamental grains of the truth. And both were well cited. One can have valid citations for opposing views, and that's what we realize is happening here. I propose we state various historians opinions and note where they contradict, or even rewrite a version that balances both Islam's contributions to Persian civilization and the Persian contribution to Islam. Both versions as it is favor one or the other. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 20:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it is not me who said Pahlavi is cumbersome and limited, the sources said so and it is widely accepted but I am not against any other contribution or addition with a different POV as long it is well cited. About the POVs, I did not remove the whole content of my previous editors as they did (at least I preserved their POV but questioned some claims). I tried to provide the missing point and reinforce NPOV (you can see my attempts above but almost no one listened seriously). I asked always for a rewrite to this section to become more balanced. Bestofmed (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC).

I have put most of Bestofmeds contribution except some part about conversion and Arab invasion. The latter had also had a bad effect as well which was not covered. For example Biruni mentions: "When Qutaibah bin Moslem under the command of Al-Ḥajjāj ibn Yūsuf was sent to Khwarazmia with a military expedition and conquered it for the second time, he swiftly killed whomever wrote in the Khwarazmian native language and knew of the Khwarazmian heritage, history, and culture. He then killed all their Zoroastrian priests and burned and wasted their books, until gradually the illiterate only remained, who knew nothing of writing, and hence the regions history was mostly forgotten.". But the particular quote from Ibn Khaldun indicated difference between Persian and Arabic, see Frye with reference to that particular quote. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ibn Khaldun is still a primary source, even it is translated it. You need secondary sources to intrepret it as per Wikipedia requirements. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am going to split that section into cultural and political aspects as the two are too convoluted. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. As I said above "I think we should talk more about how this conquest transformed Iran: the social life, the political life, language, culture etc." but got only personal attacks. Bestofmed (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC).

Here is the quote of Ibn Khaldun: [2]. It is clear by Arabs he means Arabs, since Abbassids are called Arabs--Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not because he used Arab, he meant Arab. You should read the whole Prolegomena because picking pages or quotes out of context sometime misleads the reader. If not, you can read commentaries and analysis of some scholars who agreed on the fact that Ibn Khaldun did not mean Arab: "..Most scholars believe that, in many instances, Ibn Khaldūn uses the name Arab to mean bedouin". In addition if we want to go further Ibn Khaldun used the term Ajam in his Arabic version and not Fourrss but most of the Ajam were Persians although some scholars question this mapping. Bestofmed (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC).

Reboot - Iran in middle ages

I am rebooting the discussion for a better clarity and readability.

Nepaheshgar, let's forget about Ibn Khaldun, you can put that: among these who contributed to Arab grammar and the Islamic Science were not Arabized but you cannot deny that a considerable number of them were. Anyway, I am leaving that to you because it is not the big issue here. I am concerned with your edits which again give an undue weight to minorities' views. I am afraid you removed some inline-cited content such as:

• Removing Persia did not re-emerge as a fully independent political entity until the 16th century and replacing semi-independent with independent but that infringes WP:V as Lucy Dean in his book said clearly what I mentioned. I am not saying Dean claim is not questionable but needs to be mentioned or challenged with other sources of equivalent weight.
• Removing The Arabs abolished the previous social classe system of Sassanians which is a major social and religious change. This is a fact and supported by a quite few sources.
• Replaced adopted by used well that is not a big issue but actually they adopted it instead of Pahlavi and Aramaic. See the Cambridge History of Iran vol. 4.
• Removed some additional facts about how Arabic transformed Persian. I mean this is a very important cultural aspect and can cause some disputes if we do not provide reliable statistical studies. May be you are convinced but some nationalists can claim that is not well supported.

I am not going to edit the article for now because you seem to be very busy editing it (I made these comments based on this diff). I will give my final comments after you finish. I am assuming good faith!

ps: Please do not remove reliable sources, It took me days to compile them. Bestofmed (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC).

Response: A) I did not remove Arabic influence on Persian. That part I left. Please see it exists now under culture section. B) I did remove Arab abolishing of caste and social class, because there was a new caste and social class (Mawali) and also it was Islam rather than Arabs that removed it. So this needs to be balanced. In actuality, Arabs going against Islam imposed a new caste system and Caliph Umar for example did not allow Persians in Madinah and Meccra. C) Samanids, Saffarids, Buyids are independent Iranian dyansties and giant historians like Minorsky assess that they re-asserted Iranian independence and statehood.

So these things need further discussion. But I kept the parts of your edit that there is no dispute about and Arabic influence on Persian language is well known although the Arabic words really have changed and became Persianized and are uttered very differently. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not say that you removed point A, I said you undermined it. I mean there is no doubt that Persian influenced Arabic but it was put with an undue weight and it is of a lesser relevancy. About the undue weight, no one argue that Arabic influenced Persian more far than Persian did to Arabic, I am not the one who claims this sources do. About the relevancy, we are here talking about the History of Iran not the History of Arabic language. The section talks too much about the Arabic language (20%) but relatively ignores what happened to Iran's language, how it was shaped? I mean when statistics showed that Persian has almost 50% of Arabic vocabulary that is an interesting fact (I am talking about Persian of the time may be in the 21st century things changed). If you want to discuss the influence of Persian on Arabic in a greater details you can add that to the Arabic language article. In addition this article is about Iran, the country, not the Persian people (who live in different countries nowadays mainly Afghanistan). About point B, yes the Arab abolished the Sassanian class system, I provided more than one source I think! Islam is a religion so you cannot say it was put in action itself. Remember not all Wikipedians are Muslims or believers. But, it is interesting to mention the new pseudo-class system you mentioned but with RS. Also do not forget to mention that Persians attained high positions such as Weziers which contradicts a little bit the new class system claim (may be you should relate that to a specific caliphate?). Finally about point C, I think we should mention both views in this case, we cannot be selective in our sources. May be using a structure like "While X think ....., Y claims that ....". Bestofmed (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC).

Just wanted to point out that the origin of Abu Moslim is not clear among scholars. Adb Al-Husain ZARRINKUB (an Iranian Professor) said "Regarding Abu Muslim, it seems that from the period of his own lifetime he has been somewhat of a mystery; his name and origins have been the occasion of contention among different sects, and from very early times different accounts have described him as an Arab, Turk, Kurd or Persian. Some have associated him with the 'Abbasids through the dubious line of Salit b. 'Abd-Allah. Some have gone so far as to make him a descendant of 'Ali, while other legends have made him Iranian as the descendant of Buzurgmihr. His official name, which appears on a coin, was Abd al-Rahman b. Muslim, though some have averred that this was the name given him by the Imam Ibrahim, his original name being something else..." (it is on page 53 from the Cambridge History of Iran Vol. 4 if you want to check). So, I suggest putting ZARRINKUB's view and provide the other sources to support the claim that he is of Persian descent? Bestofmed (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC).

I think is actually it given more weight than it is necessary, since languages influence each other, but the vocabulary from Arabic has been Persianized. Either way your sources have been mentioned and not removed. On B, the Arabs brought a new class system [3] and the Ummayads discriminated heavily against Iranians. "In the early period of Arab domination, Persian society was arranged along four lines of division: Arab and Persian (ʿajam), Muslim and non-Muslim, emerging no­bility and commoners, and free men and slaves. ". So we need to balance this. On C, there is no debate[4] "Ṣaffārid Dynasty- Iranian dynasty..Iranian dynasty of lower class origins that ruled a large area in eastern Iran. Samanids[5]: "(ad 819–999), first native dynasty to arise in Iran after the Muslim Arab conquest. It was renowned for the impulse that it gave to Iranian national sentiment and learning.". The fact is there was a Samanid dynasty which ruled large parts of Iran and was native Persian/Iranian dynasty. On Abu Moslem, Turk is really a later development and Dr. Zarin Kub is just describing all the sources and legends. Kurd would be Iranic. Also Dr. Zarin Kub says: "It was most likely that he was one of the mawli and in all probability an Iranian"., which is part you did not quote but is crucial. On the country of Iran, we are discussing in this era a wider Persian civilization which Iran alongside Tajikistan, Afghanistan and several other regions are inheritors of. At that time, there was no national borders and thus this is the common Iranian civilization which is shared by many countries, the biggest one being Iran. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned that Arabs abolished the class system to suggest why conversion to Islam was accelerated and to point how the social system changed. In addition the new class system was applied to Persians in the Arab peninsula and only under early caliphates. Conclusion: it should be mentioned, we can add that the Ummayyad discriminated against Persians of course. I have an objection against the Ibn Khaldun quote as it does not explain to the reader many disputed aspects. As I said Ibn Khaldun definition of Arab is different than today, furthermore Ibn Khaldun used the term Aja'm which was translated by Monteil as "Étrangers (Persans)" and than ported to English books as "non-Arabs (Persians)". I have some sources that question this translation because Ibn Khaldun used the term furs to describe Persians in many other parts of his book. Most scholars think that the term was used to refer to eastern non-Arabs and not only Persians. Even if the quote is non disputable, it is better to be placed in other articles related to the early Golden Age. Bestofmed (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC).

