This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I would like to know more about the condition ofthe Sunni Muslims in Iran , Romours are so strong that they are oppressed ... and that they are looked dwon upon. I heard that the only Capital in the world that does not have a Sunni Mosque is Tehran. I also heard alot of stories from Irani Sunni Muslims about state geonicide that is never talked about. please add, support or prove otherwise. Thank you
I think citation would be useful for the facts stated in Human rights section. Can anyone add?
The following text is the text that you have rejected, while I agree that perhaps mentioning the specific case of Ms. Kazemi even though she was brutally tortured and murdered by the Iranian State:
"In a National Post article dated Thursday, November 2, 2006 Iran has been listed among the 13 worst abusers of Human rights in the world by the Canadian Government. Canada has brought this to the United Nations Human rights council, a body which the country firmly rejects Iran's participation on given its horrendous human rights record. This related to the torture and death of Canadian photo journalist Zahra Kazemi, by an Iranian prosecutor, who became a high ranking member of the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran's was not pleased with this assessment, despite its factual accuracy. Canadian Criticism"
Despite your insistance that we should not have any "examples" in the article, I think we should have at least one specific example that in a factual way highlights just how horrendous the human rights record of Iran is. I personally believe that states that behave like Iran should be KICKED out of the United Nations, because they sign the declation of Human rights and then go out of their way to violate it.
Further more that reference is historical, hence because it is about the historical state of Iran regardless of the current governments status as a successor it belongs in the history section. I have no problem with it being in the history section. But its inclusion in the Human rights section makes Iran look like a bastien of freedom and equality, of which it is neither, and skews the point of view, distracting from the facts. (We are an encyclopedia we have to present facts.) Fact being that the modern state of Iran is a brutal regime which allows little or no freedom and has no respect for women. But the Above text is what I propose, in parenthesis. --Meanie 01:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
With all do honesty I think that we do need to have some information about at least one specific example on this page. The historical information is a single history fact, and perhaps it should be on the history page. Afterall it gives the impression that Present day Iran, which this "country page" should be about is somehow a defender of human rights. All this when their representative to the UN human rights council is a murderer. That really says a lot. The FACT that they abuse human rights is not a political policy or anything of the like, it is a fact.
With regards to Alidoostzadeh, since when does a law requiring women to wear headscarves count as human rights. While they may have a good representation in Universities they have the life of a dog in every other regard.
As for why we should use Canada over the United Nations, the UN allows some of the most oppressive brutal regimes to partake in the Human Rights Council, they have no credibility when it comes to human rights what so ever. I recognize that some here would like to discount Irans current status as a human rights abuser, however I will tell you that Canada as a roll modle never discounts its past abuses, ever, lest they would be repeated again. The only objection to adding such a section to the Canada page would be from people not from Canada, Canadians readily accept and awknowledge the skelletons of the past, which is why they are on the front flank in the fight for human rights, and have bucketloads more credibility when it comes to Human rights than the United Nations as a body.--Meanie 18:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the NPOV tag, although I still do not agree with the way the section is set up, it is evident to me that the vast majority of people think it should be that way. And being that Wikipedia is a democratic institution we will go with that. For reference I have added it to the international criticism section of Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. I just want to thank the above posters for their honest, and concise imput on my suggestion. --Meanie 06:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I think there is no need of citation for proving Iran didn't use chemical weapons. Citation would be needed if they have used C. Weapons not if they haven't. Please confirm and I'll go ahead removing it. Also, I checked the the section of Iran-Iraq war. I don't think it's biased (though unnecessarily long!). Should we remove the "neutrality check request"?
