Talk:Persians/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Balancing/Adding to more historical Persian information (Tajiks/Tats)

Hello, is there any valid reason that Uzbekistan is not mentioned in regards to Tajiks/Eastern Persians outside of present-day Iran? There is anywhere from 1.5-12M (more than Tajikistan) Tajiks in Uzbekistan, so it needs to be added. Furthermore, it has been noted by reliable western scholars that Tajik's are culturally repressed in Uzbekistan, and WP is neither a place to perpetuate nor right great wrongs. Thus, we must remain truly neutral, and true neutrality requires us to include anything that has been verified by reliable academic sources -- and the existence of a native Tajik/Eastern Persian population is verified in Uzbekistan by reliable academic sources per WP:RS requirements. If no one has any objections nor plans to revert my edits -- I will go ahead and include Uzbekistan to the list of countries.

I also think that it might be useful and helpful for readers to get a sense of which famous Persians were from outside of present-day Iran (al-Khwārizmī, Avicenna, Rumi) -- what does everyone think about adding some famous historical Eastern/Central Asian Persians and Caucasian Persian to the lede?

--Jamaas9 (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, what does everyone think of adding some more relevant categories to the list on this talk page? Again, it only lists Western/Caucasus Persians (present-day Iran/Azerbaijan) -- don't we need to add some of the present-day Tajik's (Eastern Persian) homeland (so, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan & Tajikistan) as well considering all their famous ancestors autolink to this specific Persian page? Please let me know what everyone thinks. --Jamaas9 (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jamaas9: Uzbekistan was probably missed out. I don's see anything wrong with mentioning it. However, coming up with a picked-up list of medieval figures to the lede would neither be qualifiable nor necessary. The lede already contains a detailed paragraph concerning the issue of the Tajiks and Tats, and I believe that is sufficient.
Regarding the talk page, I'm not sure if WikiProject Azerbaijan itself is required here. Either that should be removed or the WikiProjects of Tajikistan, Afghanistan, and Uzbekistan would also be reasonable to add.
—Rye-96 (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rye-96: Salam Ryan, Uzbekistan was removed previously when I added it to the lede without a username -- without a just cause. My message was to ensure that it would not be removed again and to argue my case if it would have been. I have noticed biases and issues regarding Persian People and Iranian peoples such as misquotes and personal POV that almost always benefits Persians of present-day Iran and create at least an implicit bias against Tajiks and Tats. Please check the Rumi talk page for just one clear example. As a Khurasani, my goal is to ensure the highest quality of objective scholarship not only for the benefit of all readers but also to personally ensure that works were written by ethnic Iranians (I have noticed that many editors on these Iranian/Aryan pages identify as at least partially Iranian/Aryan ethnically.) or even about ethnic Iranians to still maintain the highest quality of scholarship that our people were well-known for historically.

@Wario-Man: suggested that I help improve this page than individually improve the quality of each famous ethnic Iranian who happens to contribute directly into Persian culture and identity. Again, this page is not meant for simply Persians native to present-day Iran as Persian/Parsi is still an acceptable name for modern Tajiks and Tats. There is almost no mention of any impact of Persians outside of present-day Iran except for some reference to famous Persians outside of present-day Iran such as Rumi. Greater Khorasan was a centre of culture/society/place of development of New Persian, but how often is even mentioned compared to other parts of our shared Persian cultural sphere? As we both know, these famous Persian figures did not come out of some sort of cultural vacuum -- they are products the native Persian heritage/culture/language mentioned in the lede. Don't you think it is objective to explain more of that impact to principally western audiences (given this is the English, not the Persian/Farsi Wikipedia) who may have a very little background in Persian studies -- hence, their need to use encyclopedic references such as this website. Our recorded history is both very old and extensive, hence, we will have a good deal to cover for people even to understand the basics.

Given this entire explanation, it's not acceptable to remove present-day Azerbaijan or exclude present-day Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan when a significant portion of Middle/New Persian identity was developed in those present-day countries, and those countries still have native ethnic Iranian Persian-speaking people who are considered direct descendants of the societies/cultures/people who shaped the "Persian identity" that is covered in this page. Furthermore, those people still speak Persian as their native language, and this historical page is referenced when writing about some of their famous ancestors/empires/etc. Thus, it is a rightful part of their national history...as it happened on their soil with their own native population. And their native ethnic Iranian Persian-speaking people still live in that exact same land. If you do not feel like this a more objective way to approach this page -- please let me know, and please explain how your perspective is preferred for encyclopediac reasons.

This bias has been noted for over a year, and it needs to have some at least some superficial improvements if we want to consider this an acceptable and unbiased reference. I suggest we add another section to the page that introduces Greater Khorasan with a small lede that links to the main page regarding this historical cultural capital of our people. It will help people implicitly understand how there was a resurgence of Persian culture/society post-Islamization, which was a major part of the development of our modern New Persian culture and identity. We should do something similar for Tats. What does everyone think about that? Kind Regards -B. Khurasani

--Jamaas9 (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Minimally, the history page needs to be expanded to include post-Islamization and post-Sassanid Persian history. Not only the development and resurgence of a native Persian identity missing post-Muslim-conquest but also the state-mandated conversion to Twelver Shia Islam by the Safavids is another very high-level piece of more modern Persian history that is absent. Again, this answers extremely basic questions related to both Iranian and Persian studies like...how did Persians produce so many famous Sunnis, while the present-day state called Iran is decidedly Twelver Shia? An objective encyclopedia shouldn't completely ignore major parts of an ethnicity's history, especially when these portions of our history is rather vital in understanding the development of said ethnic group and quite relevant in understanding modern-day topics related to the people and their related modern institutions such as their current government(s). This addition may have been more relevant in another talk section, but it is still related to Tajiks/Tats to some degree.

--Jamaas9 (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Linking to page on Tajik people

Now that this article has recently been restricted to Iranian nationals, more needs to be done to integrate this page and the article on Tajik people.

I am reading an article on Nasir Khusraw, born all the way in Qabodiyan. He is described as 'Persian' in the article. I click on the Persian hyperlink, and it leads to this page, which is about Persian speaking Iranian nationals only. At least I am somewhat knowledgeable on the history of the region to know that Nasir Khusraw was not an immigrant from the modern territory of Iran, but someone who is not familiar would very well think that because of the way this article has nationalized Persian identity. According to this article, being "Persian" is not about ancestry (ancestral to south-west Iran) or cultural-linguistic (which would include Tajiks), it's based on political borders. Fair enough, but I think this should be clarified, either on the pages of these historical figures or on this page itself, otherwise it is deliberately misleading readers.

I suggest this article itself could elaborate further on the very close ties of Persian speakers of Iran and Tajik people (and Tat people, if there are users knowledgeable on it). For example, a first step is to put at the top of this article:

For people of Persian heritage in Central Asia, see Tajiks

Additional information could be added under the "Name" section for the varying usages of Persian as an ethnic marker throughout history, from ancient to medieval times. Please discuss here for alternative suggestions.

EdenKZD (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@EdenKZD: I think that is a good idea. For starters, we can also just change the lede to state what is already accepted and accounted for in Iranian studies:

″ ...most influential Persian figures were native from outside Iran's present-day borders to the northeast in Central Asia and Afghanistan and to a lesser extent to the northwest in the Caucasus proper."