Your understanding of the term "non-arab" used by Ibn Khaldun is OR, therefore not acceptable. Please note: Non-arab in the mouth of Ibn khaldun (as a biographer of scientists) means ajam and that means Iranians. The reason is that THE ONLY AUTHORITY ON IBN KHALDUN is Franz Rosenthal. We look at his undisputed proof that the non-arab of Ibn Khaldun is PERSIAN: look at Franz Rosenthal, "The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History By Ibn Khaldun, 'Abd al-Rahman b. Muhammad Ibn Haldun", Princeton University Press, 1967, ISBN 0691097976, page 311(footnote 1206): In Arabic linguistic usage, the non-Arabs designated by the term 'ajam are primarily Persians.. So USer:Bestofmed if you have a source in the level of Franz Rosenthal then please show us. Before you bring a WP:RS comparible with this source, we assume F. Rosenthal explanation. Ok?--Xashaiar (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You are abusing the term authority too much or may be misusing it. There is no such thing as authoritative in the academic world. Even Albert Einstein is not an authority. I know about the footnote but I have later analysis done by a group of scholars which dispute the translation of the term as Ibn Khaldun used explicitly the term Furs in other places. By the way the It is not original research, if you insist in putting the quote I will add my sources which contradicts the translation. Bestofmed (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC).

Ibn Khaldun has been translated by Professional translators and so we cannot interpret him. 'Ajam at that time was the same as Persian. As per class and conversion, encyclopedia Iranica has long articles aboutboth , and we cannot simplify it one line or two. We need one line or two that everyone agrees about. Although we can say the conversion as gradual and there was a change in class hierarchy, but still there was a class system in ummayad times and Iranians were called mawali. But we cannot have imbalance or emphasis on one aspect.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted to the stable version of the page (Bestofmed, Nepaheshgar, and Wayiran: I am assuming good faith). The reason why I did this is that Cambridge history of Iran is an authoritative source and we can not replace that with 3rd or 4th hands sources. So my suggestion is that we put our edit based on these and see what the problem of some of the users with section Middle ages.--Xashaiar (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, there is no such thing as "authoritative source". The only categorization of sources is here. You are promoting further undue weight with this idea which is the source of the current dispute. All the sources provided were taken from material that has been vetted by the scholarly community and regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources and/or by well-regarded academic presses. But all sources have biases (in other words, all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Xashaiar, you labeled our edits as vandalism in your edit summary, that is not WP:AGF!? Bestofmed (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC).

I call it vandalism because: What you have done during the last few weeks show that you keep 1. Changing our sentences to the way you like it and still give our sources as reference (This is, you agree?, non-sense and WP:VAN calls this vandalism). 2. adding unrelated things that change the sense of the section (Iran in Middle ages and not the world in middle ages) and removing the earlier works of others. This is again vandalism.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I took a quick look into this issue, and as much as I think that one should assume good faith, Bestofmed seems to be pushing a pan-Arabist POV here, I counted and there were 20 mentions of "Arab and "Arabic" in his edit, which are mainly Wikipedia:Synthesis of cherry-picked sources. This article is not about an Arab country, so he is also violating undo coverage and undo weight, and glorifying the Arab occupation period, which should only be mentioned briefly in passing. --Kurdo777 (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering the sections that 'Arab' and 'Arabic' were added to were about, well, an Arab invasion, it makes sense. The fact that these words are lacking from the previous version which unduly concentrates on Persian influences into the Islamic world rather than vice versa is more of concern to me. Both directions of influence are important facets, so I'd continue to assume good faith on both sides. Cherry picking of course is nonetheless unacceptable. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 11:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The section is called Iran in middle ages, not "the glories of Arabs brought Iran". The topic is about Iran and Iranians, so naturally the focus would be on Iranians. We don't have a any mention of Persians' influences on Arabs in Saudi Arabia page for the same reason...focus on the main subject. Also, assumption of good faith has its limits, at some point, we should be calling a spade a spad, and I have gone through this editor's edits and there is a strong pattern of pan-Arabist POV, and "Arab pride"-type of editing. --Kurdo777 (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, and Iran in the Middle Ages had large Arab influence, including but not limited to the introduction of a religion Iran follows to this day, which brought along with it a script, vocabulary, and a multitude of other things. And Persian influence on a particular Arab country should (if the article is written well) be found in articles with direct Persian influence such as Bahrain and Iraq, and for Arab civilization as whole in articles like Arab literature and Arabic language. I notice this editor is pushing for Arab additions, but that doesn't mean he wants to break NPOV, rather from my overview of his edits, he believes this article to be unfairly unbalanced in its lack of mentioning Arab influence, which is a view me and I think Nepaheshgar share to extents as well. Making the Arab invasion of Iran a minor footnote in this article doesn't seem correct, but it certainly wasn't the messianic advent of civilization either. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 11:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it should be a minor footnote, or at most one or two sentence, the place for broader discussion on the topic is Islamization of Iran page which is the main page for this topic, not here. We can`t have five paragraphs dedicated to silly trivial details like "Arab influence on lexical and rhetorical Persian" (what language has not been influenced by another language?), to satisfy the pan-Arabist feelings of one editor. This page is too long as it is. The middle age section should remain the same size--Kurdo777 (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC).

Well with all due respect Kurdo777, I think you do not see the whole picture. I was telling that this section should mention the changes in different levels. The use of the word Arab here is not optional and you cannot ignore it. It is a historical fact, we cannot change history to suit some POVs. Like it or not, they are the Arabs who directed the conquest, they are the Arabs who ruled it after for a period of time and they are Arabs who Islamic Iran. The bottom line, it is worth mentioning how this period changed Iran's various landscapes. When you look at the section with its current version, it has two paragraphs talking about the influence of Persian on Arabic for instance. That should be mentioned in general articles as Pashtun Ismailiyya said like the history of Arabic language not here. Don't you think when the Persian lexicon and rhetoric are changed is worth mentioning? By the way, refrain from personal abuse (calling me pan-Arabist or whatever won't change anything and I assure you I am not). Please focus on the topic and in our attempt to rich a consensus. Regards. Bestofmed (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC).

Should we quote two sources explicitly?

Regarding the edits by some users, I think it is not a bad idea to quote 1. Richard Frye as suggested by Nepaheshgar in the [edit]? I think this will satisfy those who think we are biased. 2. We MUST quote Ibn khaldun as he was himself an Arab, and an important and highly respected figure. Do you agree with the inclusion of these quote? This is Ok in wikipedia to quote.--Xashaiar (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I am against both quotes, I have sources which dispute the quote. Moreover it is not relevant to the topic in hand. In your opinion political, social, religious and language levels are not relevant but only the scientific? This is a totally biased view. One final note, I am trying to avoid edit wars but I can be easily bold. I mean you removed all the content I contributed with all the edits done by Nepaheshgar which I agree with to an important extent! Bestofmed (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC).

wait a minute and read my previous comment. I told you in BOLD to show us your sources. I am quoting the most respected authority on Ibn Khaldun. Also when I was researching the way Iranians are seen by Ibn khaldun, I noticed that this is in agreement with the description of Perfect men by Ikhwan al-safa. So I (and Nepaheshgar) agree on these right? AND about your edit to be removed. That's true, but your edit contradicts my edit. That is your are concentrating on issues that are not the main point of my edits. This need WP:CONS that users should say which one looks more interesting and more mainstream. From the comments by almost all users (except you!) the stable version was acceptable. Therefore we stick to that version.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the purpose of Wikipedia is providing a NPOV not your POV. It is not you who decide what to preserve and what to remove; there is no ownership in Wikipedia. So talking about the political, social and cultural aspects is not relevant in your opinion? I will restore my edit as they are supported by reliable sources (most of them your so called authoritative one). Anyway, I will rewrite the section to include the missing points later. I am following the dispute resolution guidelines and for now I will ask for a WP:RfC. By the way you are abusing the WP:CONS too, you seem to forget this golden rule Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons. Bestofmed (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC).

