Jump to content

Talk:Iran

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.80.113.143 (talk) at 21:09, 26 April 2010 (→‎salam/dorood!: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Please consider reading the archived discussions for this article before asking any questions on this talk page or initiating any new debate.
Former good articleIran was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 15, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 23, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 26, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 21, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of March 19, 2006.
Current status: Delisted good article

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

Demography

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The article voids neutrality law!

The very first paragraph has no citation of The name Iran in Sassanian era! the rest of paragraphs so in terms of refrences and ref 12 dosen't exist. None of the refrences mentions any gegraphical region wich was called iran before 1700s. The only thing I got when reading the refs was the claimd parts have never been called Iran before 1700s! The group of articles about Iran is mainly dominated by ethnocentric persian writters who value nothing else than thier ethnocentric benifits! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir.azeri (talk • contribs) 10:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the section "Name". Please do not call the writers of Wikipedia "ethnocentric" . Thank you --Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's not trying to offend anyone. That's what he thinks and it's true.--Xullius (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but i don't see any "ethnocentrism" here either.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.236.229 (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read the name part again but found nothing in support of information there. The wiki writers write neutrally, Just to mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir.azeri (talk • contribs) 17:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No you do not seem to have read the article. If you have any doubt that In Sassanid and Partian era Iran was called Iran, then you have one chance: challenge the entire scholarships. This is much more difficult than reading and clicking in wikipedia that you failed to do correctly. Good luck. Xashaiar (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This post is a true sign of vandalism. The author mentions no reference or answer to the question of refs. But merely attacks me for my post. No reference of mentioned scholars have been given!. Amir.azeri (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I think this is sufficient[1] and next time you label users by their background (because you disagree with historical facts), you will be reported and if you do it couple of more times, you will probably be banned. See WP:battle, WP:forum, WP:soapbox and WP:attack as well as WP:OR and WP:RS. This is an Encyclopedia. Xashiar is right with this regard that if you think your theory is correct, you will have to challenge scholarship and then come back to Wikipedia. Thanks --Pahlavannariman (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geography detail incorrect

In the Geography and climate section, 2nd paragraph, there is a claim that Mount Damavand is "also the highest mountain on the Eurasian landmass west of the Hindu Kush". This is not correct. It is based on the old height measurement at 5671m. The latest height for the mountain is 5610m which is shorter than Mount Elbrus (5642m) that is also located in the Eurasian landmass to the west of the Hindu Kush. There are numerous sources (including Wikipedia's own entries on these mountains) confirming this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FelixMonkey (talk • contribs) 23:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Revolution

There is absolutely no mention of US, European support for Saddam Hussein during Iran-Iraq war. The chemical weapons used in the war to kill tens of thousands of Iraqi Kurds and Shias and Iranian soldiers and civilians were provided by a man in the Netherlands (google results shows many, here is one http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5678681). France also provided Saddam with aircrafts. U.S. shot down a commercial airplane carrying 200+ Iranian passengers, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.113.143 (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

salam/dorood!

I just wanted to thank everyone who worked on this wikipage as well as other Iranian related articles. You guys have done a great job and I really appreciate how much extra time and hard work you put in. Kheli mamnoon ممنون  :)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iran&oldid=358494591"