[[User::Mani1]] has twice removed (Farsi) after the word Persian from the official language box. See history. Also see "Tightening of the Culture section" above. What is appropriate at this point? Bejnar 14:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
A stupid argument. As anyone who speaks the language knows, it is actually called Farsi. If you're going to insist on using the antiquated and rarely-used word "Persian", then it's only logical that the modern name, Farsi, is used AS WELL. Deleting it is at the very least, extremely mis-leading. Tashtastic 12:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
YEP! its "farsi". "persian" is like saying the language of china is "chinese" instead of "mandarin" and "cantanese". 58.106.19.3 05:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
THE LANGUAGE IS CALLED PERSIAN NOT FARSI. --SkyEarth 23:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
-- Only Iranians ignorant of their past with no study and no clue about their culture and language use "farsi" while talking in English. I have to admit that unfortunately these kind of people are huge in number.
---
I'm adding Farsi back in parentheses. Please allow correct contents to co-exist and do not engage in editing campaign over small matters like this. Fleet Command 16:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC) [[User::Mani1]] has removed (Farsi) after the word Persian from the official language box, at least four times. Bejnar 19:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Providing the information about the name 'Farsi' is not redundant it is informative. I knew about a language called Farsi long before I knew about a language called Persian. The name Farsi is used by academics, other than those in literature. This is useful information, and it can co-exist with the name Persian. Bejnar 02:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
--Mani1 00:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Bejnar makes a good point. Even if you don't include Farsi as part of the official language it needs to be somewhere on this page simply because it is the name used by a large number of English speakers for this language. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. If you look up "Iran" in other encyclopedias, they all list Farsi as the language spoken there. "The principal language of the country is Persian (Farsi), which is written in Arabic characters. Other languages are Turkic dialects, Turkish, Kurdish, Armenian, and Arabic. Among the educated classes, English and French are spoken." "iran." The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. Columbia University Press. 05 Nov. 2006. <Reference.com http://www.reference.com/browse/columbia/Iran> Some encylcopedias even list Persian in paranthesis because Farsi is the more common name. "Languages Farsi (Persian) (official), several minority languages including Kurdish, Baluchi, Luri, and Turkic (including Afshari, Shahsavani, and Turkish")"iran." Crystal Reference Encyclopedia. Crystal Reference Systems Limited. 05 Nov. 2006. <Reference.com http://www.reference.com/browse/crystal/16648>
I think picture of khomeini should be removed from the page for the following reasons: 1. He caused the death of tens of thousands of Iranians. 2. He is dead. 3. He is not popular among iranians.
I think we should use the picture of an Iranian national hero instead of murderer. Dr. Mossadeq could be a good choice. (64.231.245.248 23:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC))
Do you guys see a picture of Hitler on the page about Germany?
Who ever thinks that Imam Khomeini was a murderer is mad. He freed us from those american B******* and after that he saved us from Saddam;and what were the Americans doing? They were selling weapon to them while saddam was murdering thousands of Iranian and Iraqi civilians with his chemical weapons.And now people are learning how corrupt the american government is.And I am very angry that the western government has portraid Iran and Imam Khomeini In a way you compare Iran to the Nazis and Imam Khomeini to Hitler.I know that the majority of Iranians support the Iranian government.Thats why Ahmajinejad was voted as president.Imam Khomeini was a great leader and nothing less.
Good point -- there SHOULD be a picture of Hitler on Germany's page. Whether Khomeini and Hitler are reviled now or not, they are undeniably a signifigant part of their countries' history.
According to a number of other sites, Iran exports 2.6 million barrels a day in a 2003 estimate. Here is a site where it is stated. Persian Gulf Fact Sheet. I made the needed changes in the article. It now says Iran exports 2.6 million, not between 4 and 5.