1. There is no missing point in the article apart from Ibn Khaldun quote. 2. My edit does not show that I feel being owner of this article because I have made only few edits here. 3. And why we should accept your pov?--Xashaiar (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, If I do not see disagreements from majority of other editors involved in editing this article, I will add the quotes in a few days.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Ibn Khaldun is a primary source and we work with translations from scholars (secondary source). Frye states that what Ibn Khaldun states is in no doubt. As far as I can tell there was two things I did agree and two I did not agree with besmod:

1) Agreement on gradual conversion to Islam and also Islam changing the culture of Iran. 2) Arabic influence on Persian language although Persian is an indo-European language and the Arabic words in Persian have been Persianized. Disagreement on Independent Iranian dynasties which I showed that Samanids, Tahirids, Saffarids, Buyids were such dynasties. Disageement on class which needs better analysis.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC) I do however agree with Xashaiyar that we should discuss what we want to put in the section, since it cannot be too long as the article is too long--Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

No, translations are not a secondary source. I can't quote an English translation of the Qur'an on Wikipedia as a source. But, there are I believe many scholarly examinations beyond translations of Ibn Khaldun's work, so inserting something in the spirit of the quote from a secondary source, and then quoting the quote itself is fine. In fact, primary sources can be used to 'buffer' secondary sources on Wikipedia like this. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 11:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Lets rewind. Ibn Khaldun is a secondary source. A Translation of a language is always

an intrepretation to an extent. So here we have to use professional translators (primary sources). You might disagree, but definitely we cannot use the intrepretation of users here. Relating one part of Ibn Khaldun(Examination of others) with another is in violation of WP:Synthesis. Richard Frye states that what Ibn Khaldun states is in no doubt, so that is basically a statement scholars. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you pashtun ismailiyya but that is not the only issue with this quote. Many recent scholars were skeptical about this interpretation (you see interpretation, not translation) of the word 'ajam. For instance, Serrano, a Middle-East expert and researcher from the UoC, questioned the translation provided by orientalists from the original Arabic book. He even refuted this attempt of making the word ambiguous by stating "Ibn Khaldun seems to be dividing the peoples covered in his universal history into three groups: Arabs, Berbers and 'ajam. If Ibn Khaldun were insistent upon the specificity of the reference to Persians, he would probably use, as he does elsewhere, fars." The fact that Frye himself inserted a footnote puts the whole usage of this quote in doubt, in addition the former is a more recent scholarly work (2006). Most translations use "non-Arab(Persians)" which was taken from the first translation but they do explain that Ibn Khaldun probably meant only the Persians. You see the whole idea is ambiguous? Most recent interpretations and commentaries said, he means the Muslims of the east beyond the Arabs or non-Arab speakers (with the exception of Berbers; natives of North Africa). This includes but not limited to: Persians, Azeris, Turkis, Pashtuns etc. Before closing, Ibn Khaldun discussed Persia (and probably other nations) and noted their decline in the very same chapter and the very same section, especially in sciences (why we have to be selective in sourcing?).

But the big issue here is not the quote, that is easy to refute. Why social, political, religious and cultural (including language) changes are not worth mentioning? I mean Xashaiar said there is no missing point? I tried to contribute to highlight the transformation. I said I am welcoming any comments and was about to write an agreed version with Nepaheshgar. I supported removing the "cumbersome ..Pahlavi" although it was well sourced along others. But removing the whole content which was clearly sourced in every expression (especially the controversial ones) and Xashaiar keept asking me for sources!? I will propose a new outline for the section next time. I gotta go ;) now. regards. Bestofmed (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC).

No OR and no WP:Forum. Do not chat or present your theory. We have three sources: Ibn khaldun own words. and F. Rosenthal and Richard Frye. So what are your sources that claim explicitly these academic sources are wrong? (Answer to your theory: Ibn khaldun can not mean anything than Persian, as he was the biographer of scientists and almost all of them in his book are Iranian so how he could mean non-Iranian?).--Xashaiar (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This is not a WP:FORUM or WP:OR. Richard Frye after quoting Rosenthal

states that what Ibn Khaldun states is no doubt. Also Azerbaijan was not Turkified in speech at the time of Ibn Khaldun (so really he can't be referring to Azerbaijani people). Pashtuns had not had an expansion yet and neither there was Ottoman Turks. Unfortunately we are dealing with people who are bias here. And Ibn Khaldun only brings out examples of Persian/Iranic scientists and the Prophetic saying and cofirms what he states with Prophetic saying. And he mentions three areas: Transoxiana, 'Iraq (which is really Persian Iraq) and Khorasan. I think Xashiyar should restore Ibn Khaldun and Rosenthals translation, if there is an objection it cannot be done through WP:OR or synthesizing of another part of Ibn Khaldun and relating it to the specific quote. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not know why some editors misuse Wikipedia policies and pillars? Whether they did not read them and understand them fully or they want to enforce a POV and escape the real discussion. I am not going to defend myself against these false claims as it is obvious (H). Please do not diverge the discussion and make it about me (that is considered a personal abuse). Please stick to the topic and in whole not one part of it (Ibn Khaldun quote is a minor issue compared to the rest). We can open a discussion about Ibn Khaldun's quote in a new section or better in Ibn Khaldun's talk page. By the way, there is a Wikimedia project called Wikiquotes that is created with the sole objective of having quotes ;) ! Bestofmed (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC).

Please read this before using/noting wikipedia's own policies to prevent a change. More specifically, you should not point us to wikiquote in order to avoid quoting one or two sentences. This means I look at Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia rather than looking at Wikipedia is not wikiquote.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Dear Bestofmed, for a long time I was thoughtful why there is no mention of books burnt by Arab occupiers in Iran. There were more important edits in Wikipedia so I let that be. If you really want to have the impact of Arabs on Iran we can also add "Arabs burnt libraries" although later House of Wisdom in Babylonia was build which was modeled on Sassanian Gundishapur and even its name is a direct translation of persian Sassanian designation of library.--Raayen (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Raayen, I am not here to sell an idea or enforce a POV. If that was my objective, I would revert because all what I provided was inline-sourced. I wanted to make that clear before proceeding. I repeat again, my objective is making this section balanced. I am aware of the great contribution of Persians: that is not what I am discussing here. As Pashtun Ismailiyya pointed the previous/current version is biased: "One leans towards a view that backwards Bedouin Islam is hopelessly in debt to Persian civilization and would be nothing without it". At least I am open to a constructive discussion to reach a NPOV. About the burning of books, I think that is worth mentioning as a result of the conquest, of course provided you have reliable sources which I do not doubt. One cannot stick to one view (How Persia influenced Arabs and Muslims in general without mentioning the other way around) and one topic (science). Let is not forget that this section is about history. It seems this discussion is diverging toward a supremacy theory; this is an encyclopedia. I am afraid it is leaning to show which group is better? The Persians or Arabs!? and that IS a disgusting question. Bestofmed (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC).

Bestofmed says that the previous/current version is biased because of pashtun ismailiyya's argument which he quotes. Does "Bedouin Islam" mean that "Islam" belongs to Bedouins (or Arabs for that matter) or created by them? By the way, are you of the opinion that if somebody claims USA has advanced distinguishingly, he is talking supremely? Actually I don't lean towards that view.--Raayen (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Raayan, that was a very interesting point. The section on Iran in Middle ages is too soft, I agree! This is because I/we have been so much concerned with being neutral. I would like to mention these things (Raayan's point about the Arab-impact on science and culture)+ Ibn Khaldun (as primary source+clarification by F. Rosenthal and R. Frye). This will be in complete agreement with Let the facts speak for themselves. I will propose my change here and would like to see your opinion about my wording.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to keep responding to each branch of this conversation, because that will be messy. Here are two points:
1. Published translations are not secondary sources, ever, unless the translation is already of a secondary source. Generally we don't use medieval sources as secondary sources, however that has been a debate on Wikipedia before (for example, can we use Sirat ibn Hisham for articles on Islam?). There has been some consensus to simply stick with modern scholastics. As stated before, it's not hard to find a contemporary secondary source that goes into this in detail.
2. As someone mentioned, we should definitely mention library burning and the generally psychotic attitude of the Ummayads, who eventually had Persian as the court language at that. That's very prominent, but how aren't all the cultural and intellectual trophies the Arabs and Persians traded permanently not important? Why are we okay with multiple paragraphs talking about the Persian influence on the Islamic world but not vice versa? If you really want to call an editor who wants to combine both routes of influence a Pan-Arabist, what do you call the editors who only want to speak of one route of influence? I'd say it, but I already misuse the word whenever I get frustrated on articles about Afghanistan, my apologies to Xashaiar. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 22:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As I explained to you earlier in one of the talk pages: An Encyclopaedia is not supposed to stress the trivially concluded facts. This means, the impact of Islam on Iran is clear from the contributions of Iranians themselves (almost non-stop throughout the history from 7th century on!). So what are you talking about?--Xashaiar (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hazrat fifteen colons, I didn't indent for a reason! And we don't need to list everything that happened, that's beyond the scope of this article, but a good summary of both streams of influence is essential. And yes, I really do mean a summary. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean how Iran was governed, ruled, fragmented to different dynasties? How the conversion to Islam was? How Iranians suffered under the Ummayads? How New Persian evolved? etc. are trivial facts? So, you put only the Persian influence on the Islamic civilization as the non-trivial, in other words into doubt. Personally, I do not think so, may be because you are Iranian, that seems trivial to you but this does not apply to others (although Persians' contribution to the Islamic Civilization should be trivial to Iranians). In Wikipedia we do not assume the obvious. You should read WP:POV's assuming the obvious and Biased Writing sections, you will conclude that what you said is nothing but a POV. I agree with Pashtun Ismailiyya, we should add a neutral summary showing both streams of influence (the reader can surf to related articles to look for further information). By the way, I do not see any respect for Let the facts speak for themselves under the current version. There is no facts, only assertions of opinions without giving any reason (you do not give what these opinions are based on; such as statistics or summaries of deep analysis or reasoning)? Well, let me guess again: that is trivial according to you... Bestofmed (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC).