That way, the lede is neither misleading and it is a quite easy fix regarding all the historical figures the Tajik people, the modern Iranian Persian, and modern Tat people share. Again, outside of Richard Frye's work, which is a bit anachronistic in regards to ethnic studies (scholars interpretation of formerly colonized lands changes a lot quite quickly for a variety of reasons), there is no way to say that all these famous historical Persians originated from the population that lives in present-day Iran. We have no known historical record that indicates a large migration even though some editors here promote that, and many of these famous historical scholars make indications that they are effectively just Persianized local Iranians. This is rather clear if you understand/comprehend Persian sources, but the average reader would presumably not be able to do that if they are using WP as a reference/learning tool. If no editors have qualms about what we are requesting to change, we will go ahead and change it as every day that this page remains so nationalized -- the further the credibility of the WP degrades.

Furthermore, lack of clarity has real-life implications for say...Afghan residents in Iran (who have a history of documented abuse) and how Tajik-Persians-Tats interact within the diaspora. Unfortunately, many of the stereotypes that were discussed in this talk page and historical talk page do happen in real life -- ie: 1. "We know that Persians lived in present-day Afghanistan/Tajikistan/Uzbekistan at ONE POINT, but they NO LONGER LIVE THERE." -- this implies modern Tajiks are not descendants of the historical Persians from that region, which is false. 2. "Tajiks are analogous to Hazaras" -- this is both completely racist to both ethnic groups for a variety of different reasons and disregards their entire history. This point was repeatedly made, and frankly, if one needs to ask such question multiple times...perhaps one does not have the required knowledge to be in a discussion regarding Tajiks vs Persians. If you accept editing pages on WP, you must have at least working knowledge on the topic otherwise it may be a burden for current and future editors to fix unnecessary mistakes. Editing WP is not meant as a way to gain basic knowledge regarding a group. Of course, one will learn as an editor and that is part of the group-process and education in general, but we all should have some level of competency so we may positively contribute to this project. 3. "XYZ Famous Persian-speaking Iranian belongs primarily and predominantly to Iranian Persians..." -- again, that's an attitude that is due to a nationalized mindset. I assure that there are plenty of Tajiks/Tats/ethnic Iranians that think the opposite regarding the most famous Iranian/Tajiks such as Rumi with just cause. Some of them are presumably their genetic ancestor. Furthermore, I have been told that Iran's primacy to our shared history is due to Iran being called Iran...as in the only modern successor to all the famous Iranian/Persian dynasties. As a reminder...Tajikistan is literally Persian for "Land of Iranians" or "Land of Persians" depending on how you want to translate the Persian word "Tajik".

WP is not here to endorse any side in particular, and editors have to remain neutral, polite, and respectful. Furthermore, please refrain from abusive behavior against other editors. Given that I have discovered even more similar issues regarding our related pages, I do not appreciate that type of behavior as it weakens the "Good faith" clause we abide by. Please be more respectful, and know your place -- this includes me, of course too. When that happens, an apology is probably a good idea such. Appreciate everyone who read this and looks forward to working with you so that WP will be an excellent resource in all things related to Persians and Iranians.

As the last point...may anyone cite the fact that "Persians, Tajiks, Tats" were all synonyms for each other? From my research, Tajik/Persian were synonyms and Persian/Tats were. Populations that are considered "Tajik" now were not called "Tats" ever and vice-versa. May someone provide some proof that the lede is correct? I could not determine it from all my English and Persian sources. If it is not, we need to correct that sentence as well because it does not conform to all WP standards as is or kindly inform how it is.

Thanks and kind regards. - Bahram Khurasani

--Jamaas9 (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: — May you double check on the last paragraph? This will be a top priority until we fix possible large errors such as stating all 3 terms were completely interchangeable, which all my research does not indicate. May you source where “Tajiks” as in modern Tajiks were called “Tats”? Thanks and kind regards. Jamaas9 (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the last paragraph, the intention is that Persian was synonymous with both Tat and Tajik. I think that part is fine as it is. Attempting to fully explain these terms in the lede would make it too verbose. We can always elaborate in the body of the article. EdenKZD (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

"may anyone cite the fact that "Persians, Tajiks, Tats" were all synonyms for each other?" : No, just because this is wrong, while Tajik is a Persian dialect (meaning a variety of Persian spoken in central Asia), Tat is not fully mutually intelligible with Persian and therefore your statement is quite dubious. In your edit summary you say "you have a history of questioning appropriate changes that balances out articles. Please know your place as a former colonizer as your actions have been discriminatory against other editors. Furthermore, Afghanistan IS NOT A PASHTUN CONCEPT. PLEASE LEARN The history or just read the constitution if you are so confused". This is wrong again, the modern state of Afghanistan was founded by Ahmad Shah Durrani, a Pashtun. More, as a Persian speaker who claims some knowledge about this topic, you should know that prior to the rise of the modern state of Afghanistan, the word "Afghan" was used by Persian speakers to denote the Pashtun people. Also, while it may happen that i disagree with LouisAragon, i would clearly not accuse him like you did, since he is an established user here and quite useful to this project. Your statement "please know your place as a former colonizer" is completely irrelevant here, just like saying to a German guy who was not even born 80 years ago "please know your place as a former Nazi criminal" would be completely irrelevant. Please stay cool when you edit this place and keep in mind that we work here with reliable sources and not with our POV. Thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: Salam Wikaviani, thanks for the message. First, I believe this about the terms is regarding ethnicity, not the languages so I am not exactly sure what you are saying? Did you misunderstand me or am I a misunderstanding you? Exactly what am I saying that is dubious? Not talking about the language at all. My whole point was exactly what you are saying -- I am asking for reliable sources regarding this statement:

"However, it is to be noted that, historically, the terms Tajik, Tat, and Persian [as ethnic terms/identifiers] were synonymous and were used interchangeably,"

I can't find sources that state modern Tajik people === modern Tat people ever in history. === means that they are fully interchangeable as ethnic markers historically. Only thing I was able to confirm is that they are technical synonyms, which is correct. "Persian" === Tajik and "Persian" === Tat; however, I could not find something that make this relationship true -- Persians === Tats === Tajiks or any version of that. Does that make sense, or do you want me to explain in just pure written English? Am suggesting that we either slightly change the lede if we can't find sources for it, or if there is -- cool. Does that make sense? Personally, to me, this isn't the highest priority, the points that EdenKZD pointed out are more important.

Furthermore, I appreciate you reminding me of my own heritage and history but again (but also certain aspects of early Afghan history is not applicable in present-day, same with Iran+most countries), I think you are mistaking what am trying to express. Understand who exactly created the modern-nation state; however, the country is not called "Pashtunistan" for a reason...so stating that it is a "Pashtun" concept as a fact is incorrect (of course, this can be argued as a POV/opinion still) for several reasons:

1. Afghan is no longer actively used as an ethnic marker as it is explicitly a nationality and one that is almost universally accepted as such within diaspora (in the country right now is a different story in some parts, but also we are in a civil war that destroyed many people's access to an education+anti-state actors are causing issues). Bringing back up the past history right now in this way implies that being an Afghan national must mean being Pashtun culturally/heritage/linguistically which is actually perpetuating the civil war and really is simply a POV at this point that causes division for arguably the majority of the population. Which is my whole point--Afghan nationals are trying to reimagine what it means to be "Afghan" (as a nationality, we do not want to change forcefully change Pashtuns themselves) as we do not accept parts of Pashtunwali for a variety of religious/cultural reasons, and this is why we have been fighting the Taliban for so long. Furthermore, many Afghan nationals have experienced unspeakable atrocities and abuse, even within the diaspora, and this type of language is quite hurtful to them right now. Many of us lost much of our life...and many of us are very sad that we can't even safely visit after so long, and the degree to which many of our people are starving/lack access to an education/abused is both very painful and personal for us. This situation is very, very personal for us and we are tired of people trying to throw the whole Pashtun vs everyone else thing given that millions of Afghans reported war crimes to the ICC earlier this year. 2. Stating that Pashtuns are the de-facto majority is again probably not the best idea as most reliable sources such as the CIA Factbook refuse to break down ethnicity. Wonder why Tajiks are considered anywhere from 20-41(double check on upper limit so apologies if it slightly lower/higher) of the population? It's because the data as a whole is very biased and unreliable (usually in favour of Pashtuns/Tajiks). It is very well may be the case that native Persian speakers (Tajiks, Hazaras, Aimaqs, [Persianized Pashtuns are imho, are also native speakers, but some still ID as primarily as Pashtuns]) are the majority, and most data suggest this is more likely the case. Furthermore, the most reliable data shows that at least 80% (CIA Factbook) of Afghans speak Persian, again, getting to my point that...again, calling it a "Pashtun concept" is a bit of a stretch in the modern day. It is a mixed concept and probably will remain that way as long as the country remains one piece...again, this is an ultimately my opinion, but (hopefully enough of an) educated one (hopefully the country doesn't get broken to two...unless it is the best thing...Allahu Alam) 3. The educated class are ethnic-neutral in outlook and this is common knowledge with people who understand our culture/society/outlook. Most of us follow localized "Farsi/Dari" culture which is best understood as linguistically Persian but culturally syncretized with pretty much every other native population outside some specific cultural distinctions (ex: Tajiks actively celebrate more Persian holidays such as Shab-e-Yalda+others, Hazaras have their aspects of localized Hazarajat culture, Pashtuns have parts of Pashtunwali they follow even within their urbanites etc). Iran is largely similar to my understanding. So it is a mixed culture. It is disrespectful to our intellectual and educated class to promote such things as we just generally don't like to approach our nationalism that way as it causes a lot of problems especially when so many people lack a way to get an education and so much propaganda is promoted by anti-state actors. Promoting otherwise is a specific POV, and one that has been increasingly used to cause issues within the modern Afghan nationals both in Afghanistan and within the diaspora community. Frankly, while I identify as more or less "Tajik" and "Khurasani" -- like many Tajiks, we are "mixed" as some of my ancestors were Pashtuns. I identify as Tajik ultimately because most of my family/ancestors are actual Tajiks from de facto Tajik homeland and...and it's the culture I relate to better as my family have been urbanites for at least several generations now in the modern era. My whole point is to be sensitive with populations that are experiencing a lot of internal and external issues, not push it in their face and promote specifics POVs that have been used against us in so many ways...at the least, explain that this is your opinion, not hardcore facts if you are going to use it as legit reasonings to revert my edits. Furthermore, Pashtuns themselves have historically been considered "Persians" as well for some time, so their input on this page is both valid and relevant for a variety of different reasons. I think if anything, that means we should at least temporarily up this till we all reach consensus for a multitude of reasons.

Also, respectfully, I already apologized twice directly. My actions were wrong, and I did lose my cool and it was a very, very poor reflection of our shared heritage. Thank you for the link, I will be sure to read it. With that said, his first interaction with me was literally a mocking of me and this type of negative behavior continued regarding other topics even while I was remaining respectful to him. I don't think this is the best way to treat people at all (just like my later behavior is ultimately the same thing). This isn't correct and given the historical relationship, quite insensitive on both ends given that you know...no one decides which background they are born in. This does not at all justify my actions or what I said, but again, I am a human being too. Furthermore, without doxing myself too much, I suffer from a severe medical condition that includes dealing with at times a significant amount of physical pain and discomfort. Again, this doesn't justify any of my mistreatment towards him at all, but hopefully, we can all learn to approach each other in a better way. For all I know, he is suffering from something even worse than me, and I need to be more respectful to him. My point is simply that mocking someone is not the best way to introduce yourself in a working relationship, especially when you are mocking them when they are legitimately helping out WP. No one deserves to be first treated that way as an early WP editor as this actually promotes people not wanting to join even if they have a strong desire or ability to truly help. Ultimately, I just want to just get some work done, not write paragraphs explaining basics about the situation about Afghans national/Tajik people/Pashtun people/Hazara people/etc. Ultimately, it's very hurtful to see biased articles of our shared history of our people while it is documented that we are abused quite a lot IRL. Thanks and kind regards