Please guys, do something about this pictures copyright problem. I'm sure we don't want it to be deleted. The picture can be found in the Geography section of this article. Thank you Arad 18:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
A new paragraph has been recently added to the article that reduces its quality:
""During the war Saddam was supported by the United States all the way against Iran providing weapons and intelligence to Iraq. To stop Iranian volunteer human waves on battlefield, Iraq used biological and chemical weapons provided by West, extensively. As local dissent in Iraq against Saddam and his secular war against Iran grew, his rule became more and more dictatorial and later used chemical weapons on his own people as well, killing tens of thousands of protesting Kurds at Halabja. Despite all these atrocities special Reagan envoy Donald Rumsfeld visited Saddam twice in Baghadad delivering him weapons to be used against Iranians and assurances of continued US cooperation with Iraq. This relationship was later augmented as US Navy joined forces with Saddam in the war against Iran, sinking more than half of Iranian Navy and downing several Iranian Airforce Planes. Towards the end of the war US Navy shot down an Iranian Civilian Airliner Iran Air Flight 655 killing 290 passengers and crew including 38 non-Iranians and 66 children. The war continued for eight years until when in 1988, Khomeini, in his words, "drank the cup of poison" and accepted a truce mediated by the United Nations, under US pressure, (just when another successful Iranian assault was penetrating Iraq) without any reparations for Iran and punishment for Saddam. The total Iranian casualties of the war were estimated to be anywhere between 500,000 to 1,000,000. With the fall of Saddam's regime in Iraq in April 2003 and his capture in December, Iran announced it had sent its own indictment against Saddam to Iraq's government, with the list of complaints including the use of chemical weapons. The United Nation finally and officially accepted Iraq as the aggressor party in the war in 1997, nine years after the war ended.""
Most of this paragraph belongs to Iran-Iraq war not here. I think one or two lines suffice about the role of US in the war. I suggest reverting this part back to an earlier version and adding one line about the role of united states and the west:
""Saddam's surprise attack made several early advances, the people of Iran began rallying around Khomeini as he urged all Iranians to defend their country and religion against Saddam's secular Ba'athist regime. By 1982, Iranian forces managed to push the Iraqi army back into Iraq. Khomeini refused a cease-fire from Saddam demanding huge reparation payments and an end to his rule and that he be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He also sought to export his Islamic revolution westward into Iraq, especially on the majority Shi'a Arabs living in the country. The war then continued for six more years until when in 1988, Khomeini, in his words, "drank the cup of poison" and accepted a truce mediated by the United Nations. The total Iranian casualties of the war were estimated to be anywhere between 500,000 to 1,000,000. With the fall of Saddam's regime in Iraq in April 2003 and his capture in December, Iran announced it had sent its own indictment against Saddam to Iraq's government, with the list of complaints including the use of chemical weapons.""
line to be added could be: Saddam was supported by the United States against Iran, providing weapons and intelligence to Iraq. US Navy shot down an Iranian Civilian Airliner Iran Air Flight 655 killing 290 passengers and crew.
Guys, I'm tired of these images with copyright problems. If they are copyrighted and not allowed to be used in this page, then remove them so we can replace them or if they have no problem, then please remove the annoying text under each images which reduces the quality of the article. Thank you Arad 04:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I see that Iran is listed as
Could someone please add;
As for counties in Central Asia; Iran needs to be added to that group too
69.196.164.190
In the Human Rights section of the Iran article, there is mention that Islam in the country drives discrimination against women and unequal treatment of them.
This is inaccurate, it mischaracterizes that the religion of Islam itself is the cause of this while it should be mentioned that it is people's choices that are really behind such treatment and unequal treatment of women is unislamic.
this is just quran, There is much more in hadith and Sunnah (Marmoulak 22:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
I think everyone knows that Islam sees women as inferior to men. No point arguing this.
Nobody have mentioned in the article that Iran is using a rather unique and presice Calendar system called Jallali calendar. See Iranian Calendar for more details.
I think a new section should be added about a big percentage of people who are not happy with the current government. Or maybe a new article. What do you guys think? Arad 01:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Great idea, since it would represent current situation in Iran. It should a separate section in the existing article.
Does anyone think there should be a section on Iranian military? Why or why not?
British troops are mobilizing on the Iranian border http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060830&articleId=3097
This source Iran's population is >70 million: http://www.irantour.org/Iran/population.html
CIA claims Iran's population is 68 milliion.