Please for wikipedia sake stop chatting and note WP:FORUM. Your totally wrong understanding of importance of perso-islamic civilisation/tradition (as seen in persianate society and also, as an example, has the Taj mahal as one of its finest architectural achievements (Encyclopedia of Asian History, ISBN 0684186195, page 46)) and trying to put its importance in the same level as other primitive styles is seen as WP:UNDUE. An encyclopaedia is not supposed to be nice to everybody. There is also the mention of (new) persian. Well this area is different from what the word "new" can mean. For example the new french between barbers after french colonisation, is seen as new: that is new to indigenous people and also new in its content. The language spoken in Iran and other persian speaking countries, like Tajikestan, is not new in any of the two sense: 1. It is not new to its people (an avarage persian speaking person can fully understand texts from 1200 yeas ago and with few hours change of scripts can fully understand middle persian texts). This needs no arguments. 2. It is not new in its content either. For example no real gramatical change can be seen: Rudaki's work without mentioning Rudaki can be confused with my own word... This means any statement like "How New Persian evolved?" is the result of illusion of comparing persian language to other languages. If you mean loan words one should educate oneself a bit and see that: there will be no problem in removing 98-99% of loan words from persian language without effecting the ability of persian language. This can be checked by noting some people who are alive and do not use any foreign word in their professional university lectures and books. Now as for "facts that are speaking" but "you do not hear them": Show us one non-persian figure with works in persian language who is important to Persians as much as Ebn Muqaffa and Sibawayh are to Arabic language. If you find, we mention them otherwise according to WP:UNDUE we can not remove them. [here 1. you should read others' comments that persian language is an Iranian (of indo-european family) language and can not have much "fundumentally important" interaction with non indo-european ones (for example arabic). 2. We are not saying persian language had impact on arabic, we are saying Iranians had fundamentally important impact on arabic language.] Other claims you have can be ignored according to [WP:UNDUE]]. Again stop chatting.--Xashaiar (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think someone misread me. Ibn Khaldun is a primary source and it can just be put without intrepretation of users. Only secondary sources(Frye for example) can intrepret that quote. Finally relating any statement of Ibn Khaldun outside of the mentioned statement is in violation of WP:synthesis --Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not deeply familiar with this topic, so I spent quite some time reviewing the material before venturing to comment here. While it's important to be aware of space limitations and careful about not giving undue weight, the various sources, and common sense, seem to validate User:Pashtun Ismailiyya's suggestion: "...a good summary of both streams of influence is essential." It should certainly be possible to produce a single well-written paragraph outlining the two-way influence and pointing the reader towards more detailed articles. This would seem to satisfy both points of view without unduly expanding an already-long article. It doesn't seem either reasonable or desireable to engage in specualtion about who influenced whom the most here...simply provide the basic information. Speaking of well-written paragraphs, most of the ones in this section...aren't. I'm sure they were at some point, but the back-and-forth editing has left many of the sentences choppy and sometimes unclear. I'm sure the prose could be improved without altering the actual content and I might try to tweak it a bit. In the meantime, does the idea of a single, balanced paragraph about mutual influence seem reasonable? Doc Tropics 01:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Doc! I'd like to point out that User:Xashaiar is correct in not breaking WP:UNDUE by trying to force the text to imply that the streams of influence were equal. The best way to prevent this is to mention influence that is substantial and that cannot be contested. If that is a bit uneven, that's fine. There is a reason we have an article on Islamic extremism but not Jewish extremism: the world is not symmetrical. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So you may wish consider making it more symmetrical by creating that article. The Persian names and the issue of 3 Iranian islands have less importance than Gaza, you know, talking about undue weight! Sorry for the forum-like comment.--Raayen (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me Raayen? I don't want to create that article, because that is breaking WP:UNDUE. I am saying that one end of influence may be bigger than the other end of the influence in the Persian and Islamic issue, how could you disagree with that, if anything it supports your views! Please don't attack me or any other users, assume WP:GF. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 17:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I understood you wrong, because red edit link means: "Hey, people create it!". Anyway I have made my point clear already.--Raayen (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I do tend to agree with Pashtun and Xashaiar that it's ok to be uneven in our treatment; that's perfectly in line with the reasoning behind the undue weight policy. When I used the term "mutual" I didn't necessarily mean equal. However, another editor had made a valid point that it's improper to simply ignore one stream of influence while highlighting the other. The best approach would be to mention both, in proper proportion, with references. Personally, I would suggest either NOT using direct quotes, or carefully choosing 2 quotes that provide appropriate balance, preferably from modern sources. Doc Tropics 15:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I confirm again that this section should contain both streams of influence and preferably a short summary without undue weight. Before proceeding to achieve NPOV, we need to discuss which are the major aspects worth mentioning in this section. Details can be provided in other related-articles. For instance, influence of Persian on Arabic in the Arabic language article (although the intro of that article mentions clearly that Arabic was influenced by Persian vocabulary and other languages). I will move the details about the influence of Arabic on Persian to the Persian language article afterward. For now, I will flag the section with a NPOV message. Bestofmed (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC).

This section is getting excessively long, so let's start a new one at the bottom of the page to discuss the specific details. Doc Tropics 02:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC - Iran in the Middle Ages

Template:RFChist Disagreement on the extent coverage and neutrality Iran in the Middle Ages To what extent are the political, social and cultural changes during this period relevant to the section?? 19:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Middle Ages, specific changes

The Middle Ages section, first sentence had been:

• Iranians continued what was set-up by Sassanids but in much larger scale and with a more universal scope.

This had been mentioned as borderline copyvio and the previous rewording seemed a bit stilted, so I rewrote it as follows:

• Iranians continued those systems which had been established by the Sassanids, but significantly expanded in both scale and scope.

To me this seemed to read better while preserving the original content and simultaneously correcting the copyvio problem. The "systems" I refered to included the systems of government specifically mentioned in the previous section of the article, as well as the general social systems which set the stage for arts and sciences to flourish. However, my edit was quickly reverted by Xashaiar, with comment to the effect that one cannot continue a system and I should try for a better wording. Under the circumstances, I still think that my edit is a better wording and I'd appreciate more dialogue with Xashaiar and input from other editors. Thanks, Doc Tropics 03:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Irano-Afghan link

User:Cyrus111 has recently (and repeatedly) added this link into the article. While it might be useful someday, the current Irano-Afghan is in such poor shape that it shouldn't be linked to anything. Once it's been brought up to reasonable standards of quality I would be willing to reconsider. Any other thoughts about this link? Doc Tropics 18:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a reason not to link to a bad article. People won't know it exists and need working on unless it is significantly linked to. We can't orphan it just because it's bad, from my knowledge at least. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 23:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As for Irano-Afghan itself, it's not an idea prominent enough to be in here, I think. I should have mentioned that earlier. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 01:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict. Pashtun has addressed part of this) You make a good point Pashtun, which I was trying to consider even when I made my first comment; the best way to improve an article is to bring it to the attention of interested editors. The issues of quality could probably be resolved without too much effort, and Cyrus111 has already put a lot of work into it, but Sayed has raised another very valid point: this is an article about a country, not a race of people. If the link were to be included, which section would it properly go into? I'm happy to discuss these points, and I'm hoping Cyrus might join in. Doc Tropics

It seems from the article itself that it isn't an idea for serious academia. Racial theory itself has been disproven, I don't think there is a need for this link at all. At most, we deal with ethnicity, Iran of which has dozens. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 01:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If one thoroughly studies the article you´ll see that it has nothing to do with "race" but description of geographically adaptation which is a fact of the matter. Majority of Iranians and Afghans do share morphologically with East Africans and Nordics (i.e hot cold climate ones) geographically adaptation phenotypically, some intresting info here [6]. I.G.S Iranian Genetic society [7] is also interesting

