Talk:Iranian peoples/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Afghanistan mosque

I'm not judging whether or not this should be included in the article, I'm just saying that I don't really see the connection between the photo's caption and the article. Not all Afghanis are Iranian are they? So were most of the mosques built by Iranian peoples there? Are non-Iranaian Afghanis not muslim? Can someone who is knowledgable please clarify this. Thanks Avraham 02:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Well in this case, this particular mosque is located in a province that is predominantly Iranian (Tajik actually or eastern Persian). It also is a representation of the predominant faith of the Iranian peoples, Islam as we had some debate a while back about representing Islam which a Pashtun user brought up and we settled on this image as it's a nice looking picture of an impressive example of 16th century architecture that can be found in from Kurdistan to western Pakistan and thus represents Iranian architecture. Of course, these regions are also heavily influenced by Turkic groups, but not in this particular case. As for Afghans, the majority are Iranian or Iranian speaking (Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras, and others). It's more or less meant to represent the faith of the majority of Iranian peoples and that mosque was chosen as it is located in a region that predominantly Iranian in Afghanistan and was not meant to exclude other Afghans at all. Hope that clears things up. Tombseye 02:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Who the hell are you calling Afghans(Pashtoons) the Iranians? Iranians are mostly Safavids and Afghans are the 5th largest Tribe of the Aryans 12th tribes. Kurds are the other part of Aryans as well. but Iranians (Persian speaking community ) are Safavids and partly Aryans. as you may know Safavids are brunch of Turkish predecssors. so before speaking out think very carefull.

Tajiks are ( Perso-turckic) they are parts of mongols and Hazaras are also Mongols who came to Afghanistan, Iran, China in the 16th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.49.128.102 (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"Iranian peoples" ?

Is that even grammatically correct? (Havermayer 04:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)).

Yes. Mgiganteus1 04:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

one ethic/cultural group = a people. Multiple ethic/cultural groups = peoples. --Krsont 21:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"Peoples" seems pretty uncorrect to me. 217.199.54.130 10:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Peoples is wrong! (incorrect, not uncorrect) The people of are Iran are Iranian. There are a group of people. One person, two people, three people ... a group of people (i.e. one group and another two groups, and some more groups of people) are still people! I hope I made sense and you understood. Theomidrezaei 03:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

no, "peoples" is the correct term for many different groups of people. Compare "fishes" for many different types of fish, or "grains" for many different type of grain, etc. --Krsont 11:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

people of Iran have a long history.The first human right declaration was anounced by Koorosh (the grate cyrous)Iranians have participated in human civilisation.Many grate sientists,artists,poets,.. are from Iran.The efforts in history remains in the minds of people of Iran and people of the wold.People of Iran were among the first nations who belived in one God.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.127.125.9 (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC) 

Large claims

The article says: "the Achaemenid Persians established the world's first multi-national state." Not sure this is true - even the Babylonian Empire was multi-national. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PiCo (talk • contribs) 05:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

+the Assyrian Empire that was destroyed by the Persians before setting up their own. Wandalstouring 08:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• The Babylonians and the Assyrians were certainly not "multi-national" states since they did not respect the ethnicities and religious variations (expelling of the Jews). The main difference between them and the Persian Empire is that the Persian Empire had an official status and an "inter-ethnical" and "inter-religious" (also referred to as “tolerant” in history books) administration that Babylonians and Assyrians didn't have. That is why the Persian Empire is multi-national- Also the Iranian world (or Aryan world) was much larger than the Babylonian or Assyrian ones. It was therefore easier to expand it and bring new traditions and cultures from the East (Central Asia, Eurasia).

Infamous Amazons

could someone please tell me why the Amazons are infamous? OK there is a nasty story that the cut one of their breasts of but on the other hand there are TV-hits like Xenia. Wandalstouring 08:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. "...the Scythian-Sarmatian nomads... gave birth to the infamous Amazons". Seems to be speculative and out of NPOV (infamous), I would like to see some reliable source provided. --Brand спойт 13:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Help! did anyone read the link provided?! and this is on the main page now...do u READ these articles before u put them on??? There is no single bit that evidences that the greek myth is derived from the samartians or whoever...on the contrary! And it is not even claimed, too! Nor is there detailed evidence for warrior women in the link --84.159.189.201 14:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I reworded this section and added a more extensive article from World Archaeology that discusses the link between the Amazons of Greek legend and the Scytho-Sarmatians. Also added further references on the subject of warrior women of the steppes who should be mentioned in some capacity as it has received a lot of attention from historians and academics. Tombseye 16:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Amazons

"Some tribes of Sarmatians are also identified as the Amazons of Greek legend,"
No, they are not. Give a source! The ref says the opposite.

"warrior women believed to have lived in a...society in which both men and women took part in war,"
No. that does not apply to the greek Amazons, and there are no other "Amazons"
"and whose existence has been supported by recently-uncovered archaeological and genetic evidence."
No. The existence of some warrior women in Sarmatian culture (much too late) may have been evidenced. Still the source is very poor.

unclear reference?

the line "The first is a Bronze Age mentioning by an Iranian tribe..." does not appear to be very clear to me. does the "first" refer to the "scant references to these early Proto-Iranian invaders in the early writings..." discussed in the previous paragraph? if so, then the two sentences are too far removed from each other for the link to be clear, especially since the intermediate sentences move away from "references" to discussing other matters. Doldrums 15:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

the sentence "Due the racial structure the Volga Tatars, Chuvashes and Crimean Tatars, as well as some other Turkic Euriopeans were derived not only from Turks, but also form Western Iranians." is not grammatically correct. Doldrums 16:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I took it out. Racialist theories seem a bit dubious in this case anyway. Tombseye 17:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

vandalism and nonsense

with all the vandalism and nonsense added to the article (as a result of its featured status), who is going to be able to figure out what of value was lost and needs to be recovered? Is someone going to read and compare every word before/after its being featured? Should this article be semi-protected, at least? Hmains 19:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Congrads

Tabreek!

Congrads for featured status!

Thanks for the zahamaat of all those involved!--Zereshk 23:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Racism

The trouble is, this article is inherently racist - it identifies the speakers of a language (or group of language) as possessing a unique identity, and seeks other markers to reinforce that identity. This is the same line taken by the Nazis to support their ideas of the Aryan super-race, and flows from the same fallacy - that languages can be identified with their speakers. Linguists have long given up this idea, but it lingers in the populqar culture and in pseudo-scholarship - which, I'm afraid, is what this article is. PiCo 04:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see Germanic peoples, Celts, Greeks, Slavs, Turkic people etc etc. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"Roots"

the article seems to be in need of a thorough review in general. I trimmed the "History" section a little bit. The "Roots" section should only treat prehistory, that is, Proto-Indo-Iranian up to Eastern:Western split. Scythians, Sarmatians and Achaemenids belong in the Eastern and Western sections respectively. It is not known where Avestan was spoken, and "Avestans" is not used as an ethnonym. Strictly speaking, it is not established that Avestan was really an "Eastern" dialect, but I admit it is typically classified as such. It is ludicrous to include speculations on the Amazons in this summary. Note that we have the Ancient Iranian peoples article, where these early times can be treated in full detail; the "Roots" section should only give a brief summary of that per WP:SS. dab (𒁳) 11:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Iranian azeris are Turks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.139.55 (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The Zoroastrian picture is pointless

What is the point of the Zoroastrian picture of a Guardian Spirit? You might as well put that in, a picture of Jesus (as), a picture of Imam Ali (as), and whatever else represents the Iranians' religion. It's pointless. Armyrifle 00:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. While some may argue that Zoroastrianism was espoused by an Iranic (Zoroaster), the very fact that Zoroastrianism is adhered by merely 0.5% (or less) of Iranian peoples leads one to infer that this picture should not be up on top. Indeed, a great majority of Iranian peoples adhere to Islaam. Therefore, a picture of a Mosque/Masjid would palpably be far more suitable in the place of the Fravashi/Guardian Spirit which to many Iranian peoples today, is hardly a known entity. Scythian1 18:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Can someone add a pronunciation header on the page? Is it e-RAHN-ian or eye-RAIN-ian? --Liface 22:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Irainian Peoples = Too much confusion

Historically Incorrect usuage of a name I think the name Should be changed because there is too much confusion among people they think they are talking about Iran when referring to Aryans. it shows how much the iranians are in charge of the history books here.71.141.233.93 07:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Pashtun786

I agree. Nevertheless, the term is so often used in between articles that undertaking a change in terminology may prove to be futile; I hope I could be mistaken. Scythian1 18:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree too.Iran is a polictical state.It compramises of various ethnicites.Iranian is a nationality not a race as is Indian or Afghan or Pakistani and the reason is because they compramise of thousands of groups as oppossed to a single group.-Vmrgrsergr 19:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As an Iranian, I agree with this Pashtun guy in one sense, that is despite genetical facts they should not generalize pashtun taliban fans to people like persians, kurds and tajiks, Azaris, ......... Mehrdad

removing Azeri from the list.

as I remember it was agreed that Azeris should be mentioned in a special section and not as part of the list, also the information about uzbak was unsourced so I removed it.Gol 22:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned seperately in the list, with its own explanation and everything.Azerbaijani 14:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Are Croats and Serbs really considered to be Iranian people? Is there any source for it? I just noticed they're included on the list. Shervink 13:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Balkan Iranians