And this source claims Iran's population is 75 million: http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/Asia/iranc.htm
You arrogant bastards think you can count the population of Iran to the last single person. I have several conflicting sources which state the population is above 70 million as of 2003. Title: Culture Shock, A Guide to Customs and Etiquette Author: Maria O'Shea ISBN: 1-55868-764-5 Page: 48
As of October 2004, population estimate for Iran was 70 million Title: Iran, Page 24, ISBN: 1-74059-425-8
There will be a concencious at the end of the iranian year 1385
Is anyone able to provide a reference for the motto? From I've found after googling it, it was used by Khomeini and during the Islamic revoution, but I didn't find anything showing that it has any sort of official status. Article 18 of the constitution states that "The Official Flag of Iran is composed of green, white, and red colors, with the special emblem of the Islamic Republic, together with the State Motto." This leads me to think that the actual motto might be Allahu Akbar. Does someone know more about this? Pruneautalk 18:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I think with living in Iran for 15 years and saying the Iranian Motto every morning (ask any Iranian and they will agree) that Iran motto is Independence Freedom Islamic Republic. Arad 12:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't prove anything while I don't have any prove, so do as you wish. But I remember that they told us at school that Independence Freedom, Islamic Republic is the motto. Maybe I'm wrong but I asked few Iranians and they said that Independence Freedom Islamic Republic is the motto. I try to investigate more. I don't like anything that the Islamic Republic made official even the flag of Iran after the revolution. Why do we have to have Arabic words on our national flag? Anyway, this has nothing to do with our discussion. --66.36.134.107 21:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I live in Iran and I know for sure that the main motto is Independance,Freedom,Islamic republic. Other mottos include Allaho akbar(Khomeini rahbar) and noteast (reffering to the USSR)nor west.
I want to know your opinion about this article. It seems to be supported by separatism and Pan-Turkism ideologists! It may be against Wikipedia:No original research! It is not NPOV. What do you think?
zandweb 07:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC) _ ZANDWEBT
I have just fixed the 'topics related to Iran' section at the bottom of the article. The lists are now in alphabetical order, properly rearanged and all word start with a capital letter.
Please, if you are to change this list follow what I have done; it took me a very long time. Thanx alot. Pedram-e 23:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
This is really annoying to see this article getting vandalized and then, even worst, the admin revert the vandals by erasing half of the page. And the public health section is ridiculous too. some of it are facts but you can't just talk about HIV and hepatitis C and malnutrition. A health section must be a large informative section talking about what are the bad points, good points what is being done and what is already done. Arad 00:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
There are some linked words in this article that dont have a article attached to them. If we want this article to hopefully become featured, these "red" links should get an article or we should just remove them. Pedram-e 23:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I tried to add a link 'Photographs of Iran' (http://www.worldisround.com/browse/NorthAfricaMiddleEast/Iran/) but it was dropped.
I'm a newbie at Wikipedia contributions but it appears I'm not allowed to add this link because I run Worldisround. We host other peoples' travel photos for other people to browse so this and similar links seems like a very valuable addition to Wikipedia. (Several people have independently added links from Wikipedia to Worldisround places and articles.) It certainly isn't a commercial link; we'd be lucky to make $1 from the advertising. Kelek1 18:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I have a question; Is it possible to have an article on the a country on FP status? because if it is, then all other countries would probably want to become FP too and it'll be a chaos. Personally I've never seen a FP article on the country. --Arad 03:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you guys like the clean up i did at the history section? Arad 21:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I recently added information regarding Iran's status as a rogue state and also mentioned that it was part of the Axis of evil. Someone removed that change. Could you please explain why you did so, and why I was wrong in categorising Iran as a rogue state? Thanks. Cerebral Warrior 10:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
It is american government that is the true devil.
It is interesting to see narrow-minded and ignorant individuals whom believe their Fundamentalist Christian point of view is in fact the “gospel for the whole planet,” editing a world wide information site. And, complain, when their nonsense is removed..