--Jamaas9 (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Picture dispute

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@LouisAragon and Rye-96: I am calling out your callous, and outright unprofessional edits to the image gallery attached to this page, which for the most part, lack any scholarly merit (and perhaps stem from pedantic personal motivations). The removed image of course, is a 17th century fresco illustrating a Persian tavern-keeper; holding a flagon of wine, originally installed at the Abbasi hotel in Isfahan. Its the same image attached to the "Culture of Iran" page here on Wikipedia. Now unless you have any substantive reasons for removing this content, and by substantive allow me to emphasize on the phrase "scholarly", then speak your mind, or forever refrain from removing the image. Otherwise we may need to escalate this further. May I need to remind you that wikipedia is a neutral platform for the benefit of the public domain and not a cause for settling personal issues. Edit: @LouisAragon: you have went ahead and re-edited the image for the fourth time. Express your concerns here, instead of moving around my update, or standby for admin. You don't seem to be interested in good faith discussion. Edit II: 22:49, 8 August 2018 (EST) @Mithraeum: I did undo you because, like I did mention in my edit, that was certainly not a picture of a “Persian woman”. Or at least not that we could prove it. Bear in mind that this article is about the ethnic group known as the Persian people, and whatever we are supposed to give as their heritage on this article is supposed to be about them, and not all of the people of a country that was once called Persia. Besides, the gallery already had four images, so I found that image to be unneeded. So, I was wondering, what explanation can you give us for this other than that I shouldn’t “remove images without citation” and “follow rules or face repercussions”, because I neither understand that nor this one: From: Wikipedia <wiki@wikimedia.org> Date: Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 7:49 PM Subject: Wikipedia email from user "Mithraeum" To: Rye-96 <[redacted]> DO NOT delete images without proper citation on a protected article EVER again! You understand? I'll have ZERO tolerance for it. -- This email was sent by user "Mithraeum" on the English Wikipedia to user "Rye-96". (...) By the way, is a “citation” for removing an image given here in your earlier edit? Because I have yet to know about that. —Rye-96 (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC) @LouisAragon and Rye-96: This is precisely the point, you seem to carry your own convoluted notions of what " Persian ethnicity" should look like, which is not within the purview of this page. But let us recap how you got here: first you remove the image because it allegedly does not portray a Persian female, then you remove it again claiming it was "overpopulating" the gallery (all the while your buddy Ryan is adding more images to it) and now you claim it does not portray an ethnic Persian in the first place! This last one is the most peculiar point... I mean even if we're to give you the benefit of doubt, and consider you're merely under-educated on the topic or excessively pedantic, the issue with respect to ethnicity is so bizarre and out-of-place it makes one's head scratch?!!! My man, have you not ever met a Persian before!? Let us thank the divinity then that your personal senses do not dictate facts; otherwise half the Persian history would be removed with only few clicks! I digress... The actual fresco dates back to the 17th century. The scene is still decorating the walls of Shah Abbasi Hotel in Isfahan along with other miniatures depicting dancing women and tavern-keepers. As much as you may hate to admit, wine, and women are as much part of Persian ethnicity as statues portraying men. I am not responding to your "threats" none-sense, largely because we both know you vandalized my personal page and have been combative throughout. But allow me to say that when images are removed without explanation, expect other members to cite you the rules. In any event, I find this part of your discussion a red-herring and entirely unrelated to the subject: which involves you and friend removing an image you don't like, and failing to provide proper reasons for doing so. 14:36, 10 of August (EST) Not sure where you pull the "re-edited the image for the fourth time" nonsense from. Rye-96 reverted you on one occassion,[1] I reverted you on two occassions.[2]-[3] And now admin Favonian as well.[4] You are being severely disruptive; You threatened user:Rye-96 the very first time your incorrect edit was reverted.[5] It seems you also tried to threaten him off-wiki (see above) The caption you added to the image, "Persian woman" was incorrect.[6] Now you suddenly state here that its a Persian tavern keeper? You are edit-warring against numerous users on this page.[7] You were warned twice for that, by two separate users, but you instantly removed both messages from your talk page.[8]-[9] You left a patronizing message on my user page[10] You added your talk page comments on no-less than three occassions inside an old discussion at the top of this talk page. When I tried to fix it for you,[11] you reverted me and "threatened to contact admins".[12] I then left you a good faith message on your talk page, explaining "why" your comments were added on the wrong spot, but you removed it instantly.[13] After removing my message from your talk page, you went ahead and re-inserted your talk page comments inside old discussions located at the top of this talk page (accompanied by more unsubstantiated "admin threats").[14] - LouisAragon (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Oh, and I noticed you made other WP:TENDENTIOUS edits in the recent past as well, such as here, where you added unsourced content. You seem to have major misconceptions about Wikipedia and its policies in general. Looking at the compelling evidence, I wonder whether you're actually here to build this encyclopedia according to the guidelines. "I am not responding to your "threats" none-sense (...)" Another big no-no. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC) He just removed the second warning issued by admin Black Kite as well: "Don't issue threats on my talk page". - LouisAragon (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC) @LouisAragon and Rye-96: This isn't really going anywhere. You have shown little interest to actually come up with substantive reasons as to why the image should be removed, other than circling around the same misguided personal biases. Now you're citing an older edit on another page, involving a passage from Encylopedia Iranica that lacks proper citation. This isnt relevant to why the image here has been moved? What's your aim here? I am bumping this for third party opinion. The aim of the exercise here is to expand this page to include more accurate and less bias content. We aren't having a counselling session here. 16:00, 10 of August (EST)' @Mithraeum: You add a random Safavid painting describing it as depicting a “Persian woman” and then accuse me of carrying my “own convoluted notions of what ‘Persian ethnicity’ should look like” and favoring men’s images over women’s? I don’t see how that would help you with anything here. I didn’t threaten, and I did leave an explanatory summary on removing that image, the same way you did so regarding your removal of an earlier image that I mentioned above. You were the one who then needed to defend their addition and you chose to threaten me instead. Reasons have been given and you have been reverted by multiple users. It’s just that somebody has “ZERO tolerance” for it. —Rye-96 (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Mithraeum, I'm going to leave this here for all to see: stop threatening, stop insulting, stop condescending. If you're wondering where we draw the line, it's sort of right behind you since you have crossed it a few times already--in fact you did so in your very first post here. One more thing: sign your messages on talk pages. It's not hard. And if you want a third opinion: if you want to argue for the inclusion of some image, first you need to prove that that image is what you say it is: a picture of a woman (and you don't count as a secondary source). Without that, there is nothing. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC) @LouisAragon and Rye-96: Its not a painting, its an image of a fresco in miniature style. Its a prominent late-Safavid piece and attached to the Culture of Iran page here on Wikipedia. It follows other familiar pieces like the one here. You've removed the image without explanation on multiple occasions and now wonder why I sent you that email? Precisely for this reason! I mean what do you expect when you vandalize pages? Recall, that I even changed the term from woman, to Persian Tavern Keeper to avoid any controversy, but you removed that later version as well! Goes to show how dedicated you've been to censoring content. Very clear personal motivation if you ask me. We have yet to hear a coherent reason for why this image is constantly being taken down, precisely because there are none! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mithraeum (talk • contribs)

Persian is synonym for Iranian -- Revision is needed

Historically Iran is known as PERSIA and from the 6th century until 1935 the official name of the country was Persia (Perse in French and Persien in German). So the adjective Persian in English all people who live in Persia (or Iran). So the first paragraph of the article which says The Persians are an Iranian ethnic group that make up over half the population of Iran is not completely true. This introduction should be revised and re-written. Please check out various encyclopaedias and dictionaries; they all have mentinoed PERSIAN is used for 'inhabitants of Persia' not just for those who are ethnically Persian who those who are Persian-speaker. we may change the title of the article to 'Persian-Speaking People".--Sarajoon2018 (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sarajoon2018: There are other ethnicities in Iran besides Persian people. There are also Persian people outside of Iran, as shown in this article. "Iranian" is used to cover Persian people as well as related ethnic groups, such as the Lurs. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

They're not synonyms though. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Prof. Ehsan Yarshater, the most celebrated scholar in this field has already eplained this issue very well. Persia and Iran are synonym. The country was just renamed in 1935. Check out Prof. Yarshater article here. So I do not know why you are going to give a wrong impression that Persia is different than Iran. --Sarajoon2018 (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Not gonna read anything from that blog. Iranian =/= Persian, it doesn't take much knowledge to know that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

It is not a 'blog'. It is an article in the academic magaine IRANIAN STUDIES and the author is Prof. Ehsan Yarshater who is the most celebrated scholar in the filed. Please try to be open to the historical facts and do not just your personal opinion. Thanks.--Sarajoon2018 (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

he source you provided is not dealing with Persians or Iranians, it’s about the name of the country.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Iran => Demonym(s) => Iranian, Persian (historically). So it's not a synonym for Iranian anymore. Plus your suggestion could introduce new problems. There are already users and IP-users who try to remove Iranian and Persian terms from a considerable number of articles because they have no idea about these terms or they think ethnolinguistic terms like Iranian and Persian are equal to Iran and Persia. They even don't try to read this article or Iranian peoples. Also your concern is explained here: Persian_people#History_of_usage --Wario-Man (talk) 08:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sarajoon2018: This article is about the Persian ethno-linguistic group, and not the inhabitants of "Persia" as an exonym for "Iran". I think that's very clear. It's like how every inhabitant of Germany is "German" by nationality, but only 80% of Germany's population are ethnically German. The Persians, as an ethnic group, do make up only some half of Iran's population, and this is what the listed sources do confirm.
—Rye-96 (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Re Germany - that is nonsense on two fronts: "every inhabitant of Germany is "German" by nationality" - NO, 10/80 million do not have nationality, and "only 80% of Germany's population are ethnically German" - NO, c. 20% of the citizens have some "immigrant" background, but the majority of these are precisely "ethnic Germans" coming from further east. Germany does recognise internal non-ethnic-German minorities, but these are tiny - well under a million. On the wider point, the article should deal with the different meanings "Persian people" can have, even if the main coverage deals with just one of the meanings of the term. Johnbod (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Persian=/=Iranian in an ethnolinguistic meaning. Persian and Iranian can be interpreted as being synonyms in a sense of citizenship. for example, an Algerian immigrant in France can abandon his Algerian citizenship and take the French one, this makes him a French citizen but not an ethnic French. So, when Iran was called Persia, citizens of Persia could be called Iranians (As Persia and Iran are synonyms), but only in regard of their citizenships. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this article lacks info about other meanings of "Persian". Mentioned both historical and modern usages, plus other terms like Tajik. However those info could be expanded to include more details. For instance, do you guys think Ajam could be mentioned on this article or not? Or ethnic groups like Ajam of Bahrain and Ajam of Iraq? --Wario-Man (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I mean.. I think the other commentators did notice what I meant by "every inhabitant of Germany", Johnbod. Don't think those explanations were necessary. But yeah, this was a good addition and I thank you for that. The article did actually mention the other historical usages of the term. It only had yet to do so in the lede. I, too, think the Achomi (Ajam) should be mentioned within this article, Wario-Man.
—Rye-96 (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Persians listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Persians. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 15 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: MOVED. The original close of "no consensus" was reviewed and has been overturned. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