Yes according to a popular theory Croats belive that they stem from ancient Iranian tribes (Sramathians most probably), the same theory says more or less that also Serbs and Bosnians are from this tribe. see this http://www.magma.ca/~rendic/chapter1.htm there dozens of srticles and books about this. A Romanian friend also once told me that there is a theory that the ancient Dacians of Romania were Iranians. I have not read it anywere but it makes sense, because as Ukraine (Scythia) was an Iranian land and they were also found in the Balkans so Romania most probably has been too. Also remember when Darius went to fight with the Scythians (Iranians) he crossed Danube (the border between the contemporary Bulgaria and Romania), while if there were no Scythians (Iranians) in Romania, then he could attack the scythians Via Central Asia or the Caucasus! He also pointed to some artifacts of Dacians which resembled those of Scythians. Anyway. Another people who you should not forget are the Jaszy of Hungary. As the name suggests they are releated to the Ossetians. In fact they are Alans who entered this region (Central Hungary). They have already forgotten their language but are still or (were for a long time) aware of their ethnicity. It is debated whether or not Armenians are Iranians. The Armenian language is very close to the Iranian languages. Things are similar which could not be said that they are taken over from (other) Iranian languages. Most probably Armenian is a separate branch of the Iranian languages (next to the west eg. persian, Kurdish etc... and East eg. Ossetian, Pamir etc...). Addinf to that the Armenian aristocracy and kings have been of parthian origins. So You can consider them as Iranian peoples or not. Most Armenians however do not like to be related to Iranians and a lot I have encountered are very hostile to Iranians. The main reason is the religiosu difference, not knowing that Ossetians (who do not deny their Iranianness)are also Orthodox Christians. Having said this Georgians who are a Kartvelian people have assimilated many ossetians (Alans) in them. Moreover the georgian ancient kings and aristocracy have been of Parthian origins too. So maybe you can only mention this without listing it. Babakexorramdin 12:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Azeris are mentioned in their own special section so no need for them to be on the list. (this was agreed on a while back) When people do not speak Iranian languages they can not be part of the official list therefore croats and serbs are removed. They can however be mentioned (if there is enough evidence) in an speciall section like the one with Azeris. also tajik includes all tajiks so no need for "tajiks of china" Gol 17:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Many Azeris speak still the old Azeri language which resembles the Talysh language. They do not call themsleves Talysh but Azeri. They live far away from Talysh to the North of Tabriz in Harzen (sp?) and Gali Ghiye. Also many Talysh, especially those from the republic of Azerbaijan call themselves Azeri. AZERIS SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE LIST.Babakexorramdin 20:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

My friend, there was a long discussion a while back about this issue, you should look into the archive, and finally the compromise was for Azeris to be mentioned in a special section because the most important qualification for being considered Iranian/Iranic people was the language. However since Azeris are culturally very close to Iranian people they were given their own section. As for the confusion with Talysh, the term Azeri in general means, an speaker of Azerbaijani language ( look Azerbaijani people) if there is an alternative to this meaning (for example a citizen of the republic who is Azeri by nationality but not language) then again it should be mentioned in an special section. Adding the word Azeri indicates adding the entire group and they are Turkic speaker. Same goes for Uzbeks, those who speak Persian in Uzbekistan are not called Uzbek, although they are citizens of that country, they are called Tajiks. Adding word Uzbek indicates adding the entire group and they are Turkic speaking not Iranian. If we were to add Azeri or Uzbek here then it would be fair to add Iranian to list of Arab people or Turkic people since so many people who call themselves Iranian are Arabic or Turkic speaking!!!

Also this is not about genes or possible ancestors (if that was the case a lot of Persian speaking people would be disqualifies since they are mixed!) it is about language and culture with language being the most important one. Therefore Croats and Serbs can not be included in the official list, they dont speak Iranian language. (again it would be great to create a separated section for them if there is enough evidence that they are culturally Iranian).Gol 21:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No many Uzbeks speak the same language as Tajiks do (their local persian) but call themselves Uzbeks and not Tajiks82.95.57.7 21:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

MRS. Gol I agree with you on culture, for that matter Azeris and even uzbeks are Iranian and not Turkic. Although Uzbeks have certainly Turkic blood too. So do Tajiks. Language and race are two separate things!!!!!! And if you ask me yes I do think that it is justifiable to exclude people who do not have much cultural similarities with other Iranians, have a distinct genetic nake up from the list, even though they may speak an Iranian language e.g. Baluchis.

and if you ask me the Fars of Southern Iran are less Iranian than the Turkicspeaking Azeris, if measured by DNA genes and culture. Was it Iran not called Iran due to the Aryans? then certanly the Azeris and in general northern Iranian have more portion of Aryan genes and blood than do the Fars of South and Yazd and Kerman. Just think about it! Babakexorramdin 22:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

and looks like they are mentiond in a seperated section so that is taken care of!! Gol 21:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree.Hajji Piruz 18:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Balkan Iranians II

The above discussion starts off about the possibility that Croats and Serbs are of Iranian origins, but then starts waffling about Turks and Georgians. Obviously off the topic because thay are not Balkan

Back to Serbs and Croats.. There is a theory that Serbs and Croats derived their NAME from Samartian tribes called Serboi and Chrobati. This is based on a few (very few) linguistic points, that are subject to much conjecture. Linguists and etymologists often come up with many different theories on the origin of a word, and the above example is one.

Serbs and Craots are certainly not Iranian peoples. They are slavs. They language is Slavic. Someone included Bosnians as Iranian peoples. Apart from being Muslim, they have nothing in common, so i removed them from the list.

The only possibilty that MAY be likely is the a caste of Samartian warriors living in the Ukrainian Steppes fled westwards to Poland, the hypothetical homeland of Slavs. Here they were assimilated by the more numerous Slavic tribes. Yet their name was kept, effectively lending them their name to the Serbo-Croats, which subsequently migrated to the Balkans in 7th to 8th century AD.

However this theory is likely to be inccorect. The very few, if any, sources who refer to these Samartian tribes are likely to be confused, as historians back then often referred to tribes based on location rather than ethnicity. Certainly DNA evidence does not support this idea at all (instead showing Serbs and Croats are 'composed' of Slavic genes mixed with the native Illyrians in the Balkans prior to the migration, and have no closer relation to Iranians than any other European).

But certainly an interesting idea Hxseek 08:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what do you see as waffling about Turks and Georgians.. I mentioned the extent to which they have Iranian blood. About the Serbs, Croats and Bosnians I said I am neutral about their origins, but one theory suggests this. So if one mentiones a people based on race should be consistent in all cases. DNA test certainly shows that Yugoslavs are not similar to Slavs. So what?

And is it because you do not know who were dacians? is this what you called Turk? And may we know your own "ethnic" or "racial" background? ok to other people: I do not care about if the Yugoslavs are mentioend or not, but AZERIS should really be mentioned as an Iranian people. If Azeris are not an Iranian people (I do not mean language) then most of Iranians are not too. So AZERIS should be included. A warning: AN OBSCURE GROUP CONNECTED TO THE FAMOUS ANTI_IRANIAST BRENDA SHAFFER IS ACTIVE TO POLLUTE ALL INFORMATUION ON THE IRANIANS AND BRING ETHJNIC HATRED! Babakexorramdin 22:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. YOUR DISCUSSION IS TITLED 'IRANIANS IN THE BALKANS"

MY FIRST POINT IS THAT TALKING ABOUT TURKISH AND GEORGIAN PEOPLE IS NOT RELEVANT, EVEN THOUGH THEY MIGHT BE IRANIAN, BECAUSE GEORGIA AND TURKEY ARE NOT BALKAN COUNTRIES. (REFER TO AN ATLAS AND EDUCATE YOURSELF)

SECONDLY, AS I SAID ABOUT THE CROAT AND SERBS THEORY, IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE , BUT QUITE UNLIKELY.

ABOUT YUGOSLAVS NOT BEING SLAVS, YOU'RE INCCORRECT. SLAVS CONTAIN HAPLOTYPE R1 a AT A RATE OF 20-30 % (THE "SLAVIC" GENE). YES, THIS IS LOWER COMPARED TO OTHER SLAVS LIKE UKRAINIAN AND POLES (40-60%). BUT THIS IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THEY INTERMIXED WITH THE ILLYRIANS, A NATIVE EUROPEAN PEOPLE LIVING IN THE BALKANS BEFORE AND DURING ROMAN TIMES, AS WELL AS OTHERS TO A SMALLER EXTENT (EG CELTS) . NO ONE IS PURE ANYTHING THESE DAYS.

YET, YUGOSLAVS ARE STILL SLAVS. (HENCE THE NAME). THEY SPEAK SLAVIC LANGUAGE, HAVE A SLAVIC WAY OF LIFE, AND -MOST IMPORTATNLY- IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS SLAVS. EHTNICITY CANNOT BE CONCLUDED FROM GENETICS ALONE, IT MERELY HELPS WITH IDENTIFYING COMMON ACESTRY.

I AM AUSTRALIAN WITH SOME YUGOSLAV BACKGROUND, SO I HAVE RESEARCHED THIS QUITE FULLY OUT OF INTEREST, AND I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AGAINST IRANIAN PEOPLE. BUT YOU SHOULD MAKES SURE YOU ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU READ

AS FOR THE THEORY THAT DACIANS ARE IRANIANS. I DO NOT THINK SO, THOUGH I AM NOT AN EXPERT ON THIS FIELD. DACIANS ARE AN INDO-EUROPEAN PEOPLE THAT ARE SIMILAR TO ILLYRIANS. I AM ALMOST 100% SURE THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IRANIANS.

IT IS TRUE THAT IRANIAN TRIBES ONCE HAD BEEN IN THE BALKANS. THE AVARS AND ALANS FOR EXAMPLE. HOWEVER HISTORIANS DO NOT AGREE WHETHER THEY WERE TURKIC, IRANIAN OR CENTRAL ASIATIC PEOPLES. HOWEVER, THEY WERE CONQUERED BY THE SERBS AND CROATS. THE BYZANTINE EMPEROR INVITED THE SERBS AND CROATS TO DESTROY THE AVARS BECAUSE THEY WERE A PEST TO THE EMPIRE. MOST WERE PROBABLY KILLED, ALTHOUGH CERTAINLY SOME WOULD HAVE BEEN ASSIMILATED WITH THE SLAVS.