According to the Swedish goverment 50% of Swedish people must have at least a bachelordegree to be competitive towards other countries. Would anyone tell how many percent of Iranians must have a good and highly competitve universitydegree?!
It must added that only a small number of people in Sweden has a degree: less than 17%. This is to low to make the country competetive towards other countries. Other countries have a higher ratio of graduation among their students and better attitude towards university studies. One should remember that in USA, UK, Germany etc well-educated people are taken care off much better than Sweden: There are many well-educated people who are unemployed. To have a degree from a university is not concidered as an option in Sweden, not even among their politicians (???). To discus problems of this kind it should be much better to transfere knowledge and exprience from USA, UK, France, Germany, Canada etc to Iran and Iranians.
Regarding the first words of the article (i. e. the title) it is really remarkable that the synonymous use of "Persia" by the West and of "Iran" by the Persians has been extinguished here whereas we are living in a world where we still call a European country "Germany" which the so-called "Germans" themselves call "Deutschland". In France the same country is called "Allemagne" and not "Deutschland". And there are other countries of this kind. In any scientific or lexical work one would read the foreign term as well as the native name of the country which in the case of Iran happens to be the term used as part of the official name for the political entity of the "Islamic Republic of Iran". However, to proceed exactly, those who support the absence of the term "Persia" after "Iran" in the title of the article should use the official name "Islamic Republic of Iran" as a consequence of their argumentation. This idea however would not be lexical but plainly political. It is of considerable importance to show the correspondence between the two terms "Iran" and "Persia" already in the title of the article in order to unmistakably make clear which nation is being treated here. The absence of the word "Persia" after "Iran" in the title has a political aspect which should be avoided in an encyclopedia with determination. --Anoushirvan 19:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that Iran is one and the same country with ancient Persia, Sassanid Persia or Sefevid Persia; it is the oldest country in the world and people should refer to Iran as Persia. This country withstood the invasions of Barbarians such as alexander or the Mongols and proved to be better than all its occupators and it inevitably "Persified" them. --Gligan 22:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I came across this really descriptive diagram of Iran's political system, from BBC. I think it's a good idea if those who have the editing right to include this somewhere in the document:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/default.stm
I don't know why this picture was in history section. It has nothing to do with History of Iran. Plus it has copyright issues which has to be fixed. And also in the history section, why do we have paragraphs at the end talking about recent events? They aren't historical yet, and I don't think they will be historical anyway. They only make the History section longer than it is now. --Arad 19:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Partway through talking about the US embassy hostage situation during the Iranian revolution, a sentence about the US blocking something is cut off. I assume this probably came from some sort of vandalism but I'm having a hard time locating the original wording of this section in the articles history. Any help would be much appreciated. The section of text concerned is as follows:
...a move which only increased his popularity among the revolutionaries. Women, African Americans and one hostage diagnosed with multiple sclerosis were soon released.In contrast U.S. blocked Despite attempts made by the administration of US President Jimmy Carter at negotiation and rescuing the remaining hostages through such methods as Operation Eagle Claw,...
BobBobtheBob 17:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Deleted Saeed Shirazi, A Concise History of Iran PublishAmerica, September 19, 2005 ISBN 1413767982 from the Further Reading section. PublishAmerica? Unless someone knows something about this title I don't, please leave this out. Lowerarchy 04:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC) This article came up first on a Google search for Iran, by the way. Lowerarchy 04:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
There's something that I really fail to understand: if Iran is an Islamic Republic and vows to defend Islam throughout the world, why on earth does it have such a close relationship with militantly atheistic regimes like Cuba's (even while communists are persecuted back in Iran)? I mean, even if a common bond of hate against America might unite them, I really don't think it would make much sense for an Islamic republic to be so in bed with Marxist regimes. Ahmadinezhad's recent moves for an even closer alliance with "friend" Fidel is something that I just can't get into my head. But then, maybe I'm dull. Enlighten me.Giorgioz 17:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I find it notable that nothing is mentioned with respect to the persecution of Baha'is and of other religious minorities in Iran. This is particularly notable with respect to the Baha'is, as they comprise the largest religious minority and face the stiffest persecution. I request that we include such information in the Iran page. Please browse through some of the links provided to verify the legitimacy of this request. If the request is valid, please say so. If not, please mention why.