In the Irano Afghan page a link following after the sentence Paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey, believes that the differences are only geographically racial includes the work of the popular Islamic scholar Harun Yahya. [8] in which Hotoon and Leakey dismisses any human racial differences but attributes them to "geographics". Also in the article DNA history of Indo-Iranians is further linked via the R1a1 haplogroup and Indo-Iranians/Indo-Europeans Hence there is vital information about Iran and migration, history etc (corded ware culture for example in the bronze age, the link should be in the demographics or history sections as well as it brings these studies made on Iran in the knowing. Cyrus111 (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be "vital information", it appears to be fringe theory based on discredited racial theory as Pashtun pointed out. Furthermore, per my original concerns, the article itself is poorly written, highly questionable, and a serious candidate for AfD. Please do not link it here, it doesn't belong. Doc Tropics 14:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well Doc, he does state it doesn't deal with race. In regards to that, do you have sources showing this isn't a fringe theory? Because Irano-Afghan certainly isn't an ethnicity, and this theory doesn't seem to be notable enough for inclusion in the main article. As far as being a family of ethnicities (does such a thing exist?). I have no problem with including it if you can prove WP:Notable though, Cyrus. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 18:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It is def. qualified, see sources Cyrus111 (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The references on the page include "The Races of Europe" which is borderline disqualified racial theory (the use of the term "race" at all is incorrect for humans), and websites that don't pay for their own hosting and use free websites such as 110mb.com and awardspace.com. These sources use outdated terms that are no longer accepted by the majority of contemporary anthropologists and sociologists. If you can use some WP:reliable sources we can begin to start understanding the subject. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 00:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV in the Middles Ages section

Maybe we should start small? What if each editor involved lists what they consider the single most important aspect of Persian-to-Arab influence, and the single most important aspect of Arab-to-Persian influence. That should give us a clear starting point, and we could work up from there. Doc Tropics 02:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the tag added. The reason: clear violation of wikipedia rules of adding tags. In the page POV TAGing for example it is stated explicitly that: The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies.. IF there is an issue explain specifically.--Xashaiar (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Xashaiar. And in retrospect, my suggestion was foolishly simplistic. After reviewing those paragraphs again, Persian-to-Arab influence is well covered but does seem to contain an overly "glowing" tone. I think this could be corrected with very minor rewrite, as we did in the first paragraph, without changing the actual information content. Doc Tropics 02:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that the section is a valid example of let the FACTS speak for themselves. Changing the tone, is not a problem. But again, I would like to see a specific sentence with an RS that states something in contrary, then we can think about the issues seriously. People (which I am hardly among) have spent time to complete the article, and accusing them of being biased, pushing POV,... is not acceptable.--Xashaiar (talk) 02:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• To User:Bestofmed: This section was created to address the issues you want to address, would you please consider participating here rather than further reverting? Honestly, I don't see this as a POV issue at all. Some of the language could be "toned down" a little bit, and it's certainly possible to mention Arab-to-Persian influence if you have specific (referenced) items you think should be included. But none of this is really a NPOV issue in the sense that the policy relates to. Please keep in mind that no article has ever been improved by a revert war. Doc Tropics 02:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well Xashaiar, we are discussing these issues for days now; you cannot deny that. You are right about the tagging, I'd should put it earlier. Readers should be notified and additionally, this will stimulates other interested editors to participate in resolving the dispute.

You are always repeating let the facts speak for themselves, please what are these facts? Almost all I see is nothing but opinions without the reasoning behind. When we speak of facts we mean factual truth; something no one (with the exception of philosophical views on things) can deny! This current version lacks neutrality with a strong chauvinist tone. Show this to any history professor and he will ask: I do not see any history in here? only glories. We must strip this section of UW and put things in a neutral language. It is not only about the both streams of influence but the relevancy of provided information too.

Dear Tropics, I am glad you joined us to resolve the dispute. I agree with you we should start small but remember this is a history section, it is not only about the influence of Persians on Arabs or vice-versa, although that is a very important topic. History sections should mention what are the major changes and the events behind them during a period of time. When you look at the History of England for example, the content is not limited to how the English people influenced the Norman invaders. It highlights what happened and the aftermath. For this section I propose stating more dates, events and different shifts at different levels. I repeat again we should show:

1. Political changes
2. Religious and social changes
3. Cultural changes

And along these changes we can show the streams of influence. For example how the Arabs adapted the Sassanian system of administration but also how different provinces were ruled and controlled; that is one political aspect. This way we avoid the dispute of which one influenced the other more and we concentrate more on real topics. The challenge is how to put this into a reasonably-sized summary. Bestofmed (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC).

I have just read your new message Tropics. Well we have been spending days to reach a consensus so a tag is useful in these cases. It is a method to avoid an edit war. A flag does not mean that the section is forcibly POV (more about NPOV tag purposes). About the sources, well I have plenty of sources, you can check my additions here which are well inline-cited in order to balance the article but no doubt needs improvements. A later version with edits by Nepaheshgar is here. All of these efforts were reverted by Xashaiar and furthermore labeled as vandalism. I am trying to be constructive here. What about not touching the content for days, either reverting to my edits although I have almost 20 references within the contributed small content. Guess what guys, I want to reach a NPOV that is my sole purpose here, assume good faith! Bestofmed (talk) 03:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC).

The number of sources plays no role here if you bring 20 I bring 20x10+1 sources. And an article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue. (as is stated in Wikipedia:POV). The section MA has no bias and represents what most RS sources on Iran say. The section speaks of Politics (before, during, after MA), Religion and common life (during MA), and finally culture: (as some call it civilisation) the article speaks about culture very efficiently. As for WP:CONS, I strongly believe the section is in a very neutral, accurate, useful form and and vote not to change anything apart from minor typo, grammar, wording, ..changes.--Xashaiar (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Xashaiar is clearly correct about the section covering other topics adequately; there are several paragraphs, enough for each major point. Regarding your charges of POV issues about influence, it's unlikely other editors would be willing to let you make your changes and "let them stand for days". What would be the point of that if the changes are inappropriate? A better approach would be to copy a sentence that you have a problem with to this page, describe the problem as you see it, and suggest a change that would improve it. Doc Tropics 04:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You said enough for each major point. That point is that that invasion has no effect on Iran but the contrary it changed the invaders. You know that half-truths are the worst of all lies. I think I am not the one who is saying that Xashaiar is totally wrong neither that I am totally correct! About your suggestion (btw, it is not a problem of sentence), I tried that before but I got nothing but: WP is not a forum, OR, provide RS and personal abuses. This section is not balanced as it states one stream of influence, chauvinist tone and other major issues. Imagine a whole section in the History of England talking about how the English influenced Normans but ignoring what happened to the English. I am not going to reboot from zero. My objections were clear and I thought that you got them (no UW should be given to any POV, both streams of influence should be stated). Besides, most of the claims violates WP:V. They are selective and do not reflect the original sources. WP:ASF is violated too with opinions given as facts. Finally, most editors are not happy with a section does not mean that I should refrain and give up. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; it works on a system of good reasons. Have you seen my version and Nepaheshgar's one? I am gonna analyze my edits with you and I invite Xashaiar to state his objections.

After the Arab Conquest, Persian provinces were incorporated into the Islamic Empire [54] [55] [56] ending 400 years[57] of Sasanian dynasty[58][54]. Persia did not re-emerge as a fully independent political entity until the 16th century[55], although during the Abbasid caliphate decline, independent and semi-independent dynasties arose in different parts of Persia[55]. The Arab conquest was an important historical line in Iran's history[59]. The Islamic Civilization fundamentally transformed the religious, political, social and linguistic landscapes of Iran[55], although some pre-Islamic local customs continued to be observed in the aftermath.

Are these OR? may be the sentence Persia did not re-emerge as a fully independent political entity until the 16th century seems odd but it clearly uses the adverb fully. In other words Persia in whole as an independent entity.

On the religious level, Iranians acceptance to Islam was a very gradual process and varied considerably depending on the region and social classes[60]. The Arabs abolished the previous social classe system of Sassanians [61][62] changing the Iranian society and pushing hesitant Iranians to convert to Islam[62].

Well most Iranians converted to Islam, look at Iran today for god sake! The important information here is not the conversion itself but the process: it was gradual and slow. The second sentence mentions a historical fact, here I used two RS but I have others. Another editor proposed adding the racial system under the Ummayids. Well I welcomed that, that is an important historical fact. I agree in adding all the anti-Persian policies of the Ummayids.

In socio-economical terms, the Arab conquest and migrations[63] favored urban and agricultural development[64]. Persia has seen an increasing number of Arab immigrants in addition to the already existing tribes in southern and western Iran[63][64]. The provided security, trade and this new population supported by Arab policies[64] especially: settlement, city building and irrigation stimulated economic growth in the region[64].

Is not the immigration worth mentioning? The city building and transformations during this period are not worth mentioning? Another editor said that we should mention that Arabs burnt libraries, well why not that is welcome too.

The political situation after the conquest varied according to different factors but the administration remained to a larger extent in the hands of local Persians[55]. Moreover, Iranians attained key positions at the empire level under the Abbasids.

No comment.