FINAL POINT: THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IRANIAN PEOPLE IN THE PAST TO MODERN IRANIANS. MODERN IRANIANS NO ARE NOT ONLY IRANIAN, BUT ALSO HAVE TURKIC AND ARABIC INFLUENCES DUE TO THE FACT THAT PERSIA WAS RULED BY VARIOUS TURKIC AND ARAB EMPIRES (DO NOT BE OFFENDED). SO MY POINT IS : IT MAY BE INCORRECT TO CALL CERTAIN OTHER PEOPLE IRANIAN (EG GEORGIANS OR WHATEVER) WHEN NOT EVEN PEOPLE FROM IRAN ARE TOTALLY IRANIAN

::::::::::: Whether race or Culture. Whther Partial or Complete First of all I did not spoke about Turkey, so I wonder where you got that? Secondly the Yugoslavs (except Slovenes to a high extent) do not have much sklavic genes and their way of life is different. They were speaking on the Iranian people (some say culturally, the other racially whatever) and I said if you take the genes as an starting points then it is not only Croats but also Bosniaks and Serbs as they are the same people with different religion. You got my point? I am aware of that the Yugoslavs have Illyrian, Iranian And Slavic roots, and this has given shape to a unique culture and genetical makeup. So my point was if they take the partial Iranianness as being Iranian then not only Croats but also Serbs and Bosniaks should be included. Secondly your talk on Avars and Alans: Dear friend central Asiatic peoples are either Iranian, Turkic, Mongolian or Hunnic. Although the affiliation of Huns to either group is contested. Avars are thaught to be Mongols (distinct from the Caucasian Avars) and Alans were Iranians. Moreover uit is believed that the Iranians who were in the Balkans were Sarmatian, or better said Scythians of Sarmatian decent, as the the eastern Scythians (Saka) were of Turanian (Iranian and not Turkic) decent. As I said I dont know about Dacians; they are still unknown to certain extents; but Why Darius passed the danube to attack the Scythians if they were not in Romiania? Just think about it. And I agree about Modern day Iranian and the ancient Iranian. I think that the writers should distinguish in that. While the Turkic or Mongolian Hazaras became sedentary and speak an Iranian language, the Parsis of India however are becoming less and less Iranian everyday. The Uzbeks and Tajiks were sarts, they are a mixture of Iranian and Turkic blood and were bilingual in Central Asian persian and Jaghatay Turkic. Their culture and way of life is however Iranian. So this is a case of cultural irannianness more than racial Iranianness. (However both people have had Soghdian blood; an extinct Iranian people!). But Azeris are in all stances Iranian: their Culture and their genetical make up is totally Iranian as way as their way of life. The only thing is their language; but as I said even many Azeris still speak their old Iranian language and many Talysh call themselves simply Azeri, as they believe they are the Azeris who have not lost their language. Moreover the Azeri Turkic language has Turkic grammatical structures (and some Iranian ones0 and many Turkic words (especially the verbs)but its lexicon and syntaxis is still very Iranian! So is the Uzbek language! Babakexorramdin 09:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes friend, but i think you overestimate the contribution of ancient Iranian peoples to the Balkans.

SOme ancient historians beleive that the Serboi and Chrobati were Samartian tribes that lived in the ukranian area. They were NEVER in the balkans. To say so is simply wrong. Their connection with the Balkans is this ( as i have already written) : some THEORIZE that these samartian tribes moved to Poland area and merged with some slav tribes, giving them the name Serbs and croats. These tribes then invaded the balkans, mixing with slavs that had moved their 1 century earlier.

So even if this theory is true, the Iranian compenent would be very small. They were numerically much smaller, and they assimilated ith the slavs, not the other way around.

THe second influence was the Alans. THey were nomadic group that was troubling the Roman empire. However , their empire (centred in modern day bulgaria) soon fell and conquered by the slavs, and the people either died or were absorbed by the slavs.

When a group is conquered, they are forced to accept slavic culture and language, not the other way round. Thats why yugoslavs speak slavic, not iranian.

As for you saying that yugoslavs are not very slavic, your wrong. If you bothered to read my discussion you would understand. Yes, they have less slavic genes. THis is because they intermixed with the Illyrians. But again it was the SLAVIC language and culture that was kept, because , again, the slavs conquered the Illyrians. There is no genetic influence of Iranians in modern Yugoslavs. THis has been shown. Thats why the Serboi and Chrobat theory is largely unsupported

They are slavic culture, religion and language. I know i have lived there !

To summarise, there is very little Iranian influence in the Balkans. You just cannot make this claim. Just because the Vandals were once in North Africa , can u now say that north Africa is partly German ??.

And yes, Yugoslavs are different to Ukraians and other slavs. But Ukranians are different to Poles or Russians. That's why they are different countries. SLavs are not all the same.

SO i do not doubt that there were some iranian people that made it to the balkans, but my point is that there contribution to culture is probably small, if any. Because they were assimilated or coquered by the slavs; so their own culture is lost very quickly, over one or two generations. THEY ADOPTED SLAVIC CULTURE and WAY OF LIFE. Not the other way around. What little imprints they did leave would be diluted over 1.5 thousand years

I am aware of the fact that the land of Sarmathian Tribes was Ukraine.I do not think however that Polish theory is true. It was more that Sarmatians spread into Balkans, were the Illyrians already were. The Slavs came later. It is shown by language. Always the language which comes more recently is more widespread and dominant. As I said I do not say that The modern Yugoslavs should be regarded as Iranians or not, but simply that the people who include some people based on partial evidence should do it in all cases. They should make their minds about the criteria which they are using.Babakexorramdin 14:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The Samartians have been reported to move into Dacia (Romania). Yet they never crossed into Illyria (modern - day Yugoslavia). Most accounts suggest they were wiped out by the Gothic incursions.

Even if any actually were present in ugoslavia (unlikely), one would definitely be stretching it to classify Yugoslavs as even partially Iranian. As i said the bulk of the 'ancestral contribution' is Slavic. The balkans is a very mixed place, as every one knows. It would be very hard to ascertain just how prevalent and lasting the influence of Iranian tribes were. But i doubt that it would be very big ( as they had so many other mixes as well).

As is said before, theories like you presented (Samartian in Balkans) are merely theories, which are unfortunately more likely to be incorrect than correct. They are based on accoutns from old Roman historians. These are often incorrect or misinterpreted, as the Roman historians tended to call the same one tribe more than one name, or different tribes the same name, and they classed tribes more according to where they inhabited rather than according to any real cultural or ethnic division.

Some contemporary linguists hypothesise that certain words, especially in Croatian, for king and nobels etc are said to stem from iranian (eg Zupan). But this is again debatable, as there are just too many different theories in linguistics.

The most convincing evidence against the Iranian theory is DNA analysis. THis shows that there is no Iranian contribution to modern day southern slavs. ie Iranians are as closely related to Croats as they are to Swedes, for example. Hxseek 00:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

the biggest extent of genetical make-up of Yugoslavs is Ilyrian. I ont know if Iranian influence is more or Slavic. Lingual influence of Slavs is greatest. Most likely the Iranians went to the land of Ilyrians and then came the Goths and finally the Slavs came. Iranian influx has been of two waves: one was of course the old Sarmatian/ Scythian and the other was that of Alan. Alans came with Goths (most likely) just before the Slavs came. Just my take!

Actually your take is an oversimplification at best.

The majority of Serbs and croats DNA contribution comes from native people in the Balkans(perhaps from Illyrians). This is haplogroup E3b. Another large component is haplogroup I1b , which is unique to the south slavs. The remaining ones are R1a (20-35%) , which is known as the 'slav gene' by lay circles, but is more correctly the haplotype associated with the Ukranian refugia in the last ice age; and R1b (15% on average) which is common in western europe (perhaps reflecting conrtibutions from the goths and celts).

THe haplotype associated with the alans and sarmatian people is G. The frequency of this allele in the southern slavs is 0%. This is pretty convincing evidence that there is negligible contribution of the iranian people to soutehrn slavs. This is consitent with the historical theories :

a) most of the alans went west, then into africa with the Vandals. Those that remained in eastern europe must have been too numerically small to contribute to any modern day country's make up.

b) the sarmatiana where never in the western balkans. They lived in ukraine, and maybe even went to romania (ie EAST balkans), but not the western balkans.

So one can conclude that the southern slavs are a mixture of people indegenous to the Balkans from over 50, 000 years ago , plus the recent slavs (in AD 600-800s), who imposed their language , way of life; and after accepting christianity from Byzantium, developed the concept of 'christian Slava'. Unfortunately no Iranians to be objectively mentioned.

I think here lies the problems. What you call Slavic might have been iranian. genetical makeup of ancient Iranians is inherrited by the Slavs. Most of them were assimilated into the slavs especially the Ukrainians and Russians.On the other hand the population of modern Iran are a mixture of ancient Iranians (Aryans) and the natives who lived there (eg. Elamites). Sarmatians did not only go to Romania, but also to what is now called Hungary. Also later Alan went there. Can some Alans came southwards? Maybe! It is only fair to say that the Yugoslavs' main portion of genes in inherrited from the ancient peoples of balkans (Illyrians).This is evident. Although the Slavic migration to Balkans should not be disregarded you can obviously see that Yugoslavs look very diferent than Polish and Slovaks! Babakexorramdin 13:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok now you are just making up your on theories and going into pseudo-science

You cannot accurately distinguish nationality between looks, first of all

Secondly you are again mixing up your facts, or maybe you are just not educated enough. You claim that the "slav genes" (haplo R1a) are from Iranians ?? The slav genes are the genes of the original Indo_europeans (The "aryans) who migrated/ invaded Persia. These have been traced back to over 15, 000 years ago. The Sarmatians , Alans, etc came to Europe a lot later, obviously. As i already have mentioned, they unfortunatley left minimal influence in Europe.