My intention is not to defame this great country, only to remedy a notable omission.
20:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)~carsonc
I agree, we must write about the foundation of it at least under "religions"
Template:Kurds has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Khorshid 13:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The phonetic spelling of Iran is incorrect; it implies a long 'i' and a long 'a'. The first pronunciation offered by the American Heritage Dictionary would have both vowels short. Among Iranians, the pronunciation the 'i' is closest to a short 'i', and the 'a' is a low front 'a'. This coincides with the American Heritage Dictionary's second pronunciation: ĭ-rän'. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Iran.68.109.92.109 08:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The infobox calims: " Establishment: 550 BCE Cyrus the Great overthrows Median overlords and establishes Persian Empire "
There is no reason to assume Iran was established on that date, noting the Iranian kingdom of Medes, and pre-Iranian kingdom Elam. The date may include the first kingdom in the land (Elamite), re-establishment of independence on the land by Iranians (under Medes), and/or establishment of modern Iran (under Safavids). I changed this date with: "see: Persian empire" --Gerash77 03:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You may not assume you can edit the article with anything you like, without discussion, and be able to keep it. You claim Iran was reestablished by Ardashir overthrew Parthian (look up the word) empire to create a "Persian" Empire. Should we also assume Iran today is not Iran because its headed by an Azeri? Frankly, as a Persian I am getting sick of this Perso-centric view of Iranian history, done by certain chauvinist. I'll keep an eye on this article from now on--Gerash77 01:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Please see this, the GDP per capita is 8400 dollars. --Mardavich 04:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
WE MUST bomb Iran. --Striver 09:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The language spoken in Iran if Farsi, not Persian. Although Persian can be used as a general term, as in saying the Americans speak “American,” or the British speak “British”.
But, the official language of Iran is called Farsi.
Farsi is the arabized form of the word Parsi, Persian.
This is not a correct statement. There has been a long and exhaustive discussion regarding what is the correct European name for modern Persian language. You can easily find the resources and minutes of these discussions in many English and Prsian sources, including Iranica and Academy of Persian Language (Farhangestan-e Zaban). The absolute majority of scholars and serious research personnel agree that in English language, you MUST refer to modern Persian as "Persian" and not "Farsi". --mrjahan Nov 26, 2006.
-the above statement is absolutely right
Why is it that so many Iranians I've met have an elitist Racist attitude?? They tend to feel that Iran is a breed apart from the rest of the Middle East/Central-South Asian diaspora. I met one fool from Iran who did not want to associate Iran with South Asia even though Indo-Aryans and Persians have got some ethnic lineage connected. He had the nerve to say that people from Northern India and Pakistan were `not really Aryans' and saying that they were mixed with Dravidians. Iranians are mixed as well. As a rule of thumb, many Iranians may be fairer that most South Asians, but I have seen many instances where they can be indistinguishable. If you look at the map of Human skin colour, you will notice that Iranians are roughly the same hue as people from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Northern India. By the way, what the hell is the ideology behind Sumka, the Iranian Neo-Nazi party??
im agree with you arad iranians have been tring to save their self confidence during centuries of crulty and humility by uncivilized like arabs and Mongols. they have negative feelings about arabs. another thing is he is partly right about indians race.they are not completely arians . havent you heard about discrimination between arians and dravidians in ancient india? my parents were mixed culture indian azery arab and iranian,so i cant be a racist,can i? but i advise you to study more and then call others fool.
If he's not calling someone here a fool, and not naming the person, then what does it matter?