Culturally, Iranians preserved their languages and resisted Arabization, while they adopted Arabic for scientific and philosophical discourses[65] which enabled them to rich a world-wide audience for the first time[65]. The Persian language was influenced by the Arabic language[66][67] at different levels: lexical[68], grammatical[69] and even language models[59] and rhetorics[70]. Additionally, the Arabic script replaced the Aramaic script for writing and simpler Arabic forms replaced the cumbersome and limited Pahlavi formations, and "in the ninth century A.D. the work flowing from Persia seems to indicate that the natural poetic inclinations of the Persians were waiting for this opportunity"[70]. Some statistical studies show that Arabic vocabulary in Persian jumped up from 25-30% in the 10th century to some 50% in the 12th century[71]. Most of these loan words were mots savants (learned words)[72] or terms used to describe abstract concepts. Iranians did not limit themselves to using the Arabic language but played a major role in developing it. Notably, Arabized scholars of Persian descent were the first to codify its grammar[73].

I think this section details the cultural changes mainly in the language. It provides statistics and studies related to that period of time. Pashtun objected to ..the cumbersome and limited Pahlavi formations.. so I agreed on removing it although two sources mention that clearly.

All of these sections were added but at the same time the other parts were preserved. I am open to a consensus built on good reason not worries. May be my edits are not neutral because not edit is but I think they are far more balanced and sourced than previous edits. Bestofmed (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC).

Let us analysis some of the things your puting here and you did it without respecting the style of the talk page. You added: After the Arab Conquest, Persian provinces were incorporated into the Islamic Empire [54] [55] [56] ending 400 years[57] of Sasanian dynasty[58][54]. Persia did not re-emerge as a fully independent political entity until the 16th century[55], although during the Abbasid caliphate decline, independent and semi-independent dynasties arose in different parts of Persia[55]. The Arab conquest was an important historical line in Iran's history[59]. The Islamic Civilization fundamentally transformed the religious, political, social and linguistic landscapes of Iran[55], although some pre-Islamic local customs continued to be observed in the aftermath This has over 1000+1 issues.

1. The first sentence uses the word Empire and dynasty in wrong places: did you mean caliphate and Sassanid Empire? Everybody agrees that your sentence is not neutral in calling the powers involved. The current version in contrast to yours covers very effectively what happened and links to multiple detailed articles (just below the heading of the section). Now let us look at your references: [56] The Places where Men Pray Together. Are you serious? Where is the place where all men pLay together? Even the title is rediculous. More importantly, you are not even wrong. If you click a bit, you would have seen that Tabarestan is a counter example to your claim. We did not mention more than 5 other ruling native Iranian dynasties as counter example. But if you click in the history of Iran they are all listed. For serious editor of wikipedia what I have just said is enough to ignore your edition completely. This means: Your first sentence is not acceptable and the source is problematic.
2. Your selection is uninteresting, because your source page 363 (see below) states explicitly that power was in the hand of indigenous Iranians. So not choosing this one but choosing the most trivial assertion (point 3 below) shows your POV. And why we should accept your POV?
3. Again your first sentence: The source, that you copied the sentence and therefore by your own argument is violation of copyright, is ISB 1857431847, page 363. This source is titled encyclopaedic but its articles are not signed, therefore not RS in my view. Also ironically this source mentions even more Persian-->>>> Islam influence than our article.
4. Your second sentence "The Arab conquest was an important historical line in Iran's history". Come one, let us not add "sky is blue" to articles. If we think that was not important why we have a section on it? Since we have article size problem, everybody should agree that even one irrelevant word should be removed.
5. Your third sentence "The Islamic Civilization fundamentally transformed the religious, political, social and linguistic landscapes of Iran". Again are your serious? In the article it is mentioned that Iran become partly a muslim country, so what are you adding to the article? change of linguistic landscape? you are wrong, the change was not fundamental. See the previous section of this talk page. So overall this sentence adds 0 information to the section. And the section includes all the political, social, languages, and more importantly scientific developments in Persia. Your addition removes all.
6. Your fourth sentence "although some pre-Islamic local customs continued to be observed in the aftermath": This is a clear violation of wikipedia rules: Your source is page 396 (same as above): It states explicitly: local administration remained largely in the hands of the indigenous population, and many local customs continued to be observed I leave this to the other editors to decide about your edit. You removed the half of this sentence, quoted the second half and changed "largely" to "some".
7. Ironically, your source page 363 states: In due course a new civilisation developed in persia! I am sorry to tell you that your own source rejects completely any kind of civilisation outside Persia (wrong or right).

Therefore your addition was, in my view, disruptive, violation of wikipedia rules, and POV!--Xashaiar (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I repeat again my call to avoid personal abuse and not assume good faith! Finally something substantial and related to the topic. I will answer your objections one by one. But, first I want to mention general erroneous assumptions you have:

• You assume that your sources are the only reliable ones and others that do not support your claims are a joke.
• You think that in the academic world there is an authoritative source.
• You misinterpreted most sources and/or went selective in discussing them.
• You saw my views either in isolation or in generalization.
• You are pushing assuming the obvious too much.

Now, let's answer your objections:

1. According to most sources Sassanians were a dynasty but others view it as an empire (you can even check the article on the Sassanians). Both terms are used interchangeably. In English, it is always good to use synonyms or common names. So this section used different names to point to one thing: Islamic Empire, Caliphate etc. I will not answer your ridiculous view on an academic publication by the University of Chicago. Like it or not, it is a reliable source. Contact the scholar if you do not agree with him. Moreover, two additional sources were provided. About the dynasties, I agreed with another editor to cite the different dynasties. If we look at your edits, it is you who abuses the term. You used names such as: Tahirid Empire, Saffarid Empire, Samanid Empire, Buyid Empire, Ghaznavid Empire, Seljuk Empire. Their respective articles state clearly that they are dynasties and in the academic world those names are not accepted. (see Empire).
2. This is called an inline-citation. If you read all the content, you will notice that the same source was used to show that Iranians continued to rule most of their lands. Here, the idea is to show that local customs continued to be observed, implying that the change is not complete.
3. Look who is talking about copyright. Well according to you we should remove all your edits too or this rule concern only Bestofmed? The source is RS, please read the definition of RS. I think we do not do peer-reviewing here. These kind of books were well checked and reviewed before being published by prestigious and academic press.
4. Again you are assuming the obvious where it suits you. This sentence is used to highlight the importance of change. May be the wording should be different but it is highly recommended that we state this. The Cambridge History of Iran underlined this fact in its preface because it gives the reason why they have a full volume on that period, in the same way here it shows why we have a full section.
5. This sentence is called the topic sentence in English. It outlines what are the details we are going to discuss later. Here we used the term transformed and not flipped or wiped out! We are talking about the history of the majority of Iranians (although I agree on talking about minorities but without UW). If you do not like the wording OK, but the information provided is completely true. The prove? next sections (including some of yours). Further, it is some kind of summary that can be more studies in other articles such as the Islamization of Iran.
6. If your objection is on the use of some instead of many, I agree with you.
7. This point is the blurriest of all your objections.

In addition you analyzed this content in isolation of other parts. Reluctance and complete rejection will not lead us to any resolution. Bestofmed (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC).

is Tehran the largest city in the Middle-East?

I had a discussion with User:Doc_Tropics about the largest city in the Middle-East after he reverted my edit. Here is what we said (I apologize for spamming his talk page):

Regarding Istanbul, it's lede clearly states that it is the second metropolitan area in Europe. This fact is repeated, with references, in List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population. Wikipedia clearly considers Istanbul part of Europe, not the Middle East. It's therefor not possible to claim it as both the largest city in the Middle East and the second largest in Europe. If you wish to assert otherwise, you can't just say you have refs, you have to show them, and they need to be RS. Then you need to change WP policy regarding Istanbul's location. After that it's no problem at all to change the article the way you want. Doc Tropics 03:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

First, Turkey is a country that belongs to Middle East (The middle-east spans along three contents, check the Middle-East article if you want). Moreover, Turkey is part of the core middle-east. Istanbul's article states that Istanbul is the largest city proper in Europe. Even using Wikipedia articles, Istanbul is clearly the largest in the Middle-East. Istanbul has a population of more than 12 millions and a an area of 706.9 sq mi. Tehran, on the other hand, has a population of a less than 12 millions and an area of 265 sq mi. So using both criteria, it is clear which one is the largest. City Mayors list Cairo as the largest city, followed by Istanbul than Tehran (here). Encarta too, it states that Cairo is the largest city in the Middle-East but to avoid articles' contradiction the first seems more consistent. Whatever the case, it is clear that Tehran is not the largest city in the Middle-East (neither by population nor by area). Bestofmed (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC).

Bestofmed (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: It was late night for me when we started this discussion, and my initial reading of Istanbul was inadequate and therefore not entirely correct. It appears that Istanbul is unique; it is located exactly on the dividing line between Europe and the Middle East, and is often considered part of both continents. However, the sentence that we have here about Tehran seemed to be accurate, because Iran is entirely Middle Eastern, not just half. The article about Cairo indicates it is "...the largest city in Egypt and one of the largest in the world", but makes no claim at all to being the largest Middle Easteren city.