Firstly, they were not numerically large enough to have any impact on the gentic composition. Secondly they were not a great enough civilisation to leave any lasting cultural influences either. The alans were barbarians that raided and looted. THey were eventually killed off by Franks and early Slavic kingdoms. Those that survived were assimilated. When this happens they adopt the culture of the europeans. Within a generation or two, their Iranian genes were pretty much lost. The main article even states : most alans went to Africa with the Vandals, whilst " other remnants of the Alans disappeared following Germanic, Hunnic and ultimately Slavic invasions.[18]" The same is said about the Sarmatians. (very little is objectively known about the Sarmatians. Anyone who lived in the area was referred to as Sarmatians. They were not only Iranian stock, but also slavs and balts; the area ere they lived fell to many different other tribes: Bulgars, Khazars, the Rus, Mongols. Sarmatians ceased being a distinct entity at least 2, 000 years ago)

In fact, the situation is OPPOSITE to what you state. The original 'aryan-iranians' were indo-europeans that originated from the Kurgan area, in modern day Ukraine. Some went down to Iran, became the ruling elite, and introduced the Indo-European language to the natives of the persian region. Yet they must have been numerically small as they did not leave much DNA.(the incidence of haplo R1a in modern iran is about 0%)

At the same time, the Indo-European people spread mostly over Eastern europe, spreading the R1a genes, and introducing the proto-indo-european language. The language also reached Western europe as a consequence of 'cultural migration' where the native population of west europe accepted the language in the process of adapting farming techniques from the indo-europeans. SO the genes were largely confined to eastern europe. (refer to Indo-European article)

So given the geographical origin of the aryans, and the distribution of their genes, it can be seen that they are foremost the ancestors of modern slavs. A small group of them went to persia to rule over the local persians.

So, should i be so bold to say that Iranians were influenced by Slavs? Obviously not, that would be almost as ridiculous as some of the things some of you write in this discussion

It merely means that the ancient Aryan_iranians and anceint slavs had common ancestors 15, 000 ago. Some went into Persia and mixed in with the Elamites, then later Turks, Mongols and Arabs, whilst the ones that stayed in Eastern europe mixed in amongst themselves and the native (hunter-gatherer) Europeans. Yes some Iranian tribes then later did come back north to europe, but they were merely a loose confederation of nomadic horsemen that did not leave much, if any, lasting influence in Europe. This is a fact.

I would like to hear if you have any evidence to show to the contrary

1. You mentioned DNA. I have shown numerous times that this is wrong

2. Any linguistic evidence?

3. Anyone in europe practice Zoroastrinism or similar such things?

Sorry to say this, but your self-contradictory writings shows that you are not educated in this matter. By ancviet Iranian I mean; those Aryans. proto-Iranians. NOT the modern Iranian. I have said this to you already for the third time. And those genes that you found in the Slavs are from THAT people. That is an Iranian gene. Moreover more studeis show that Yugoslavs are different from the rest of "savs". I wont say that they are similar to Modern Iranians but their similarities to Ukrainians, Southern russians and tatars is enough evidences that they have ANCIENT Iranian genes.---- About the language I have already talked to you. The more recent languages are the most dominant. What came later is spoken more widely. that is Slavic in the Balkans, but Turkic in central Asia and Arabic in Syria. etc... But in Croatians are still some words which are of Iranian origine most notably "Ban". But in general I have never said that Serbo-Croatian is an Iranian language. I know some Croats who try to say this, but i always say no modern Serbo-croatian is a south slavic langauge. A---- and here I am amazed to hear you again that you mix things up; No dear the ancient Iranians were not Zoroastrians. Only those who came southwards became zoroastrians. For example Alans, Sarmatians etc... were not Zoroastrians. _------- Asomething interesting is the fact that darius describes one of his lands as Skudra(accordingly named after local Scythians) this is said to be in and around the city of Shkoder (bordr region of Albania, Montenegro and Serbia). The area is clearly named after the Scythians. This shows that even some 2500 years ago the scythians (=Iranians) lived in the Balkans. The discussed theory dates the settlement of Iranian tribes much before 2500.Babakexorramdin 08:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you insist on talkin crap? Just accept that my intelligence is superior to yours.

If you want to debate, first of all learn how to speak english, then secondly go and read a history book so you know some real facts rather than making non-sense conclusions.

All you have to do is read my argument, it makes perfect sense.

Your intentions are good, but i'm afraid you are the one that is confused.

If the genes in the slavs are partly from ancient Iranians (which is what you say), then why is there NO SIMILARITIES BETWEEN MODERN SLAVS AND MODERN IRANIANS. THAT IS MY POINT. There should be some genetic ties if modern slavs are partly descended from ancient Iranians, as modern Iranians obviously are. BUT THE DNA SIMILARITIES BETWEEN SLAVS AND IRANIANS ARE NO MORE CLOSER THAN IRANIANS AND SWEDES, ITALIANS OR ENGLISH.

THE ONLY PROVEN RELATION BETWEEN SLAVS, INCLUDING SOUTH SLAVS, AND IRANIANS (MODERN OR ANCIENT) IS THE INDO-EUROPEAN PEOPLES THAT LIVED IN UKRAINE. MOST STAYED IN EASTERN EUROPE, BUT SOME WENT TO RULE IN THE PERSIAN AREA (AND ARE KNOWN AS THE ARYAN IRANIANS, TO DISTINGUISH THEM FROM THE NATIVE ELAMITES AND OTHER SEMITIC PEOPLE THAT LIVED IN THE AREA).

There was no established or longterm, or even any residual settlement by anceint Iranians in the Balkans (ie Yugoslavia). Even scythia minor's western-most extent was to romania and hungary. This area is the carpathian, not balkans.

I am afraid a lot of what you say is merely your own personal, misinformed opinion. Sorry,

While you are correct that the actual number of the first Indo-European tribes in Iran was small (compared to the native, non-Indo-European, Elamo-Dravidic population), your allegation that there are no traces of Indo-European genes (whatever that may be) is not correct. Even assuming that the R-groups of Y-haplogroups (R1a & R1b) are in some way "Indo-European", then there are still significant traces of these groups within Iranian (and Persian) populations. Admittidly, the highest peaks of R1a is found among Russians and northern Indians, but also among Turkic-speaking Altaians - the latter may be in fact descendants of early Indo-European-speaking Scythians who later adopted an Altaic language. More interesting is the I-group, because it is regularly found among all Indo-European-speaking populations in Eurasia, from India to Ireland - always making up some 15-25% of the respected populations - while it is almost totally absent in non-Indo-European-speaking populations. Indians have almost no traces of the I-group, confirming the "language replacement" theory, while the frequency is much higher among Persians (that is no surprise, because Iran's native population at the time of the Indo-European migration was much smaller than India's, and so the Indo-Europeans had a more significant genetical influence on the population). Here is the source: [1]

read your messages and compare them to mine. It is funny that you accuse me of something I did not say, then bringing in my own arguments to prove me wrong. It is very funny. I think it is of no use to discuss with you in these terms. I suspect a pathological sense of anti-Iranianism among you, not any susbtantial disagreement in what we say. for the 1000th time: The Ancient Iranians WERE Indo-Europans. they CAME from central Asia. The natives of Iran were not Ido-Europans. And I mentioned the Iranian genese among Tatars (Altaic groups). So the genes common among modern inhabitants of Iran, Southern russia and Ukraines wer those IRANIN genes. Read agin what I said and what you said 86.86.252.228 16:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note than "Indo-European" is only a linguistic classification. Of course, the modern Serbs and Croats are not Iranians, but Slavs. But the cultural similarities, as well as certain linguistic similarities, point to an original Iranian-speaking origin for these people. By the way: the frequency of Haplogroup R1a1 (M17) among Tajiks and Ishkashimis (both Iranian peoples) is more than 60% - the highest among all Indo-European peoples. See: Wells, RS; Yuldasheva N, Ruzibakiev R, Underhill PA, Evseeva I, Blue-Smith J, Jin L, Su B, Pitchappan R, Shanmugalakshmi S, Balakrishnan K, Read M, Pearson NM, Zerjal T, Webster MT, Zholoshvili I, Jamarjashvili E, Gambarov S, Nikbin B, Dostiev A, Aknazarov O, Zalloua P, Tsoy I, Kitaev M, Mirrakhimov M, Chariev A, Bodmer WF (2001). "The Eurasian Heartland: A continental perspective on Y-chromosome diversity". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98 (18): 10244–9. PMID 11526236.

I agree with some of what is said. THe ancient 'Aryan' Iranians, as opposed to native Elamo-Dravidians were Indo-European speaking. I never desputed that the ancient Iranian ARE INDO-EUROS

(The IEs started of as a distinct people, but now it merely refers to a linguistic classification. )

But you are saying that Slavs inherited their genes from the ancient Iranians. THis is what i disagree with My point is : The ancient slavs and ancient Iranians both dervied from the original Indo-European people. Iranians didn;t give rise to slavs, nor did iranians come from slavs, but they both came from the IEs. When they split off 3000 or so years ago, they were probably not even distinguishable.

So understand my point , please

Secondly, i disagree with the place of origin of the ancient Iranians. You say they were originally from central asia. Yes, in so far as to say that is where the 'differentiated, into the Iranian sub-branch of IEs. But the origin of the original IEs, which gave rise to all other subbranches was in the pontic steppe, Ukraine area (ie Kurgan) (although still disputed, this is the currently most agreed place)

Thirdly, any linguistic similarities in words between persian and southern -slav are more likely to be due to the fact they are both eastern bracnhes of the IE language. EG the word for god is 'bog', This is not only in yugo-slav, but virtually all other slavic languages. ANd as for comparing culture between the two, it is flawed practice as it can be subjective. It would be hard, in the end to make comparisons these days because of the fact that both iranian descendents and slavs have been subsequently influenced by other events/ people, eg Greeks/latin/germans/ christianity for slavs, versus Turkish/mongol/arabic/islam for most persians. I afraid most people view comparitive linguistics and cultural comparisons a PSEUDO-science !