I'm not sure about the extent of this problem, but it's safe to say that many Iranians do have a disgustingly elitist attitude that can be mixed with racism on occasions. For example, take the matter of joining the Arab League which propped up a few years back. The usual suspects went into a frenzy of racially motivated protests against this move, mainly because of the name with which this organization is known. They couldn't lower themselves to that level and see their beloved country joining the League, no matter what benefits the membership could have. The overwhelming majority of the arguments was based on the fact that 'we are not Arab' .--Sennaista 18:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
You are falsely using the word `Aryan' in its racial sense which the Nazis used. Genetics states that Indians are a mix of races and certain DNA markers overlap with Western Eurasians (like the Iranians). People in Iran are mixed and what makes them `more' Aryan? Sure , they generally `look' fairer than most South Asians but this is not always the case. Some theorists believe that the original Aryans did come from the Pakistan/Afghan region as they are said to have spoken Sanskrit, a language now only spoken in India.
because persians are persians, just like germans and french people arent he same race, if you went up to a german person and said hey dude im french he would probably be like, i dont give a f88k. does that answer your question, you idiot? :)
plus try having your empire attacked by arabs and mongols 24/7 for the past 2000 years --Fgol142.104.148.39 20:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The racial connotations of the word Aryan are as recent as the 20th century. Before that, in modern times, the word has been used in the linguistic sense. Both these uses have been done by Western scholars for their convenience. However, traditionally for very long, the use of this word has happened overwhelmingly in religious sense, so only those who follow an Aryan religion were deemed as Aryans. Hardly any practical utility of this term exists, since its used has been deprecated by other terms in all these connotations. deeptrivia (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
This page is getting full of Images, and to improve it's quality, I'm going to remove some of the photos which do not contribute to the article. The current candidate for removal are:
If you agree or oppose or want to add more candidates please do so. I will remove the images in 7 days if the census is in favor. Please vote by : Oppose (next to the image name mentioned before to show your oppose for removal) or Support (to support the removal). If this article is going to be FP, we need more high quality photos. --Arad 04:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I just created the article 2006 Iran Holocaust Conference and was hoping some people here would help me by fleshing it out. It is a bit of a stub at the moment. Thanks!Sup dudes?[[User:Kitler005]] 19:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1963166,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1 --Iran yesterday shut down access to some of the world's most popular websites. Users were unable to open popular sites including Amazon.com and YouTube following instructions to service providers to filter them. Similar edicts have been issued against Wikipedia, the internet encyclopaedia, IMDB.com, an online film database, and the New York Times site. Attempts to open the sites are met with a page reading: "The requested page is forbidden." - signed by you're friendly pirate.
Guys, i just look at the article for the first time ever, and only haven seen the pictures gave me a great impresion! wow! Iran really does NOT look like what they would like us to think :D --Striver 01:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
"Adam Pārsa, Pārsahyā puça; Ariya "
In sanskrit, this will read:
"Aham Pārsa, Pārsasyā putra; Arya " deeptrivia (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
There is now a proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Western Asia which, if it ever becomes realized, would deal with the countries of Western Asia, including Iran. Many of these countries do not already have existing projects dealing with them, unlike Iran, and neither does the region in general, for those subjects which deal with matters which cross extant national boundaries. Anyone who would be interested in working on any of the subjects under the scope of the proposed project would be more than welcome to indicate such there, so that we can know whether there is sufficient interest to begin the project in earnest. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Under the sub-heading 'major cities', the population of Tehran in the paragrapg does not match the population of Tehran under the photograph; if someone could please fix that. I believe i would also be helpful if we gave a little information about each of the main cities such as how the sub heading 'Government and Politics' is branched out.
- Also in the sub-heading 'Administrative divisions', i think it will be a good idea to note the recent changes in provincial boundries such as those of Mazandaran, Yazd and Khorasan provinces.
- Also under the sub-heading 'Government and Politics' it would look more profetional if the branched out headings would be placed on the imidiate upper right hand of its paragragh; this requires the repositioning of the pictures in this section. In the same section some of the branches have a paragragh of one or two sentences such as that of the 'Expediency Council', maybe adding more information to that would be wise.