For these reasons it seems to me that our original version stating Tehran is the largest is fine, but the isuue isn't entirely clear and I'm open to further discussion. It would be helpful to find a neutral and reliable source that provides a complete listing of Middle Eastern cities by population. Despite our disagreement, I would still like to thank Bestofmed for engaging in discussion so that we can resolve this. Doc Tropics 13:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Doc, I do not know if we should make an exception here. Turkey is clearly a country that belongs to the Middle-East. I mean here we are referring to the Middle-East in whole (with sub-regions from three contents). It is not only about the Asian region of it. We need to state facts that are consistent across Wikipedia articles especially when it is a superlative expression. About Encarta, it states that Cairo is the largest in its Middle-East related articles (click for a public excerpt). But that contradicts some Wikipedia articles notably Cairo. The case of Istanbul is clearer and relevant in my opinion. Bestofmed (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC).

Middle Ages rewrite

A user has requested mediation on this issue. A mediator will be here shortly to assist you. The case page for this mediation is located here.

I noticed that Nepaheshgar restarted this section. What I did generally:

• Fixed typo (although the section needs more checking)
• Reordered the section (I agree that we should proceed by theme but we need to respect the chronology of events; afterall, it is a section about history). For example, we should mention first how Iranians helped the Abbassid in their coup afterward, we can discuss the rising of indepedent and semi-independ dynasties on the Iranian Plateau.

Now about my edits:

• There was no exception after the conquest, in fact the new conquered land was larger than the whole previous area occupied by Sassanians. The encyclopedia Iranica states clearly "by 651" but here we said "After the Arab conquest". We can put dates if you want but that would require detailing the whole conquest process!

• I highlighted the social class change again. I added also a sentence to show that another from of descrimination arose under the Ummayids. I will add a source soon or you could provide one. I added also informations about the wave of immigrations of Arabs to Iran. I ignored also the economic changes for now (In socio-economical terms, the Arab conquest and migrations favored urban and agricultural development...).

• I removed the expression "words were persanized" because any language will change most if not all its loan words to suit it. But, if you want to add it, I have no objection. The same goes for most words does not have the same meaning as in Arabic. These can be better placed in the Persian language article. We need to highlight that the language changed by stating some facts (stastics for instance) not explaining the new language structure from inside or the natural language evolution which would be better placed in liguistics' articles. I will be bold about this section as long as other sections continue to do the same for Persian influence on Arabic. By the way I groupped them in one paragraph for a consistent content.

• I omitted also some details such as the influence of Arabic on Persian poetry and literature (i.e. Arabic forms replaced the cumbersome and limited Pahlavi formations...) and the Ibn-Muqaffaa part. In addition the last quote from Nicholson's A Literary History of the Arabs was taken out of context and ignored what the author just stated before "What the Persians brought into Arabian poetry was not a grandiose style, but...". If an editor will insist on putting this, he will need to quote correctly Nicholson and I will add some content about the influence of Arabic on persian literature and poetry if not stated to reach a NPOV.

• I replaced modified Perso-Arabic script (that is a non-sense), Perso-Arabic script is a modified Arabic script.

• Also following the ASF policy about scholars' opinions, I used the term "Various scholars, mainly Bernard Lewis..." as WP:ASF states: It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

• I did not edit the "Perso-Islamic" part because I do not have access to all stated sources. Neverthelessin all cases, this assumption is not widely accepted (even in the CH of Iran the contributor said: without necessary putting this judgment into analytical terms). Thus we need to reformulate this section. Either comply to WP:ASF and state whose opinion is, and/or respect fully WP:V and add the author's reservations to the idea.

Finally, I am open as always to any comments and/or reasonable objections. Bestofmed (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC).

Be consistent. In the previous section you rejected that my assertion: "Your second sentence "The Arab conquest was an important historical line in Iran's history". Come one, let us not add "sky is blue" to articles. If we think that was not important why we have a section on it?" by saying: "again you are assuming the obvious where it suits you." (here and there). Now it is time to tell yourself why you removed what "suits yourself". If you removed the persionization of words, then you must remove the whole sentence on loan words from arabic. most of your edits are rejected by users above. WP:CONS should be noted.--Xashaiar (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I do not have any objection if you want to include it. I said that clearly above. By the way, we have not reach a consensus yet and remember that important rule from the WP:CONS page. It is good reason that matter not the number of users. Bestofmed (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC).

On the class system, the issue needs discussion [9] to see what needs to be included. The Arabs did introduce a new class system based on race and also Islam does have a class system in the sense that it distinguishes religious communities. On the influence of Arabic on Persian, I think we did mention considerable vocabulary. But this is in the written language and really the Arabic words in Persian are pronounced differently and have different meanings. In the spoken language, Arabic words are much less. I think if we are to mention statistics, we should mention that these words were Persianized also. At the same time, some works contain little Arabic, mainly epic poetry while others contain more like religious writing. I think a considerable number of Arabic vocabulary or as some scholars have made similarity with the Norman invasion of England and influx of large number of french words is good. But in terms of language structure, phonology, morphology and etc., the Arabic influence is very little in Persian. The main influence is vocabulary which I have mentioned. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I am open to discussion about the class system as I said. I started looking for sources that analyze the social class system in this period (about the discrimination against non-Arabs and mainly Persians). About "persanized words" and "the meaning", I have no objection as I stated above if you think that that is important. About the language, the details were only provided for loan words (i.e. vocabulary) and it underlined how the vocabulary evolved during that period. Other changes were mentioned in name (grammatical, language models etc.). We can also include that Arabs adopted some Persian vocabulary too. If you can be more specific about this concern, I might answer you better. Bestofmed (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC).

Yes On the class system, the issue needs discussion [10] to see what needs to be included. I agree, Islam definitely changed the old Sassanid class structure. For example if a person was not born from a priestly family, they could not become a priest where-as in Islam, any one could become a religious scholar and the most influential one is the Persian Abu Hanifah. This is a positive aspect. At the same time, the Arabs did introduce a new class system based on race (in the Ummayyad times) and also Islam does have a class system in the sense that it distinguishes religious communities and sometimes breaks them down Ahl-e-Ketab and non Ahl-e-Ketab. I think the change in the class system overall that Islam brought (except the ummayyad racial one) was positive. But we need to mention the Ummayyad racial prejudice as well.

On the influence of Arabic on Persian, I think we did mention considerable vocabulary. But this is in the written language and really the Arabic words in Persian are pronounced differently and many times have different meanings. In the spoken language, Arabic words are much less frequent. In some dialects of Persian, they are very low, for example in places in Central Iran or Zoroastrian dialects or etc.. I think if we are to mention statistics, we should mention that these words were Persianized also. Sometimes a work is 90%+ Persian like Shahnameh while other times it could even be 30% Persian. But at the same time, many scientists think of the Arabic words that have entered Persian as Persianized.Some works contain little Arabic, mainly epic poetry while others contain more like religious writing. I think a considerable number of Arabic vocabulary or as some scholars have made similarity with the Norman invasion of England and influx of large number of french words is good. But in terms of language structure, phonology, morphology and etc., the Arabic influence is small on Persian. The main influence is the considerable vocabulary which I have mentioned, but these words are pronounced differently in Persian and most of the time have acquired new meanings. Some of the words are also Greek that entered Arabic: Falsafa, Juqrafi, Luqat, etc. Sometimes there is Persian words in the Qur'an, like Sureyeh Fil: Fil (elephant), Sanjil (Sang-gel), Ababil .. So I think the importance of the Arabic loanwords are important enough to mention (There are about 5000 words of Persian in Arabic according to one Arabic scholar, but I do not think even with this, the influence of Persian on Arabic can be compare to Arabic loanwords in persian), but the other aspects of the grammar, phonology, structure are very little or not notable. Persian is after all classified as an indo-european language and is very easy language to learn and is gender neutral and etc.

Also We should mention there was regions that were not conquered by the Arab conquest like Caspian regions and parts of Transoxiana, which is important. It took much longer for the Ummayads to conquer some of these areas like Chorasmia for example. Some regions in the Caspian though were independent. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not? but in this case we should provide exact dates (I am working on adding more dates to this section). As I said "After the Arab conquest" is a vague definition as a historical reference. I noticed that the previous section (pre-Islamic Iran) talk about the Conquest itself (different confrontations and battles). I do not know if we should move the details of this resistance there or include it in the Middle-Ages? We need to avoid redundancy, the article is already too long. Bestofmed (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC).

I forgot to comment on other issues. About the new social class system, I can leave it to you (you seem to be well informed about that). About loan words, I agree with you to an important extent. May be we should use an expression like: "..and to a lesser degree/extent on grammar, rhetoric etc." to make clear that the influence on these aspects was less important. Another important thing is that here we are talking about Persian spoken during that period not today's Persian, that is why I tried to include only studies focusing on that era. About the other stream of influence, I will go the university library to check linguistics journals. I remember seeing an article discussing Arabic-Persian inter-influence from a linguistic but also a historical view. Bestofmed (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC).