And i re-iterate i have nothing against Iranians. But i do object to arguments which make false assumtions and lead to incorrect conclusions.

You are misinterpreting my message. What I was trying to say is not that Slavs are Iranians. That would be absurd. I am trying to say that certain Slavic peoples have influenced Iranians, and vice versa. The influence of Iranic-speaking peoples was - all in one - more significant, because Iranian tribes inhabitted Central Asia for a very long period. The Kurgan-Throy is only one among many theories, and although it is widely accepted among scholars, it fails to explain many phenomena. Other theories - although not widely accepted - have answers to these questions, for example the "Out of India"-Theory, or the "OUt of Iran"-Theory.

However, all of this has nothing to do with the migartion of Iranic tribes into regions that are Slavic-speaking today. The Iranic origin of the Alans is attested. The striking similarity between the words "Saka" and "Saxon" as well as beween "Germani" and "Germanic" point to a common origin. Even if these people were not genetically related, it is attested that one group at least had enough influence to spread its identity. The Iranian origin of the name "Croat" (actually H'ravat) is widely accepted, so is its connection to the name Herat. Do not forget that the Slavic-speaking Bulgarians derive their identity from a Turkic-speaking tribe, the ancient Bulgars - and even the Bulgars were strongly influenced by Iranic tribes, as evidenced by their rulers' names: Asparukh and Burzmehr. This is not about genetical origins, but about the origins of certain identities. So, the Croats and Serbs - although certainly Slavic today, derive their national identity from a people who were not Slavs, but most-likely Iranians. Note that this does not contradict your opinion.

OK i agreee with the last paragraph only.

I don;t know who was writing the previous paragraphs, but they were making claims that ancient iranians lived in the balkans and/or modern day slavs are someho descended from these people.

Although I would clarify that the Iranian origin of H'ravat, while a major theory, is not quite 'widely accepted' . It is a theory only (at this stage).

Secondly be careful with your wording. IF indeed 'croat' is of iranian origing, then it is the NAME that is of iranian origin. But their 'national identity' is NOT of iranian origin.

Otherwise i found the Iranian peoples article very interesting

Why all the argument and fighting? Their own experts scholars and geneticist will tell you that Croats are of Iranic origin, end of discussion.

[2]

[3]

Cyrus111 (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Iranian is incorrect

Being of Pakistani Baloch descent I am uncomfartable with the useage of the word "Iranian" to label Baloch.Iran is simply a modern-day country as is Afghanistan.Would it be correct to label Tajiks or Uzbeks an "Afghan people?" when Uzbeks and Tajiks existed well before 1747 (the year of Afghanistan's creation).Or to call the peopple of central Asia a "soviet people"? No.This is not a term accepted by everyone.it is simply wrong.-Vmrgrsergr 19:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Iranian is a linguistic term applies to a couple of languages (including Bloch) and is also a scientific term calling all the inhabitants of iranian plateau and Iran is not just a modern state like Pakistan, e.g. see the sources provided in this featured article. --Pejman47 20:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Pejman47 is right.The trouble is that this article not always tries to distinguish between linguistic terms, racial ideas and other things. This is probably where Vmrgrsergr's unease comes from. Refdoc 10:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Refdoc. This article contains some outrageous claims, such as this:

Azeris are ethnically an Iranic people, although they speak a Turkic language.

It is a well known fact that Azerbaijani people are Turkic. Azerbaijanis cannot be included in the list of Iranian people, and no authoritative source does that. Of course Azerbaijanis are not Iranian people, since they speak a Turkic language. Grandmaster 10:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually do not agree with you here, grandmaster. The way Azeris are included in the article is certainly better than either total non-inclusion or simply inclusion into the list as was done before. I am sure that the current paragraph can be improved upon, but it is fair, correct and NPOV to mention Azeris at this point with the various caveats added - as already done to some degree. Refdoc 14:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

So you agree that Azeris are Iranic people? There's no credible source on the planet Earth that says so, because Iranian and Turkic people are linguistic denominations. See for example the article in Britannica:

Azerbaijani - any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran. [4]

I don't see why Turkic speaking Azeris are mentioned among Iranian people, when they do not even speak an Iranian language. Grandmaster 16:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It says: Ethnicities of Iranian descent include: It doesnt say Iranian speaking, and there are tons of academic sources which say Azeris are of Iranian descent.Hajji Piruz 16:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Azeris are of Iranian descent. Here are some of the many scholars who consider Azeris to be Iranians by descent: Vladimir Minorsky, Richard Frye, Xavier De Planhol, Tadeusz Swietochowski. I added that Azeris are of Iranic descent, and sourced it based on what scholars have to say.Hajji Piruz 16:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that some people believe Azerbaijani people to be descendants of Iranian people, there are different opinions about it. According to Britannica, Azeris are of mixed origin:

The Azerbaijani are of mixed ethnic origin, the oldest element deriving from the indigenous population of eastern Transcaucasia and possibly from the Medians of northern Persia. This population was Persianized during the period of the Sasanian dynasty of Iran (3rd–7th century AD), but, after the region's conquest by the Seljuq Turks in the 11th century, the inhabitants were Turkicized, and further Turkicization of the population occurred in the ensuing centuries.

The article should provide for all points of view, not just one. --Grandmaster 16:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Some believe? Since when did some of the biggest names in Near Eastern history, some of the most authoritative people on the planet regarding the region, become "some people"...Hajji Piruz 16:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

They are some researchers who support this theory, while others think otherwise. It looks better now. Mixed descent means that Azeris have various ancestors, i.e. Caucasian, Iranian and Turkic people. So mixed descent also includes Iranian ancestry, but not only. Grandmaster 16:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not an academic talk anymore; anti-Iranianism has a political agenda

I once said this to a guy and say it to you too as I have had this talk private with you: in order to determine it you should do a DNA test. And DNA tests have been clear. It is very funny that the anti-Iranianists do not want a DNA test. The historical sources are also very clear, well the anti-Iranians tend to disregard them and use fabricated stuff from pseudo-scientists such as Brenda Shaffer! It clearly shows the quality of argument of the anti-Iraniansist. Azeris being an Iranian people is very evident. there is indeed no discussion about it, and Iranians should do no concessions about it. Most Iranians do not know that it is not a simple "culturalist" talk, but the American neoconservatives, israelis and their agensts are trying to introduce ethnic hatred in Iran and disintegrate it. Jus a look on their works on Iran in relation to the Caucasus and central Asia shows this very clearly. Babakexorramdin 18:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Babak is right, Azeris should be on the list, as the list clearly says that its for people of Iranian descent. Azeris are a people of Iranian descent, this is acknowledged in the scholarly community.Hajji Piruz 18:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No, Azeris should not be included in the list. A small note with reference to some sources is enough. After all, the language replacement theory is accepted by all mainstream scholars. I agree with Grandmaster that Azeris are an Turkic people by definion, although his claim that Azeris have an actual East Asian Turkic origin is most certainly wrong. Also, Uzbeks are not an Iranian people. Both Azeris and Uzbeks are linguistically a Turkic people. Genetically, Azeris and Uzbeks share a common origin with Iranian peoples, but the Iranian peoples themselvs have an ancient origin which predeominantly not Indo-European. Although I agree with you that Azeris have neither cultural nor genetical ties with actual Turkic peoples, they are still a Turkic people by modern definition. This is an FA-status article. With claims such as ``Uzbeks are an Iranian people´´ you riun the good quality of the article.

The list is not about language, its about descent.Hajji Piruz 18:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

yes it is about descent. When it was about language then the list would be otherwise, including people with an Iranian language but not of Iranian descent (e.g. Hazara and Aimaq of Afghanistan). But it is about descent, and when there are so much evidence for this, it is of no use to make concessions to these anti-Iranianists, most likely brought here by the circles around Brenda Shaffer and her masters! We have had this talk with the anti-Iranianists in the email list about the studies of rep. Azerbaijan. It is interesting that their people usually just listen and do not protest against their Iranianianness, but usually then some foreigners (neo-conservatives, Zionist Alike) come ther and tell them no you are not Iranian, Iranians are this or that, and then some Panturkists come and bark and it is finished. We absolutely need no concessions, it is not politics it is academic talk. Babakexorramdin 19:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

see this link on the ancestors of uzbeks and Tajiks http://sogdiana.blogspot.com/2005/11/what-is-sogdiana.html Babakexorramdin 20:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This FA article is not about descent, its about linguistic ties. The article is not even about cultural ties. If the article were about descent and pure genetics, then all the so-called Iranian peoples except for some isolated Tajik families in the Pamir mountains would have been removed, because modern Iranian speakers are not genetical descendants of ancient Iranians, but descendants of Non-Iranian peoples who had adopted Iranian languages after the Aryan invasion (see section about genetics). Everyone knows that Azeris are genetically related to Iranian speakers and that less than 1000 years ago their ancestors were still speakers of Iranian languages. But this is totally irrelevant, because this article is about linguistiuc classifications, and thus Azeris are a Turkic people. They are not Turks in terms of genetics and historical accounts, but they are Turkics in terms of language and recent post-Islamic history. Uzbeks are much more Turks than Azeris. Depending on the geographic location, certain Uzbeks are descendants of Turkic and Mongol invaders, others are heavily mixed with the ancient Iranian population, and others are descendants of ancient Iranians who adopted a Turkic language. Claiming that Uzbeks are in any way Iranian is totally baseless and pseudo-scientific. Uzbeks are also a Turkic people, and they can even trace their origins back to the Turkic and Mongol invaders. I have no idea why they are included in the list. You source is not a scientific source, but a blog. I also reinserted the Hazaras into the article, who are considered an Iranian people by all mainstream historians. And since you firmly believe that physical looks and pure genetics define ethnicity, could you please explain to me why these Hazara boys are supposed to be categorized as non-Iranian while these Uzbeks are claimed to be Iranians?!

