Talk:Iran

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

Flag

The flag used until 1979 should be showed above or under the current flag, as the Iranians never voted to change their flag, the mollahs did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lionflag.svg

Contemporary Politics

hey guys I'm all about the green movement, but the section and picture concerning " A motto of demonstrators against the purported vote fraud".. does that really belong in the wikipage of Iran? USA had major issues with the Flordia elections and the Bush administration but none of this is on their USA wikipage. Same goes with other countries.

I think that space in Iran's wikipage should be devoted to something else, you have 3000 years of history, and most of the content on this page covers the last 30 years...

1. Please Sign. 2. You mean this policy? Maybe. 3. But I made a saying for you "it took 3000 years to build a culture, and took only 30 years to destroy it". You got it? Xashaiar (talk)

"citation-needed" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.89.106 (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"PreIslamic State" should be replaced with "Zoroasterian State"

In the history of Iran, the ancient Iranian history has been entitled "Preislamic State." This is a biased representation of Iran's history. Iran had a rich civilization prior to the Islam. In fact, it was the muslims that became absorbed by the rich Zoroasterian Iranian culture. Therefore, instead of labeling 500bc to 600 AD as the " PreIslamic State", please rename it "Zoroasterian State" or "Ancient Iranian Empire". Please refrain from referring to this period as pre-Isalmic. If anything, let us be more liberal in our use of the word "Post Zoroasterian" era in Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1979omen (talk • contribs) 00:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Your point is a serious one. That is "pre-Islamic" is a silly label. But it is accurate as Islam did not exist in that period. But "pre-Islamic" is not neutral and in my opinion silly. On the other hand "post Zoroastrian"(ism) is inaccurate. Because Zoroastrianism in Iran did not die after Sasanids. It will be an important topic to be discussed by wikipedians to get rid of division of Iranian history into Pre-Islamic and Islamic. I think the simple solution is simply not to divide at all. Xashaiar (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We somehow need to indicate the various invasions of Iran by foreigners starting with Greeks, then the Arabs, the Moguls, and Turks (Qajar). These foreigners harmed the peaceful civilization of Iranians and destroyed much of our rich art/literature. However, Iran has continued to persist.

Iran religiosity bar

The Iran religiosity bar currently is so long it covers the picture of a graph of Iran's population in the demography section, can someone fix this technical problem? Kermanshahi (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Iran or Persia?

Because the Europeans keen to nominate a country to it's capital city name - for example Roma, Athens or Florence, Venice - Iran would to name of the usual capital , Persia, was known. "Persia" is an Aryan race, which usually were- and are- the leads of the Iranian governments. Persia with words such as Prussia or Prezeus is from a root. But "Iran" mentions the race of the peopleas aryayian and is considered an ideal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightdevil40 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The country's official name both internally and internationally is Iran so the article will remain to be called like this.Kermanshahi (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Instead of using the word "race" to refer to the aryans, it is preferable and more accurate to use the term "tribe" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.245.71 (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Update City Population

Hello, can you please update the Iranian city population section? The current stats posted are based on 2006. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 10:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Why the Name Persia was changed to iran

You should include the facts about why and who suggested that the name Persia, be changed to the name Iran. The name Iran, "land of the aryans" in farci was suggested in world war two by none other than Adolf Hitler. Whom Iran was alighned with then. On the suggestion of Adolf Hitler Persia changed its name to Iran.

http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2004/December/PG2/index.html

Kevin Freedman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.34.97 (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

unreliable source, it's on the opinions section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.89.106 (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The notion that Adolf Hilter caused Iran to adopt its real name is BOGUS and FALSE. There is no truth to this. the truth is that Reza Pahlavi I (Reza Shah) asked the world to recognize Iran by its Iranian name, what Iran has always been called, instead of Persia, which is the anglicized version of Greek name: Perseus, which referred to only a small region of iran, Pars. This nazi rumor was started by the British who wanted to discredit Pahlavi Dynasty and sever iran's relationship with America and Germany. Somehow, this rumor generated by the English has taken a life of its own on the internet and has been replicated a million times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.245.71 (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

ethnic map

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iran_ethnic_groups_map.png This map proposed by Pournick is more correct. It has still some mistakes but it is much better than the former one based on national Geographics. I think we should give Pournick credit for this. We can slightly correct it and put this map there.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Maps in Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources, not based on bargaining among Wikipedia users. If the previous map is too erroneous, then just remove it, but do not replace it with a made-up map. Wikipedia is not the right place for Original Research. Alefbe (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the old map is still Original research because who said that there are Pashtuns in Sistan? The maker has just labelled it without being consistent with the national geographic. A map made recently by Mehrdad Izady seems to be the most conclusive one (he as the only one also places the central Iranian languages on the map), but he exaggerates the Kurdish populated areas. Besides that that is a good map. Also the very old map at the university of Texas is a better one. There are more cases of maps which are made by users on wikipedia, but even in case you do not agree with that it is better to put all three maps.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Alefe please don't remove the map. You can replace it by Mehrdad Izady's map if you want but he exaggerated the extent of Kurdish inhabited areas, but is generally more accurate than this one.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As I have extensively discussed on the talk page of User:Pournick (here, here, here and here), the map made by him is faulty and ahistorical. I believe that Pournick's vision is clouded by his political convictions, as spelled out, in no uncertain terms, on his talk page ("This user strongly supports independence of south Azerbaijan from Iran.", "This user supports unification of Azerbaijan Rep. and South Azerbaijan (of Iran)." --- as I have pointed out to him, already the term "South Azarbaijan" is a perversion of undeniable historical facts --- the interested should consult this paper). His actions on Wikipedia seem to follow the political agenda of Pan-Turkism. Of course, these are his own private business, but one should realise that Wikipedia is not a party-political platform and should not be used for advancing one's political agenda. Earlier (see here and here), he has been doing political canvassing on Wikipedia. All leading me to believe that he should be on the streets campaigning, not here, if he wants to communicate his political convictions to others. Put simply, he is in the wrong place. --BF 16:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

ps: I do realise that Mr Bahram Moshiri's religious and political views are offensive to some, however, and with apologies, this video is very pertinent to the discussion at hand. --BF 16:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

The terms Prnick uses are ahistorical and wrong. So the ethnic lables, for example Azerbaijani Turk instead of Azeri are wrong, but the distribution of ethnic groups on his map is closer to the reality on the ground that the current map by national geographic.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

How about mentioning...

Rhazes, Farabi, Biruni, Khwārizmī, Haytham, Ghazali, Omar Khayyám, Rudaki, Asadi Tusi, Jamshid Kashi, Bukhtishu, Mansur Hallaj, Abu Sa'īd Abulḫayr, Kharaqāni, Junayd Baghdadi, Bayazid Bastami, Saʿdī, Hāfez, Nezāmi-ye Ganjavi, Sanā'ī, ‘Attār, Shams-e-Tabrīzī, Mowlānā Jalaluddin Rumi, Mulla Sadra, Suhrawardi... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.113.143 (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

They have their own articles, and an articles covering science in Iran. But they should mention Mulla Nasraddin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xullius (talk • contribs) 21:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Some new findings to be reflected in the main article

This article in journal New Scientist is worthy of consideration. --BF 18:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)