---

Persian people → Persians – "Persians" redirects here. other ethnicity articles follow this formula "ethnic name+s", so this one should not be different. persian is not a meta ethnicity, bunch of sub ethnic groups or nationality and using people or peoples is wrong in this case. GGBarBar (talk) 09:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed. We should use the same pattern here.
  —Rye-96 (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Ambiguity with Persian cat? 125.9.31.50 (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Also ambiguous with Persian carpet. The word “Persian” does more work than most ethnic names in describing more than just people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.24.30 (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NCET and WP:PLURAL: "If a plural title without the word 'people' is available, it is almost invariably chosen; e.g., Bangladeshis is consistently preferred to Bangladeshi people". To those who consider ambiguity above, I'd suggest that they take another look at the proposal; the proposal is not to move the article to Persian, which would be ambiguous, but to Persians, which can only ever refer to the people, and already redirects here. RGloucester — ☎ 22:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• The article Persian cat uses the word "Persians" to refer to the cats 39 times. 125.9.31.50 (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support Per the above rationale.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support as the requester GGBarBar (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  Please do not remove comments added to this discussion in good faith, particularly since you initiated it, and also please consider learning the other rules of move discussions, such as not supporting your own request. 125.9.31.50 (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  I request help from anyone else monitoring this discussions as GGBarBar continues to remove my comments. Note that this is also not a clear primary topic by page views: [15]. Although this does not address the usage of "Persians" specifically. GGBarBar, I will escalate this if you continue to remove comments added in good faith. Please read WP:Talk and stop violating talk page guidelines. 125.9.31.50 (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  He has acknowledged my warning on his talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support - per arguments above. As for ambiguity, a hat note can point to our article on the cats. The ethnicity is the primary topic. Blueboar (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

To above ip the ip's comments do not make any sense at all. there are many animals, creatures, and things that use a "nation/ethnic" as a part of their name. Arabian horse uses "Arabian" and "Arabians" to refer to a horse breed. you can find dozens of other similar cases. your whole point is based on a cat breed named "persian cat" which has zero thing to do with an ethnic named persian. by your logic, we should not use Germans because there is a dog named German Shepherd and some people call that dog breed just as Germans. that "Persian carpet" argument is ridiculous and laughable as hell. what about Turkish coffee?!?! we should not use turkish for turkish people because a coffee named turkish?!!?GGBarBar (talk) 04:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@GGBarBar: I would strongly advise you to stop harrassing him/her and keep a nice tone. --HistoryofIran (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

keep your advice for yourself. are you a stalker or what? where was harassment? oh and you came here to just advise me without trying to participate in this discussion? are you obsessed with me?GGBarBar (talk) 06:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

What a sad, little individual you are. Grow up. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Ambiguous. Try a google image search, cats, followed by ancient Persian artifacts. The threshold for a redirect is far lower that for a retitling decision, ""Persians" redirects here" is not a good argument. Some people's quest for ultra-brevity in titling is an obsession without reader benefit. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

you ignored my whole argument and only focused on "Persians" redirect here"? read my reply to that ip. google image search results is not a valid point. google would change its search engine algorithms at any time, making them more intelligent. many wikipedia articles were "ethnicity + people" and now they are "ethnicity+s". nothing is ambiguous or unhelpful but actually we try to standardize them and it will be useful for the readers.GGBarBar (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose because "Persian" is also an adjective or nationality and it is an adjective format, therefore it can include more than just people, unlike for example, Arab which the adjective would be Arabian or Arabic. "Persian" is similar to "Assyrian" etc.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

• Stupid move. If “Persians” were not ambiguous with cats and other topics, there would be no need for the hatnotes. The hatnotes are more clutter than the word “people”, the removal of “people” from the title merely creates whitespace in the title, not to mention the creation of linking uncertainties. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Huge misleading information

The definition by which Oxford dictionary defines Persians :. a native or inhabitant of ancient or modern Persia (or Iran), or a person of Persian descent. This article needs a serious revision — Preceding unsigned comment added by مهردادمهرانفر (talk • contribs) 15:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

what does this mean

the latter likely having migrated southward and transferred the name of the region with them to what would become Persis

the whole sentence it too long and hard to understand

The ninth-century BC Neo-Assyrian inscription of the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, found at Nimrud, gives it in the Late Assyrian forms Parsua and Parsumaš as a region and a people located in the Zagros Mountains, the latter likely having migrated southward and transferred the name of the region with them to what would become Persis (Persia proper, i.e., modern-day Fars), and that is considered to be the earliest attestation to the ancient Persian people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.9.246 (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2020

| religions = Shia Islam (predominantly), Irreligion, Judaism, Christianity, Bahá'í Faith, Buddhism, Sunni Islam, Sufism, and Zoroastrianism.

AT Inkognito (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Article currently makes no mention of Buddhism. Would need a WP:RS showing it's significant enough to mention. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Two religions are missing. Judaism and Buddhism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AT Inkognito (talk • contribs) 18:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Source for Buddhism: Mostafa Vaziri (2012). Buddhism in Iran: An Anthropological Approach to Traces and Influences. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9781137022936— Preceding unsigned comment added by AT Inkognito (talk • contribs) 19:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

And please add Judaism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AT Inkognito (talk • contribs) 19:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@AT Inkognito: can you provide a page number/page numbers for the book you're using as a source? And is there a source for Judaism? The reference desk may be able to help you find sources. (Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request) Seagull123 Φ 12:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOS37bTjvbA —> Judaism

https://iranicaonline.org/articles/judeo-persian-vi-the-pahlavi-era-1925-1979

https://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Iran-Anthropological-Approach-Influences-ebook/dp/B009C8TOT4/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=9781137022936&qid=1597773167&sr=8-1 —> Buddhism

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/17/iran-confiscates-buddha-statues

https://iranicaonline.org/articles/buddhism-i

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AT Inkognito (talk • contribs) 18:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the Persian ethnic group, not about citizens of Iran, so this would need source discussing Persians. Pre-Islamic history is not relevant here since we're talking about the people alive today. The Guardian article says that the statues are popular but says that the people buying them aren't Buddhist. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

So, according to your thesis, there are no Persians today who belong to the Jewish or Buddhist faith? Shouldn't the two religions Judaism and Buddhism, be treated in the same way as Zoroastrianism?

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Two religions for the Persians are missing. Judaism and Buddhism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AT Inkognito (talk • contribs) 22:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. 'Again - FlightTime (open channel) 22:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Persians culture

A group of historians are trying to link the culture of this ethnic group to the Greeks. But according to my study, there were actually two separate cultures that came together. I think it is necessary to point out exactly the separation of these two cultures. Also, This ethnic group is influenced (Significantly) by neighboring and western cultures. 95.181.236.137 (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Persian people outside of Iran

As a Tajik, the Persian people outside of Iran have no justification in this article. I was looking at Muhammad Al-Bukhari’s page on Wikipedia and it said he was a Persian. I clicked on the link and it showed he was Iranian. I was confused as to how is all Persian heritage claimed by Iran only and not Afghanistan or Tajikistan. His last name is Bukhara (a city of Persian culture in Central Asia which what is Uzbekistan). I find the same issue with other Persian figures. I call for under Persians that Afghan Tajiks, Tajiks of Tajikistan, and Tajiks of Uzbekistan be added. Persian does not only mean Iranian. Eskanderi (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, thats a violation of Wikipedia's original research guideline in addition to being a forum-like synthesis. Please show us a reliable source which refers to numbers/populations of "Persians" (that precise word) in modern-day Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Uzbekistan. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It is also found on Wikipedia already that Persian refers to Tajiks as well and Tajiks are known as "Eastern Persians". Eskanderi (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Richard Foltz, a scholar on the Tajik subject and an author of a book on the Tajik people, confirms from historical accounts that Tajiks are Persian speaking people of Central Asia. They can trace their lineage to the Persian Sunni empire: the Samand Empire which was vital in the reemergence of Persian culture after Arab invasions. The Samanid Empire was located in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan." Richard Foltz traces the complex linguistic, cultural and political history of the Tajiks, a Persian-speaking Iranian ethnic group from the modern-day Central Asian states of Tajikistan, Afghanistan, and Uzbekistan."