no it is about descent, there is another article about the lianguages. The list there is different. Moreover it will be fair to include Uzbeks and Tajiks both as people of Turkic descent. Thogh the Turkicness of Tajiks is very thin, even in genetical sense. But it is an undeniable fact that they are descendants of Iranian ancestors (Sogdians and Bactrians), and that their culture belongs to the Iranian sphere, rather than the nomaadic Turkic and Mongolian ones (like Kyrgyz and Kazakhs). Babakexorramdin 20:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

About the picture: It seems that you have never seen a Hazara; those children are either not Hazars or are mixed. Although it is true that Hazaras are mixed with Iranian elements, but they keep an awareness of being Asiatic and non-Iranians, while the Uzbek culture glorifies its Iranian elemnts. Babakexorramdin 20:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you do not know any Hazaras. You talk about Hazaras, although you have never heared the names Sayyid Ismail Balkhi, Sayyid Sultan Shah Homam, or Abdul Khaliq. If you do know these names, which are totally essential to understand the collective identity of the Hazaras, then please illuminate us with your knowledge! What you are doing is pseudo-scientific nonsense. You talk about descent, but when it comes to Iranians, you ignore the many genetical proves that Iranians themselvs are not Iranians, but only speakers of Iranian languages who adopted these languages in an elite-dominance process - exactly the same way modern Turks adopted Turkic languages. Hazaras are aware of their Mongolian descent, beucase people like you think of them as a foreign people. In reality, you would not even see the difference between an educated Hazara or Tehrani "Persian" (and everyone knows that Tehranis are not realy Persians). When Khodadad Azizi scored for the Iranian national football team in the '98 world-cup games, noone dared about his "Non-Iranian descent". And now you claim that these people who speak an Iranian language, have an Iranian culture, and are among the most zealous supporters of Pan-Iranian movements (you should at least once read the works of Sultan Shah Homam) are not an Iranian people, and at the same time want to make us believe that Turkic-speaking Azeris are Iranics?! Maybe you should listen to this Hazara, since you seem to have no idea about who the Hazaras are. I am tired of editting the article, and it also seems to me that your only aim is to ruin the FA status of this article. Now you even try to prove your non-scientific claims by quoting Islam Karimov, a known Pan-Turkist and anti-Iranian tyrant. I have contacted admins to deal with the issue, since you have once again removed the tag without providing accurate sources.

Sorry but you are getting on my nerves. I have put enough info and by clicking on them you go to the discussions in those areas. Moreover I am not here to talk about Karimov's politics. I only cited one of his famous statements. NMoreover Karimov is not the panturkist you think, he has even banned Turkish schools. Xodadad Azizi as an Iranian hazara is clearly an Iranian. But talking about descent; the hazars as well as the blacks of Hormozgan are not descendents of Iranian peoples, though they are certainly to be considered as "modern Iranians". Contacting administrators? Good for you. I do not think that there is a need to do concessions with you as the evidences are clearly there as much as the reason of inclusion or exclusion are there. Your aims are political and this is something I have no business to do with. We are here to talk about academic stuff and these things are getting richer and richer by talk and ebate. Nit by threatening and political moves. Babakexorramdin 21:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone (I presume it was Babakexorramdin) removed the fact tag for the claim that Azerbaijanis sometimes included as Iranian people, but provided no references. Can I see a source that includes Azerbaijanis as Iranian people? If there’s no such source, the claim should be removed. Iranian, Turkic, Slavic, etc are linguistic denominations, and Azerbaijanis are not Iranian people, because they do not speak an Iranian language. Please stop adding inaccurate info or support it with reliable sources. --Grandmaster 05:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you illiterate ro something. there are so many sources mentioned and so many links laid on the sectoion note beyound the list. especially for troublemakers like you! Babakexorramdin 21:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I rolled the article back to Raystorm's version, since inclusion of Azeris and Uzbeks into the list of Iranian people and other similar claims are original research. Please cite your sources if you disagree. --Grandmaster 07:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The sources are mentioned in the text. You are vilating the rules. Wikipedia should have been a forum of gathering knowledge not reproducing the old stuff. You , DUE TO POLITICAL RESAONS OF ANTI_IRANIANISM, are violating and vandalizing our pages. Moreover since the modest claims on the page that it is not about languages, your claims are totall nonsese. If you disagree with the proofs and sources write your views under the page or proof otherwise; now the burdon of proof is yours; feel free to convince people that Uzbeks and notably Azeris do not have Iranian genes and culture. Success Babakexorramdin 13:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not see any sources whatsoever. Ethnicity is not defined by genes, it is defined by the language. Azerbaijanis and Uzbeks speak Turkic languages, therefore they are Turkic people. Simple as that. See Britannica, it says that Azeris are Turkic people, not Iranian. Now you show me a source that says that Azeris are Iranian people. Grandmaster 18:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• That's a complex matter! As Wikipedia says: Ethnic group- "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, either on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry, or recognition by others such as locking little fingers in gesture, or by common cultural, linguistic, religious, or territorial traits Processes that result in the emergence of such identification are summarized as ethnogenesis."
  I can add by myself that the definition of the word "ethnic" is somehow tailored to the American society ( a modern one ) and not in an ancient one like Iran...Webster's New world dictionary define it as : "Any of the basic groups or divisions of mankind ,as distinguished by customs, characteristics, language , common history, etc " according to this and considering almost all of the Azeri's history has been a part of Iranian history , and also considering customs and religion and territorial facts , that's reasonable to consider Azeri's as Iranian people.--Alborz Fallah 19:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

exactly I suggest that Grandmaster goes and reads some books on the phenomenon of ethnicity. Ethnic groups are defined by many markers. There are both subjective feelings as well as objective issues at stake. Although language does matter but it is neither sufficient nor necessary as a marker. The same can be said about religion, territory and different cultural traits. It was about definition: but what can be said about relation? UYes of course interrelatedness, hybridity, sharing the same civilizational realm, and if aawred and visible also racial connection. All these is applied to the Uzbeks and Azeris; especially to Azeris. Babakexorramdin 21:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The term is used in contrast to race, which refers to a classification of physical and genetic traits perceived as common to certain groups

Guys, what you do is called original research. I asked many times to show me a source that considers Azerbaijanis and Uzbeks to be Iranian people. So far I've seen none. --Grandmaster 04:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Click on the highlited available you will see 145.18.125.110 10:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If you mean this:

Islam Karimov the Uzbekistani president stressing the common origins of Uzbeks and Tajiks has said: Tajiks and Uzbeks are one nation, which speaks two languages!.

it is not a scholarly reference. If George Bush said that Americans and Mexicans were one nation, which speaks two languages, would you use it as a reference for the article on the origin of Mexican and Latin people? Political declarations are not scholarly sources on ethnic origins. --Grandmaster 10:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You removed the source by two Uzbek academicians, in addition you ignored the link here posted by Babakexorramdin on Sogdians. You also changed Uzbeks to Turkic-speaking uzbeks, ignoring everything here said about the nature of ethnicities. Listen friend., Here is not a place for your PanTurkist propaganda. If you have something sensible to say Bismillah otherwise there are plenty of Panturkist sites.145.18.125.110

First, mind WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Second, please provide scholarly sources to support your claim that Azeris and Uzbeks are Iranian people. Iranian people is a linguistic category and as such it cannot include people that do not speak an Iranian language. Grandmaster 06:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"indo european roots"

The last sentence quoting Gimbutas in the roots section is:

"the Process of Indo-Europeanization was a cultural, not a physical transformation. It must be understood as a military victory in terms of imposing a new administrative system, language and religion upon the indigenous groups."

THis was included with the context of Iranian (ie IRan proper) people lacking R1a haplotype, whereas others do.

Her conclusion was that the indo-european spread was a cultural one, rather than physical.

I propose that her conclusion is only half right. If in fact R1a is the haplotype of Indo-europeans, then obviously there must have been at least some physical spread of genes by the IEs, as it is found from europe to areas in central asia.

The rest of the spread must have been cultural / linguistic replacement as people in western europe and Iran have low levels of R1a.

Could someone please provide a source for that quote? I can´t seem to find one online. Thanks Raystorm (¿Sí?) 16:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

On the Iranian ancestors of Uzbeks/Sarts

For more information see:

  Askarov, A. & B.Ahmadov, O'zbek Xalqning Kilib Chiqishi Torixi. O'zbekiston Ovozi, 20 Januray 1994.

Also have a look at: see this link on the ancestors of uzbeks and Tajiks http://sogdiana.blogspot.com/2005/11/what-is-sogdiana.html

If you disregard two uzbek academicians in one of the leading Uzbekistani newspapers (of course they reported on their previous works elsewhere), then you disrespect the academic reasoning anyway. One more time we are not speaking on language. So stop reapeting yourself. Babakexorramdin 14:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Iranian descent

Azeris are of Iranian descent, not "considered by some" (or something like that).Hajji Piruz 17:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea who is behind all this. All Iranians better boycot Wikipedia and begin with a new Iranian Wikipedia where the access is restricted to politically driven actorsBabakexorramdin 19:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

WHY is my sourcese deleted?

WHY has this Panturkist activists deleted my source? Moreover I do not think that Azeris and Uzbeks share the same group as South Slavs. Iranianness of Azeris is a FACT, Partial iranness of Uzbeks is also a fact. While Iranianess of Yugoslavs remain problematic. Babakexorramdin 18:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Your source was not deleted. It's now listed among all other references, see #47! Next time you post sources, list the source under the references and do not just write it somewhere in the article. This is a featured article. Maybe you should learn more about the rules and features of Wikipedia before editting the article.

I am not very technical but for sure I do not have a political agenda like some people here Babakexorramdin 19:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know what is happening on Iranian related articles on Wikipedia, please take alook at User: Tajik's discussion page. He was falsely accused on being several Pan-Turkist admins for using sockpuppets. These few admins who wanted to get rid of him and misused their admin powers. Please read his story here. --Behnam 23:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I found this out too.Babakexorramdin 15:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

For fuck's sake Babakexorramdin. Yugoslavs's aren't Iranian , for the last time. Not even 0.000000001 %. Its not 'problematic'. Its basic fact, history and commensense.