- Also under 'Government and Politics' each branch has its own main article and most of them are quite short. It would be a lot of work but it would be good if we would join all of does into on article. this could then be the main article for 'Government and Politics'. This would illiminate all the excess links.
- The sub-heading 'economy' could also use mager editing, since it concists of many short and long paragraghs making it look awkword.
any thoughts? Pedram-e 06:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking of moving the picture of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh to were his name is mentioned in the sub-heading 'History of Iran'; any thoughts? Also if anyone has a good and appropriate picture of the Iran Iraq war, please add it next to that section of the sub-heading 'History of Iran'; thanx alot.
Another thing i noticed is that most of the early pictures are very pail, dead and colourless un-like the last few pictures. If anyone has more livly pictures specially for the Government and Politics section please replace these ones or just add them. If you do so, keep in mind copy right issues. Pedram-e 20:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Most of these still need attention. -- Beland 09:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Under the sub-heading 'Economy' there is a picture of the persian Rial but there is no information about it in the sectio. If someone has can please add some information on it and the persian currency. The example below is from the CIA website, but something similar would do.
ex. rials per US dollar - 8,964 (2005), 8,614 (2004), 8,193.9 (2003), 6,907 (2002), 1,753.6 (2001) note: Iran has been using a managed floating exchange rate regime since unifying multiple exchange rates in March 2002
- Also under 'Demographics', I think there should be a more detailed section talking about the refugees in Iran such as their numbers and the reason why they have become refugees. ex. due to the taliban rule
- Also under 'geography and Climate' there should be an explanation about Irans geographical disputes, such as the example below from the CIA website but more detailed.
ex. Iran protests Afghanistan's limiting flow of dammed tributaries to the Helmand River in periods of drought; Iraq's lack of a maritime boundary with Iran prompts jurisdiction disputes beyond the mouth of the Shatt al Arab in the Persian Gulf; Iran and UAE dispute Tunb Islands and Abu Musa Island, which are occupied by Iran; Iran stands alone among littoral states in insisting upon a division of the Caspian Sea into five equal sectors
- Also under 'Economy' the should be some talk about Iran's gas exports including the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline and etc. and some part about Irans main industries, agriculture and industrial products, and even production of elecrticity
thanx alot Pedram-e 00:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Mosssadegh ws not the first Prime Minister of the Majlis. It was General Haj-Ali Razmara according to your article on Massadegh.
This article is 64kb at present and we can shorten it. Do we need too many details for example about battles in the main article.--Sa.vakilian 04:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
There is written "Although Iran itself also possessed chemical weapons, it never used them during the war" and refered to [3] and [4].
Furthermore that paragraph is so weak and there is put some different irrilated issues beside each other. We can omit some part. Move some others to other articles.:"Although Saddam Hussein's forces made several early advances, by 1982, Iranian forces managed to push the Iraqi army back into Iraq. Khomeini refused a cease-fire from Iraq which was demanding huge reparation payments and an end to his rule. Khomeini also sought to export his Islamic revolution westward into Iraq, especially on the majority Shi'a Arabs living in the country. The war then continued for six more years until 1988, when Khomeini, in his words, "drank the cup of poison" and accepted a truce mediated by the United Nations. With the fall of Saddam's regime in Iraq in April 2003 and his capture in December of that year, Iran announced it had sent its own indictment against Saddam to Iraq's government, with the list of complaints including the use of chemical weapons. The total Iranian casualties of the war were estimated to be anywhere between 500,000 to 1,000,000. Although Iran itself also possessed chemical weapons, it never used them during the war. [3][4][5][6]"
I'm hoping this is now sufficiently covered at Iran and weapons of mass destruction. -- Beland 09:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Article does not mention at what point in time Iran become the current political entity, i.e. country...--Gkklein 14:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)