Yes I see what you mean. But that part is based on Iranica.. the Arab conquest simply means the disappearance of Sassanids in my viewpoint and Arab control over most of Iran (say 90%+ except Caspian region and some parts of Transoxiana which was populated by Iranian people) and he Ummayyad era, and some add Abbassids. Of course it is a long chronology, but that has its own article. The previous section on Sassanids does mention two important battles which is before the disappearance of Sassanids. So that is why it is good to mention those two battles in the Sassanid era. I do not see an issue with section. But the detail of the resistance is mainly for the Ummayyad, Abbassid era and also in Iranica, it is sectioned that way as well.

The Middle ages covers 900 years of history, so it is expected to be somewhat longer than other sections. We mentioned already the considerable Arabic vocabulary in Persian, but it is important to mention many of these were Persianized Arabic words in the sense that they were used in an Indo-European language, with a different phonology, with different contexts and many times meaning. There might be other influences on the language, but these were not significant like the vocabulary. Probably the only other one that is significant to mention is borrowing of Arabic forms from poetry, mainly the Masnavi and Qasida. Yes rhetoric specially from the Quran played a role, but this is in many Islamic languages. The Persian spoken today is actually very similar to Persian spoken then. For example Shahnameh is read widely in Iran and represents a good example of spoken Persian. Modern Persian speaker, even an illiterate person can understand a poet like Rudaki or Ferdowsi very easily. But the religious, scientific writings, and some poets that used more Arabic words, like Rumi are harder to grap. On grammar, Arabic really did not have an influence. The only influence is that when Arabic words entered, they also brought many of their morphs, for example تقصیر مقصر قاصر. But phonology and morphology of sentences and structure follows Middle Persian. Indeed for an illiterate person, Middle Persian would be easier than say Mathnavi of Rumi. So what I suggest is to mention considerable Arabic vocabulary alongside some of the major poetic forms and also Quranic rhetoric. On Grammar, a scholar righly claimed "Persian is child's play compare to Arabic", with regards to simplicity of Persian grammar and the complexity of Arabic. Rhetoric played an important role in Arabic, specially counsels from Sassanid era and vizirs like Buzurgmihr بزرجمهر. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

An article on this topic:[[11]]. Note it says:""Arabic vocabulary in Persian thus suppletive, rather than basic. ...The vocabulary of material culture was 14 percent Arabic in Persian. Arabic words of general intellectual life was 24 percent""...I think the word considerable is fair and succinct. pg 98 also speaks about Middle Persian and influence on Arabic.. But I think the current version of the article is a good wording and balanced.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Nepaheshgar, These last things have to be mentioned in the article to balance your edit that concerns me a lot. 1. You do not emphasis enough on fundamental difference between Persian language and a non-indo-european language (like arabic) which can not have important interactions. 2. You do not mention enough from the anti-cultural behaviour of arabs (burning books, and the fact that arabs did not have any cultural product before Islam). 3. you mention "Culturally, Iranians preserved their languages, while they used the Arabic for scientific and philosophical discourses" This is misleading. A previous edit contains the sentence "Even in developing the scientific Arabic prose itself which differs in style from that of Quran, Persian scholars like Ibn al-Muqaffa had a major role." It is this new arabic language which is used by Iranians (that is Iranian developed arabic language is used by Iranians not the one which was there!). I think these sentences can be brought together. For the moment let us know what you think and then we go through other issues I have in mind.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I am trying to be fair and balanced but at the same accept any criticism. I think the link I gave provides a good summary of Arabic loanwords in Persian while it did not have a major effect on other aspects of Persian. I agree that Iranians also developed the Arabic language, specially scientific and mystic and philosophical writing and wrote the first grammar for it. Some of the best example of mytical poetry in Arabic is from Hallaj. Also I did not mention Middle Persian influence on Arabic. The thing is this is an article about Iran mainly and I think we should have a much larger article on Iran in Middle Ages. I think it might be noteworthy to mention Persian as an Indo-European language. Also I did not mention the influence of Persian on Urdu, Turkish, and Indic languages. I do not think we can fit everything here and there is much. That is why I believe the current version is balanced, but let me know if you want to change anything. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, it seems another user reverted our edits without looking at the talking page (removing along sourced material; by definition this is vandalism and considered disruptive). Nepaheshgar, I think if we continue like this we can reach a well balanced section very soon. I added a source for the discrimination against non-Arabs and specifically Persians, although you can develop that part with further details if you want. I included your last edits too after the last revert (highlighted that both languages are from different language families as requested by Xashaiar. I added the determiner "most" before "Persian provinces" to imply that not all current provinces were ruled. I included also in the language part that most of these words were persanized and usually have different meaning than that of Arabic (although I think having a source is preferred here for the superlative most in the case of meaning differences). I added also along the preserving of the Persian languages the continuation of many of pre-Islamic customs.

I told you above that we should also mention that Arabic was influenced too by Middle Persian (especially loan words). I agree with you that this section is about Iran and we should concentrate on Iranian issues such as the Persian Language but this will satisfy some editors.

I support your suggestion for a detailed article about Iran in the middle ages. Most countries have their History Series of articles; why not Iran! That is a good idea.

Before closing I want to comment on the issues rose by Xashaiar: 2. May be we should develop more the agressiveness of the initial conquest and the burning of the books. It is worth mentioning but without UW as Nepaheshgar said they were occasional. 3. Your previous edit violates WP:V. The source said clearly: it is an exaggeration to credit Persians for the scientific Arabic development. The current version mentions clearly: "They played a major role", same expression used by the source. Moreover the use of Even is usually contested in Wikipedia (it is used usually to express a POV). Worst of all, you are implying that Iranians were not able to do their scholarship in Persian so they developed scientific Arabic to fill this gap. As if Persian is a handicap or non-scientific-able language. Bestofmed (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC).

On your last sentence: No the article implies what Ibn khaldun, Nichollson, Frye, .. say. Something that can be expressed in a modest way like this: Since only Iranian were able to do science, since they were muslim, since the arabic language before their activity was primitive (see the quote from S. Nasr; the undisputed scholar in islam related studies), so they first developed the language of their religion that is arabic (more correctly Iranian-developed language of arabic). Now to tell the reader of this page what your sentence means, look at another example: Latin was used long after the collapse of Roman empire. Some scientists used it up to begining of 20th century. Does this mean other languages like German, Greek, English were handicaped? An encyclopaedia is not supposed to be offering-some-piece-to-everybody. It is important to be accurate. What the article used to be.--Xashaiar (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

HI I think we should not remove any of the added sources in the current version. The article is still not about Arab influence on Iran or Iran influence on Arabs. Rather just some of the highlights including Arabic words in new Persian and the evolution of new Persian, Iranian usage of Arabic for scientific purpose (Mainly the reason for this was the new political power but as mentioned Persian scientific writing also developed later) and developing grammar for that language, how Islam came and how Islam modified society and finally of course how Iranians contributed to Islamic civilization. I think the current version is balanced. One or two words on change of class is fine and I agree with that part. I do not agree with removing Ibn Khaldun and some other wordings as these are mentioned by many scholars writing on Iran (Frye). There is a lot of details that can be put in other articles for example modern Iraq had a large Persian speaking population at that time (the name Baghdad, Anbar, Fellujah and etc. are all Persian) or Persian rhetoric through Pahlavi had a large influence and etc. There were Arab migrants to Persia, but they were assimilated much like Iranians in Iraq (with the exception of Kurds), Arabian peninsula, North Africa (Ibn Battubah states that the Sufi prayer houses are run and frequented mainly by Iranians) and etc. SO there is a lot of detail but we need to keep it succinct while emphasizing the main points. Also the link I provided gives different statistics and disagrees with Lazard's statistics, I think there is no reason to argue what statistics are correct, you can find easily books that are 90% Persian+(Shahnameh, Vis o Ramin, Zaratoshtnama, Kalila Demna Parsi, Kasravi's writing) to ones that are very Arabized (religious books for example). I think the current version covers it all. I do agree with the two sentences you did add on social classes and I'll re-edit that part, although the forces of conversion has been debated and some have mentioned force, others faith and etc.. My opinion and some scholars is mainly economic and social benefits.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Xashiyar and you both have a point, but we cannot mix the two. The Arab invasion was fairly brutal as document and Iranians were taken as slaves, towns were burned and etc. However, the spread of Islam was not by force rather it had many complex reasons. I think the article is balanced, but the brutality of the Arab invasion is documented in many sources and currently I am differentiating between conversion to Islam and this invasion. The article is about Iran obviously. If we for example go to every other Arab countries page and put Ibn Khaldun, how Iranians wrote grammar books for Arabs and lots of other quotes, it can be done. But rather we are highlighting some main aspects and I do not see any imbalance currently with the article.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Iran is in Asia