I do not know what is your problem sir. The discussion was clearly aout Azeris and Uzbeks. The scope and extent is clearly describes. So next time take a deep breath and look in the mirror before you are going to say something stinky Babakexorramdin 15:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you don't know what you write. Maybe you have dementia. I quote your 2nd line in this paragraph "Iranianness of Azeris is a FACT, Partial iranness of Uzbeks is also a fact. While Iranianess of Yugoslavs remain problematic. 60.240.30.90 04:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I still say that, but your statement was about yugoslavia. And While your type of guys are at it, why you do not sign your posts? Babakexorramdin 13:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

you make no sense. What do you mean by 'you type of guys'? All you do is cry because people don;t buy into your absurd theories. Here's my signature:Hxseeker 14:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You are getting on my nerves again. What I mean by your type of guys is exactly what I meant. We all know who runs the programmes of defamation of Iranians and falsification of academic souyrces. Some institutes in the USA and Israel are doing that and they admit and their names are fallen many times here. So dont do as noone knows it. Once again take it or live it, ion other words.....Babakexorramdin 14:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

unscientific behavior

To whom it may conceren

I am really tired of editing and get undone and again. I do not like this wars. I brought you sourses, and exactly said what are the criteria which apply to this categorization. yet I found it very insulting that e.g. Tombseye undones my edits neglecting all sources and evidences and saying that they are not Iranian peoples. This is wandering in circles. I do believe that some people here at wikipedia have a political goial, are very anti-Iranian and use wikipedia as a mean to spread their pseudo-scientific and propagand against Iranians. See for example the discussion on Brenda Shaffer. Therefore I regard it as useless to engage anymore in editions. And I propose all Iranians retreat out of protest from Wikipedia. Babakexorramdin 15:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

About the Kurdish genetics in the genetics section

I noticed it said:

"According to a recent study, the ancestors of the Kurds were from an old Mediterranean substratum, i.e. Hurrian and Hittite groups. According to this study the Aryan ancestry of the Kurds and other Iranian-speaking populations in Anatolia is not supported by genetic analyses.[42]"

Does that mean that the Kurds of Anatolia(Turkey) are not of Aryan decent, while the ones in Iran remain of Aryan decent?

Religion issue

The number of Shia and sunni in the Iranian ethnic groups are equally distributed. Lets see

at least some 48 mln in Iran, remeber that half of the Kurds in Iran are Shia! We count Farsiwan and Hazaras of Afghanistan as some 25% of afghanistan this makes about 6 mln (at the least case).

Some 8 million in Turkey (the Turkic-speaking groups not counted. At least 4 mln Zazas (at least case) and at least the same number of Alevis among the Kurmanji Kurds.

Nearly one milion Pamiris in Tajikistan, Afghanistan and China. there are also Shia kurds in rep. Azerbaijan, Iraq, Shia Tajiks in Uzbekistan, Shia tats in rep. Azerbaijan, and Russia, and Lak and Persians in iraq and Persian Gulf countries. We add some 3 millions (especially for the last groups).

about 65 mln (if we do not include to this number the Iranian but Turkicspeaking groups such as Azeris, and Qashqais)

Now we count Sunnis

lets say all Sunnis of Iran (9%) are Iranian which they are not! It makes 6 mln.

some 70% of Afghanistan this makes 14 mlin

Tajiks in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan make some additional 6 mln (this number also includes the number of Persian Speaking Uzbeks, who are not registered as Tajiks) Lets imagine that exist 35 milion Sunni Moslem speakers of Iranian languages in pakistan (which seems very unlikely).

And lets assume that there are 30 mln Kurds of which 80% are Sunni (the rest are either Shia/Alevi or Yezidi) this makes 20 mln.

about 75 mln

and then there are tiny minorities of Zoroastrian, Christian, Bahai and Jews.

If we add the number of Azeris, this will make some 91 mln Shiites vers 75 mln Sunnis.

therefore I think it is the best statemnet " the numbers of Sunni and Shia among the Iranian peoples are equally distributed." --Babakexorramdin 14:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Georgian Orthodox Church is part of Orthodox Cherch, not a separate branch.

recent edits on south Slavs by Hxseek On IRANIAN PEOPLES

Someone shoulkd check the recent edits by Hxseek. They are dubious,. He says for example that there were no such a people as Bosniak prior to the 17th century. So what? There is such a people now. Ethnic groups born and die. Secondly he says that their names are Iranian, while the theories speak on their origins and not on their names, those talks on their names follow only after the assumption of their (partial) Iranic origins. --Babakexorramdin 22:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Babekex.... The original version was dubious. I just helped the article in good faith to make it more scientific. The mainstream theory connecting Croats and Serbs to Iranic peoples (ie Anceint Iranic peoples in the way of Sarmatians) is the linguistic -naming of the tribes, as i already outlined in the article. Certainly most scholars concluded that even if it was true that the Serbs and Croats were originally Sarmatian tribes, they were already Slavicised by the time they reached the Balkans. There they mixed with more Slavs and Illyrians. So to say that modern Serbs and Croats are even partially descended from Iranian peoples is a bit of a stretch. As for the Bosnians, no one denies that they exist now. All I was stating is that there was no Bosniak tribe back in the migration era (ie back in the 600s), so the discussion about the Iranian influence on peoples in late antiquity and early dark ages time does not directly concern them (although indirectly one may state they too may be partly descended from Iranian tribes because in essense Bosniaks are merely Muslimized Croats and Serbs).Hxseek 11:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you refer to the theories which trace the origins of Serbs and Croats to Sarmatians, then it is not relevant what the names of tribes hsould be. I am not the one who denies the slavization of those ancient Iranic people, but almsot all peoples are a result of intermingling. As for Bosniaks. There are theories which trace them back to the Bogumils. Anyway whatever they are they are as you said of the same origins as the Serbs and Croats, therfore the theories which apply to the former ones also applies to them. --Babakexorramdin 20:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Babe.. Im sorry to say, but your knowledge of history is very fundamental. The Bogomils were a heretic religious sect, nothing to do with the origins of Bosniaks. Its just that Bogomilism might have been quite prevalent in Bosnia in the 1000s.

I have noted your previous discussions with people, accusing them of racism and 'unscientific behaviour' because they edited your additions. I suggest that you (1) improve your English (2) acquaint yourself with facts a bit further, then you might not get edited so much. Cheers Hxseek 00:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hxseek, stop adding nonsense. You want to edit Sarmatism, Scythians#Descent-claims and Theories on the origin of Croats, but stop adding your stuff to this article. dab (𒁳) 11:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What the f.*$ DAB? you must be confused becuase I haven't made such edits to any of the above articles ! My edit weas concerning this article's suggesting, in a matter of fact manner, that Serbs and Croats are partly descended from Iranic peoples. All i wanted to clarify was that such an idea is merely a theory, mostly based on the derivation of the names Serb and Croat themselves. Hxseek 09:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

true, the offending edits date from 10 July and were introduced by an anon [5]. You still expanded on them. This doesn't belong in the article. dab (𒁳) 13:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No. As i said, i have made no put in any of the above three sections you refer to. Whether they should be removed or not- I won;t comment becuase I have no active interest in Sarmatism et al. And i totally agree it is impossible to delineate into whom the Sctyhians merged with, or provided partial ancestry to. My feeling is that some people wish to actively find proofs of historical continuity between great ancient civilisations and their compartitively mediocre modern ones. Hxseek 01:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have been reading all the topics and responses on this post and have to say, I am fascinated. Being a self-described anthropology nut, I have (within the last 6 years) really tried to research the roots of Europeans and have hit more than one brick wall.. Why? the answer is an intuitively obvious one; EUROPEANS ARE VERY MIXED. I have heard every designation for "types" of europeans (i.e. Carlton Coon's "alpine" "Nordic" "Dinaric" "Mediterranean"-which in Coons world would include some physical types reaching from Italy to Iran) and other creative anthropologists. To get to the point, this led me to be interested in the origins of those (also very mixed)living in the fertile cresent and the large areas surrounding it. I began getting irritated and thinking about the "scientific" classification of peoples. Is it really fair for those people (streching from the Isles of Britain, to Iran and beyond) as "caucasian?" I know the history behind the classification, but it is both fallable and based more on conjuncture than any logic. I know many in India feel cheated; their DNA and features show a vast amount of mixing from many peoples. Do Iranians-both as a "Persian" group and as a nation-feel the same way? How fair is it that an Iranian (living in the U.S. particularly) must mark the "White" race box, when asked for his or her ethnicity. I am a White American, and though I recognize that Europeans (including British and Germanic types) have roots from "Cro-Magnon" Europeans, Middle-easterners (although sometimes disputed may have arrived in Europe with Agriculture) and east-asian physical types, they should be allowed to check a box that is more in line-or better describes them. The term "White" (as a census tool) is rediculous and denotes a fair-skinned person. I don't think many people (even scientists) take into account the way this must make people feel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.210.100 (talk) 05:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

we can have a discssion of historical "Slavicisation" or "Turkisation" of Iranian peoples. The "List of Iranian peoples" section is not the proper place for that. dab (𒁳) 13:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