Richard Foltz also indicates that there is no pure groups in the world today and that people intermixing is what makes up every individual today. Hence, Persian is an ethnic-linguistic term in which people follow a unified culture and language. Many Persian historical figures and movements also did not take place in current day Iran. For example, Foltz agrees with scholars that Zoroastrianism began in Central Asia or modern day Afghanistan."Probably most of the Muslims who migrated to Central Asia after the conquest were Persians" "By the way the birthplace of Zoroastrianism was not Iran, but Central Asia, although it was in Iran that it became a state religion." Pertaining to language, Afghanistan's official language is Persian (Dari) and Tajikistan's official language is Persian (Tajik) "Scholars recognize three major dialect divisions of Persian: Farsi, or the Persian of Iran, Dari Persian of Afghanistan, and Tajik, a variant spoken Tajikistan in Central Asia."

TheJoshuaProject, a journal for the study of minority groups, confirms Tajiks are descendants of Persian peoples. "A Mediterranean sub-group of the Caucasian race, modern Tajiks are descended from Persian peoples.""An old Turkish expression, "Tajik" is synonymous with "Persian". They have always spoken Persian (speaking the related Dari dialect in Afghanistan) whereas other Persian language speakers in Central Asia adopted the language." Tajik was used as a word to distinguish the Persians from the Turks and Arabs of Central Asia.

For my next point, I need to establish the definition of ethnicity. It is stated as "a social group that shares a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like". I would like to highlight that ethnicity is a group of people bounded by culture, language, and customs. Tajiks speak Persian, celebrate Persian holidays (Nowrooz) (Yalda night), celebrate Persian poets, practice Persian customs (Espand), and have cities within their countries that were vital to Persian culture (Herat, Kabul, Balkh, Samarkand, Bukhara).

Aside from Iran, the country of Afghanistan uses the Persian calendar or the Solar Hijri calendar.

Ibn Battuta, world explorer and scholar of the old world, referred to Persians in Kabul as Afghans

Persian dynasties that emerged or contained countries of Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan. (Achaemenid, Sassanian, Samanids, Saffarids) These empires contained the Central Asian countries and some even originated in Central Asia but are claimed to be Persian. Unfortunately when you click on the link, it shows only Iranian influence and not the Tajiks of Tajikistan and Afghanistan's culture. With these facts, historical accounts, customs, and commonality there is proof Tajiks should be considered Persian and labeled as such on the Persian page. The populations of those groups should also be indicated in the demographics of the Persian page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskanderi (talk • contribs) 16:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

*countries celebrating Persian new year *Shab e Yalda celebrated by Tajiks *Espand Persian custom practiced by Tajiks * Several cities not in Iran (Herat, Bukhara, Samarkand, Ghazni etc..)

• "It is also found on Wikipedia already that Persian refers to Tajiks as well and Tajiks are known as "Eastern Persians"."

Wikipedia can't be used a source, read WP:NOTSOURCE. Tajiks are recorded as Tajiks in modern-day Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Russia, etc. Not as Persians. Persians only refers to Iran, as unfortunate as it might be. The two terms, together with the word "Tats", were used interchangeably in the past, but not nowadays. This is well established in academic works.

• "Richard Foltz, a scholar on the Tajik subject and an author of a book on the Tajik people (...)"

Not a single part of Foltz's work refers to modern-day Tajiks as "Persians".

• "TheJoshuaProject, a journal for the study of minority groups (...)"

Not a reliable source, see:[16]

"Aside from Iran, the country of Afghanistan uses the Persian calendar or the Solar Hijri calendar. "

The link doesn't say that Persians are found in Afghanistan.

• "Ibn Battuta, world explorer and scholar of the old world, referred to Persians in Kabul as Afghans."

In historic usage, "Persians" were found in many other places in the world. Persians, as a modern-day "group" however, per WP:RS, only refers to a fraction of the population of Iran (called Persia pre-1935).

You're trying to push for the inclusion of WP:OR material into this article, which is not allowed per Wikipedia's guidelines. Turkmens, Hazaras, Azeris, Tabasarans also celebrate Nowruz; they are still not referred to as "Persians" by reliable sources. As for supposed "confusion" when reading about historic Persian figures on Wikipedia; the point is made very clear (supported by reliable references) in the lede of this article:

"In contemporary terminology, people of Persian heritage native specifically to present-day Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan are referred to as Tajiks, whereas those in the Caucasus (primarily in the present-day Republic of Azerbaijan and the Russian federal subject of Dagestan), albeit heavily assimilated, are referred to as Tats.[18][19] However, historically, the terms Tajik and Tat were used as synonymous and interchangeable with Persian.[18] Many influential Persian figures hailed from outside Iran's present-day borders to the northeast in Central Asia and Afghanistan and to a lesser extent to the northwest in the Caucasus proper.[20][21] In historical contexts, especially in English, "Persians" may be defined more loosely to cover all subjects of the ancient Persian polities, regardless of ethnic background."

Looks like a whole alinea in the lede is dedicated to the relationship with the Tajiks and Tats. It is also thoroughly explained in the body of the article[17] as far as WP:DUE is concerned. In short: unless user:Eskanderi can show a reliable source which shows that Persians are found in modern-day Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, we're done here. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. With all due respect I’m pretty sure I posted sources that claimed the word Tazhik meant Persian. In fact, Persian as an ethnic group doesn’t exist in the Persian language and has become a new form to refer to ethnicity. Instead most Persians, even the ones in Iran are called “Farsi-Zaban” or Persian speaking. I also want to highlight the Wikipedia in Persian states Tajiks are Persian. With due respect, it’s kind of difficult to prove my point to a non Persian. I am a Tajik and our whole culture is Persian and it’s frustrating when part of our cultural heritage is claimed as Persian in Wikipedia and it’s chosen as only for Iran when in fact Afghanistan and Tajikistan (the two countries with Persian as an official language) have their flags and culture based on Persian culture.

Anyways here is your proof, “The Tajiks of Afghanistan are roughly the same as Eastern Khurusani Persians”“https://www.jstor.org/stable/668975?seq=1 Eskanderi (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I provided proof of words that prove Tajiks of Afghanistan are roughly the same as Persians Eskanderi (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment : The link you sent, once again, does not state a word about Tajiks being Persians. I've taken the courtesy to check it word for word. Strong claims need strong sources, you will need an explicit source that says Persians live in modern-day Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, etc. As you are persistently trying to push a POV by your own WP:OR synthesis, this is starting to become WP:TENDENTIOUS.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Problematic Topic

Technically speaking, there is no ethnicity called Persian today. The word Persians, is the English therm, used to call the people of the country Iran. All, with whatever ethnicity they might have. That is called Iranians, in the Persian language. We can talk abut Persian-speaking people and not about Persian as an ethnicity. In the article Persian is called Iranian as well. This is where the problem arises. Because all people in The country Iran, are Iranians. So, we can not say Iranian people are 50 percent of the population in Iran. If we want to talk about IRANIC people, then again all people in Iran except Arabs and Turkmen are Iranian (Iranic)people. In addition, all Kurds, Tajiks in Afghanistan,Tajikestan,Uzbekistan and a small portion in China and Pakistan are also Iranic people. Pashtoons in Afghanistan and Pakistan are also Iranic people, the same is the population in the republic of Azerbaijan. Iranian or Iranic people are a group of different ethnicities around the region, as mentioned above. In today's Iran,many people have either abandoned their own languages and speak Persian or they are bilingual. So, who are really the Persians?MoghBaba (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)MoghBaba (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Persians are those whose native language is Persian, the same way an Arab is one whose native language is Arabic, and a Turk is one whose native language is Turkish. The fact that modern Iranian Persians have no separate ethnic identity from the state of Iran, does not mean that the Persian ethnicity does not exist. The Persians in Afghanistan and Tajikistan do have such an ethnic identity (called "Farsiban" and "Tajik", respectively). Persian and Persian-speaking is the exact same thing. Furthermore, Iranian =/= Persian =/= Iranic. Those are three completely different terms. This article has no shortage of reliable sources to validate it. --Qahramani44 (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding Tajiks to Persian ethnic group with regions with significant population

Tajiks need to be added to "regions with significant populations". This is because in the Persian language, including within Iran, Persian does not exist and rather the ethnic group is referred to as "Farsizaban/Farsiwan" or Persian speaker. Like it has been mentioned by other discussions within this page, Persians in Afghanistan and Iran are referred to as Farsiwan/Farsizaban. In fact, Tajiks do not refer to themselves as Tajik in their Persian tongue but rather say "Farsizaban" just like "Farsizabans" of Iran. 

This is indicative of the wikipedia article "Persian" itself in the Persian language. If you change the "Persian" article to the Persian language, the title become "Farsi Zaban" or Persian speaker. The page includes the country of Iran, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan. In fact, the article mentions the homeland of the Tajiks as Greater Iran and stating they are ethnic Persians. They state they are the same group of "Persian speakers" of Iran. Persian Wikipedia article in Farsi

Tajiks are not Persians, your sources are either unreliable (like the Wikipedia links you posted, as per WP:CIRCULAR) or not supporting your claim.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

This is completely biased when Wikipedia itself in Farsi includes Tajiks within "Persian" people. The Wikipedia article in the exact Persian form says Tajiks are Persian but yet it is claimed as "Unreliable"! Very odd indeed. I have also provided many many sources, completely outlined it, and yet it is still deemed as unreliable. There is also a large consensus on this page who has brought about this topic many times yet it is still seen as unreliable. It is very odd and biased and now I see why Academics don't recommend using Wikipedia as sources for term papers. How can you argue that the Wikipedia article itself is unreliable?

• "This is completely biased when Wikipedia itself in Farsi includes Tajiks within "Persian" people."

Once again, Wikipedia articles are not sources, and can't be used as such, per WP:CIRCULAR and WP:WINARS.

Your WP:OR synthesis was rejected no less than 3 months ago on this talk page.[18] Now you're at it again, trying to rehash the same form of original research; once again without any WP:RS. You really need to WP:DROPTHESTICK, or the next step will be WP:ANI, as this is now well within the realm of WP:TENDENTIOUS. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I am at it again because I always come across sources that include Tajiks as Persian people. I have also provided sources that state they are Persians. Here is source #1: Qarakhanid Turks applied this term [Tajik] more specifically to the Persian Muslims in the Oxus basin and Khorasan, who were variously the Turks’ rivals, models, overlords (under the Samanid Dynasty), and subjects (from Ghaznavid times on). Persian writers of the Ghaznavid, Seljuq and Atābak periods (ca. 1000–1260) adopted the term and extended its use to cover Persians in the rest of Iran, now under Turkish rule, as early as the poet ʿOnṣori, ca. 1025 (Dabirsiāqi, pp. 3377, 3408). Iranians soon accepted it as an ethnonym, as is shown by a Persian court official’s referring to mā tāzikān “we Tajiks” (Bayhaqi, ed. Fayyāz, p. 594). Source#!

Source #2, Tajiks are Eastern Persians.... "The Tajik archaeologist and historian N. N. Negmatov makes a similar claim of Tajik antiquity, albeit in somewhat more neutral terms, when he identifies all the Iranian-speaking populations of Central Asia during and before the Samanid era and argues that ‘[a]ll these people were ethnically related and spoke languages and dialects of the Middle Iranian and New Persian language groups; they were the basis for the emergence and gradual consolidation of what became an Eastern Persian-Tajik ethnic identity’." Official Tajik histories trace the completion of the Tajik’s ‘ethnogenesis’ and the beginning of their ‘statehood’ to the era of the Samanid Empire (ninth–tenth centuries). It should also be noted that the Samanid empire was a Sunni Tajik Persian dynasty.

These are intelligent, thoughtful sources that show Tajiks are Persian. The Tajiks' culture/ethnic identity has always been Persian. The word "Tajik" is mentioned in Persian literature, historical accounts, and modern scholarly sources to equate to Persian.

The first source is stating that Persians were (amongst other things) called Tajiks back in the day, that is true. However, this does not apply to present-day. Your second source often puts emphasis on the sentence 'Persian-speaker' and not 'Persian'. This seems like more WP:OR. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It is the same for "Persians" of Iran. No one calls themselves Persian. They are first Iranian, then Farsizaban or "Persian speaker". It is the same exact concept. No one in Afghanistan from the Farsiwans calls themselves Tajiks. They call themselves exactly that "Farsiwan/Farsizaban". The Persians of Iran are not pure Persians from the Achaemenid Period, its an ethnolinguistic term for Persian speakers with a Persian culture. Hence, it is the same for Tajiks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskanderi (talk • contribs) 14:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Just because Tajiks don't call themselves Persian you cannot conclude that Persian identity doesn't exist. Tajiks call themselves as Tajik which means they (correctly) don't consider themselves having Persian identity. Tajiks call their language as Dari or Tajiki which indicates that they don't even like their language to be called as Persian. There is a simple way in Persian to say "I'm Persian"(Persian: من پارس هستم) which is used by Persian-speakers of Iran but obviously not by Tajiks because they don't like to call themselves as Persian. People in Iran who speak Persian as their native language call themselves both Persian and Persian-speaker and they are right about both. They share culture, language, identity, history and they very much respect it.2.147.111.144 (talk) 10:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC

By looking at definition of ethnic group it is easy to see that "Iranian Persian-Speaker" is equal to "Persian".2.147.111.144 (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism?

I'm pretty shocked by the near-total absence of Zoroastrianism in this article. I thought the eradication of this faith would not have agency on Wikipedia, but I appear to have been wrong. Apart from mention of "fire worshipping" in some parts of Cappadocia, there's nothing. Shame HesitantItinerary (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2022

To say in the intro that Persians are indigenous to the Middle East and one of the oldest and being one of the majorities in the region next to Arabs and Turks.

Reason is people don't know much about Middle East and I would like to add that so they would be more educated about us.

https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/articles/teaching-content/middle-east-people/ Persianprincess416 (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The lead already says The ancient Persians were originally an ancient Iranian people who migrated to the region of Persis, corresponding to the modern province of Fars in southwestern Iran, by the ninth century BC.[7][8] Together with their compatriot allies, they established and ruled some of the world's most powerful empires,[9][8] well-recognized for their massive cultural, political, and social influence covering much of the territory and population of the ancient world. That seems to be a much better presentation of nformation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Ohh noo!! I mean the part where it says "the Persians are an Iranian group" and so on and so forth. Yes the Persians are indigenous from Iran. But we're scattered all across the Middle East. We are the second biggest ethnic groups in the region. That statement alone makes it seem like we're only in Iran when reality we're all over.

I wanted the very beginning to say something like Persians are an indigenous ethnic group and that we're the second biggest ethnic groups in the Middle East. << I jus wanted that part to be added in the very beginning so people can learn more about us. Persianprincess416 (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

misunderstanding

Persian is not really an ethnicity. In the Persian language you cannot say "I am Persian.". You can say you are Persian speaking. Compare it to Mandarin or Hindi. You cannot say you are Mandarin, you cannot say you are Hindi, but you can say you are Mandarin speaking and Hindi speaking. Persian is overused in the West. Everything Iranian became Persian in the West. Persian is solely a province and a language but not really an ethnic identity. Strictly speaking, people who only speak Persian have no specific ethnic identity. They are simply just Iranians who simply identify with their city or region (Tehrani, Shirazi, Esfehani, etc.), but they don't call themselves "Persian" since there is not even an equivalent to Persian in the Persian language in the ethnic sense, since it only refers to a province and language, as I already mentioned.

Persian is an ethnicity, Iranian is a nationality and those cities are from provinces in Iran Persianprincess416 (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2022

To say in the intro that Persians are indigenous to the Middle East and one of the oldest and being one of the majorities in the region next to Arabs and Turks.

Reason is people don't know much about Middle East and I would like to add that so they would be more educated about us.

https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/articles/teaching-content/middle-east-people/ Persianprincess416 (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The lead already says The ancient Persians were originally an ancient Iranian people who migrated to the region of Persis, corresponding to the modern province of Fars in southwestern Iran, by the ninth century BC.[7][8] Together with their compatriot allies, they established and ruled some of the world's most powerful empires,[9][8] well-recognized for their massive cultural, political, and social influence covering much of the territory and population of the ancient world. That seems to be a much better presentation of nformation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Ohh noo!! I mean the part where it says "the Persians are an Iranian group" and so on and so forth. Yes the Persians are indigenous from Iran. But we're scattered all across the Middle East. We are the second biggest ethnic groups in the region. That statement alone makes it seem like we're only in Iran when reality we're all over.

I wanted the very beginning to say something like Persians are an indigenous ethnic group and that we're the second biggest ethnic groups in the Middle East. << I jus wanted that part to be added in the very beginning so people can learn more about us. Persianprincess416 (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

misunderstanding

Persian is not really an ethnicity. In the Persian language you cannot say "I am Persian.". You can say you are Persian speaking. Compare it to Mandarin or Hindi. You cannot say you are Mandarin, you cannot say you are Hindi, but you can say you are Mandarin speaking and Hindi speaking. Persian is overused in the West. Everything Iranian became Persian in the West. Persian is solely a province and a language but not really an ethnic identity. Strictly speaking, people who only speak Persian have no specific ethnic identity. They are simply just Iranians who simply identify with their city or region (Tehrani, Shirazi, Esfehani, etc.), but they don't call themselves "Persian" since there is not even an equivalent to Persian in the Persian language in the ethnic sense, since it only refers to a province and language, as I already mentioned.

Persian is an ethnicity, Iranian is a nationality and those cities are from provinces in Iran Persianprincess416 (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Missing information

Under related groups there is no information about Parsi people ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsis ) who migrated to India from Sassanid Iran following its conquest by Arab Muslims under the Rashidun Caliphate in the 7th century CE. Although there are differences in findings: “A study was conducted in 2017 which found that Parsis are genetically closer to Neolithic Iranians than to modern Iranians who have witnessed a more recent wave of admixture from the Near East, and that there were “48% South-Asian-specific mitochondrial lineages among the ancient samples, which might have resulted from the assimilation of local females during the initial settlement.” 2A01:4B00:8019:2900:3969:1C2A:EDED:43E (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Info

Do Persia people come fromthe cucase mountain 2600:1008:B167:5A5C:D1F0:B49:E94F:198C (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Milad

Arabic 2605:8D80:608:170:D6C:BBAB:4174:3CF4 (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Estimate by Lawrence G. Potter

Here is the source: I had added this to the page, as it seemed to be reliable, but my edit was eventually reverted. Any comment is welcome.Ayıntaplı (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Dear @Armanqur, I have already added the first source here. I think it would be more constructive to make some further comments. Ayıntaplı (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Second source: Ayıntaplı (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the 65% figure found in just one source is too definite here. I cannot read these two sources as they are books I don't have and Google will not provide me a preview, but I know of at least one other source that gives a figure of 61%, so the 65% is disputed. It would be helpful if you (Ayıntaplı]) used the "quote" parameter to quote what these sources are saying, although not essential. It is clearly incorrect for this page to assert a definite figure of 65%. I also note that talk pages are not required for approval of edits, but rather, where there is a dispute, the editor who reverts a bold edit should really open or engage in discussion to explain why they dispute the edit. In this way we can find consensus. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy The first source has a table, the middle column being for the percentages:

Persians 36-49-51 27.1-39 million

The second source:

The Islamic Republic of Iran is ethnically diverse. Persians comprise only a little over half of the country's population.

I will also be adding these quotes to the references. Ayıntaplı (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy Do you believe there are any problems with the given sources? If not, I'll be adding them back. Ayıntaplı (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

You say the first source has a table line: Persians 36-49-51 27.1-39 million. What number there is the percentage? The second source says "a little over half" which is probably all we can say at this time too. It can't support a percentage figure, but it can support that very statement. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe we can drop the second source. The percentage in the first source is "36-49-51." Ayıntaplı (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

But which is it? 51% of Iran's population? Or is it referring to Persians in 3 different countries? I am confused by that figure, sorry. There is a discrepancy between sources about these figures, so "a little over half" using the second source may be better than citing a figure. I believe the discrepancy comes from what people are including under the heading Persian. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy The column is titled "Percentage in Iran," so these figures constitute a range of estimates for the percentage of the Persian population of Iran. Actually, the table should be readily accessible through the link provided. Ayıntaplı (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe we can drop the first source. 36% and even 49% sounds incredibly WP:UNDUE. If I'm seeing this right, then this source also says that the Azeris possibly form up to 41% of the population of Iran, which sounds like something taken out of Aliyevs scrapbook. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I personally believe 36% is very low and 41% is astronomical, but I'm not sure if our presumptions should be of relevance given previous cases about source reliability except for the source being fringe. Ayıntaplı (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "presumptions", but what is WP:UNDUE and what isn't. The source doesn't even specialize/focus on this subject either as far as I am aware. I believe you're already very well aware of WP:RS generally says about the numbers of Azeris in Iran (many which can be seen here Azerbaijanis), so I find it odd that you're willing to use this source, even instead of the other one used here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The reason I am not willing to use the second source is because it is unclear what "a little over half" means. For example, it could be 51% or 60%. I hadn't thought of this while adding the second source, which I should have. Ayıntaplı (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I have seen a source that suggests the figure is 61% (would have to search for it), so I think if we are moving away from the 65% (which also has a source), then indefinite is better. Or is there an up to date official census figure of any kind that we can use? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

There isn't any official census about ethnic demographics. I'm okay with either or none of these sources being used, although I have pointed out a few concerns of mine here. I will try to come up with a few more sources, since the main problem here is the small amount of sources for the population. Ayıntaplı (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

References