On Dbachmann´s edits

With all due respectwhat dbachmann did should not be allowed. he deleted a whole well-sourced section. This asrticle is about Irnian desecnt and not language. Azeris and to some extent Uzbeks)if meant Sarts' are of Iranian descent. The south Slavic speakers are somehow a different story. Although he has a point if he adds tatars here. Tatars do have Iranian blood but so do eastern slavs of Ukraine and southern Russia. Scythian tribes were (one of ) their ancestors. --Babakexorramdin 08:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A few things here. Dbachmann has a valid point in that Iranian "ancestry" is simply not quantifiable. Are Iranian peoples all descended primarily and/or solely from ancient Iranians and/or Aryans from the Ukraine/Central Asia? We really don't know. My whole purpose was to focus only upon the Iranian peoples and that meant language. Now others who want to add groups that don't speak Iranian languages, but language is really the key indicator here. Without language what is the point of denoting Iranian peoples? There is no such thing as "Iranian blood" in the modern context. We have no idea what ancestry the Tatars have, but it is most likely a combination of Mongol and Russian/Slavonic. The Scythian element is remote, although it is likely that they were absorbed into the populations of Eurasian steppes, but it's RELEVANCE only pertains to the Ossetians who SPEAK a language linked to the Alans who are believed to be related to the Scytho-Sarmatians or least their language is. As to what extent they are Iranian "by blood" that's neither quantifiable nor really the purpose of this article. Unless it's recent descent there is no point in viewing the Iranian peoples as a single unit other than sharing close languages derived from ancient Iranians and many similar cultural traits and often common historical currents. But invaders have come and gone AND keep in mind that the Aryans/early Iranians were invaders so how much did the indigenous pre-Aryan peoples impact them? Was it simply a case of language replacement? We don't know for certain any of these questions. We do know that people who live near each other tend to be related regardless of language. So to conclude there is no such as an Iranian race or even an ethnic group, but rather a series of ethnic groups linked by, as I said, language, historical currents, and many cultural traits. Tombseye 03:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not allowed, especially because he did not discuss or give any reason. Shervink 16:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Tombseye provided enough reasons why Azerbaijanis, Uzbeks and others cannot be considered Iranian people. They do not speak an Iranian language, therefore they cannot be included as Iranian people, as Iranian people is a linguistic category. Grandmaster 17:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is useful to discuss the issue with a sworn enemy of Iranian peoples such as Grandmaster, but no way language is not an indicator. Why are we then speaking about Anglo people when we only refer to the white Anglo Saxons? Why we do not call black africans who speak English as anglo Saxon~? Why we speak about Jewish people as one people when they speak dierent languages? Why is language a more important indicator than other markers? Why so selective in this case? BECASUE IRANIANS ARE HATED BY SO MANY LOBBIES. I wont get along with these agendas because these are not academic. We are not here polticians, so we should not apply these methods. NO DEAR IRANIAN PEOPLES ARE INTERVOWEN HISTORICALLY AND CULTURALLY.--Babakexorramdin 20:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Babakexorramdin, the removal by Dbachmann may not have been appropriate in your opinion, however it was not well sourced, well written (it was in a mini-list) or even on topic. This article intends to be primarily about group of people with a common language:

“ There are an estimated 150 million native speakers of Iranian languages. ”

“ It is largely through linguistic similarities that the Iranian peoples have been linked, as many non-Iranian peoples have adopted Iranian languages and cultures. ”

If you think the deleted content needs to be here, or could be moved somewhere else, please do so without getting annoyed, and please stop being uncivil like the above comment to Grandmaster. John Vandenberg 05:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Babakexorramdin, please take a look at such articles as Germanic peoples, Slavic people, Latin_peoples, Finnic peoples, etc. These are all linguistic categories. There's no such thing as Iranian race, as Tombseye correctly noted, so Iranian people are just people who speak an Iranian language. Therefore people that do not speak an Iranian language cannot be listed as Iranian people in any form. And please remain civil and don't take content disputes to the personal level. Grandmaster 05:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Can you address any Wiki-page that states the idea that the classification of peoples is only based on language? If it is so , then why the African people that speak English are not classified as "English peoples" but the large community of Russian language Jews in Israel are considered as "Jewish people"?( Please also see Contraversy over the term "French people")--Alborz Fallah 13:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be simply based upon language true, BUT we have no other viable indicators. Ethnic groups are fluid and the Iranians peoples are so diverse and spread out that it's difficult to assess this issue. Also, in the case of English, we know who the English are, those who are in England and their descendants. It's a recent group of which we know quite a bit about: a European people from southern Britain who speak a Germanic language, but who are no doubt related to Celts and other groups, and have been settled there for centuries. As for Russian speaking Jews, I consider them Russians and Jewish by religion as do most academics who don't view Jews as an ethnic group. I worked on this article to explore the DIVERSITY of the Iranian peoples who can be classified as such and the peripheral stuff is covered in the Turko-Iranian section for example. Anything more is basically a matter of personal subjectivity or nationalism. Objectively, how do we include so many other disparate groups? Why not include Arab Iraqis who lived under Persian rule and some of whom spoke Persian once? It's just too much to deal with at this point. I'm not necessarily taking a side here, but I'm presenting a view on how academia approaches this sort of thing. Go with what we know and can prove and not what is speculative and too unwieldy in criteria. Since there is no simple way of addressing this issue of inclusion. Tombseye 16:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As you stated the language is not the only factor, but other viable indicators do exist. Part of what you said about English People also applies to Iranian People, Iranian are the people who have lived in Iranian plateau for centuries. Almost all of them have the same culture and "way of life"; and most importantly all of them consider themselves as Iranian. Why you don't consider "culture" as one of the indicators? Yes, before Islam, in what is currently Iraq, they spoke Old Persian and I will not be surprised if someday a genetic researcher announce that there is astonishing similarity in their gene pool with its Iranian counterpart. But, now they are not Iranians, not because they speak Arabic but because now they have a completely different culture; and even there have been lots of conflicts between two sides in history which the last of them costs 1 million life.

I propose saving the people who live in Iranian Plateau and have astonishing the same culture (e.g. celebrates Nowruz or etc)in the list and deleting others (Slavs and ect) --Pejman47 19:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree that the Iranian plateau has served as an interesting geologic region that has managed to be predominantly Iranian. In fact, I did a lot of edits to insert mention of the Iranian plateau as I realized that it seemed to mirror ancient historical and cultural ties. However, this does not mean that everyone who lives in the region is Iranian, at least in a quantifiable sense. Turkic groups aren't necessarily "Iranian", at least not in a quantifiable sense here and there are also the cases of the Arabs of Khuzistan and Dravidian Brahui and the Hazara who we are including simply because they do speak a dialect of Persian. Outside this area, for example, neither the Croats or Bulgarians are Iranian by culture OR language, but instead some have been linked through ancient Iranian peoples but this can be applied to many groups so the question remains why and why here? The Azeris and Uzbeks are both Turko-Iranian and no one denies that, but simply an Iranian people? That's not really within the range of this specific article. Let's also keep in mind that many Iranian peoples do not even consider themselves "Iranian" as both the Kurds and Pashtuns, though by Iranic by language and many cultural traits, see themselves as distinct with Kurds emphasizing an indigenous origin and the Pashtuns an "Aryan" one. Yet, in most cases, aside from groups that show strong Iranian affinities and influences, the core group of Iranian peoples, as per academia, are those who speak the languages. Everything is heresay and guesswork. With a featured article accuracy matters quite a bit, so this is something to consider.Tombseye 02:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Although being in Iranian plateau can be a moderate indicator , but the best one is Nowruz.That's a national celebration and a good indicator for Iranian background of ethnic groups.The tendency in some ethnic groups to consider themselves uniranian is a result of current political situation , and not an ethno-historic matter:as an example ,in the post, there was a false opinion amog some of the Kurds that they were origionaly Arabs , and Ibn-Khalkan (Abul Abbas Shamsuddin Ahmad Khalkan- a Kurd himself-)in 1282 writes that "the Kurds are desendents of Amro-mazighia that was a Yemeni king"; that means the current affinity or avidity of the ethnic group to the term "Iranian" ,does not have anything to do with the historical background.--Alborz Fallah 09:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Why not include Arab Iraqis who lived under Persian rule and some of whom spoke Persian once?" , "Croats or Bulgarians"...
None of them are culturally Iranian (=does not celebrate Nowruz), then they can't be in the list. That's interesting to know the previous arab writers thought "Everyone who celebrates Nowruz and Mehregan is Iranian".--Alborz Fallah 09:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Nowruz is an indicator as well, but one that is also shared with Turkic groups though its Iranian origins are noted. I agree that current political ocnditions play a strong role, BUT the Kurds, for example, may have a valid point regarding their pre-Aryan origins as well. Language does not equal descent from a certain group necessarily, but it is an indicator when it comes to broad group categories like the Iranian peoples. In fact, I would argue that the Iranian peoples are quite heterogenous and so claiming a common descent is highly questionable and also part of a political situation of today, nationalism. We do include mention of Nowruz in the article though as ONE indicator among others, but the question here is of the MAIN indicator, and that is language. Adherance to this principal though, should not mean that we have to show that these groups are a single unit in every way either. The iranian peoples are diverse and have distinctive qualities as well. Tombseye 05:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

,,

oops I did not claim hat Khuzistani Aabs, Brahuis or Turkic groups such as Tyvans and Yakuts are Iranians. I said that azeris are Iranians while the Iranian roots of Uzbeks should be taken seriously too.I do not know how tomseye consider Russian jews, but jewish people are defined now by most academic accounts as oe nation, without any lingual considerations. Now the same logic does not apply to the Iranian peoples. There are so many evidences that the people called Iranians are culturally and historically intervowen, while Turkic peoples such as Yakuts and Tyvans are not related to azeris or anatolian Turkic speakers.--Babakexorramdin 06:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Nowrouz is not shared with any Turkic-language group out of Iranian cultural atmosphere:If Tombseye knows any of such Turkic-language groups , I would be glad to know them .--Alborz Fallah 07:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, most academics view Jews as a religious group, while, in popular perception they are often seen as an ethnic group or nationality. From an academic standpoint it would be like calling Christians or Muslims or Buddhists an ethnic group, although Jews are more homogenous in comparison to many other religions and are similar in this regard to say Sikhs and the few remaining Zoroastrians. I wouldn't say that Azeris and Anatolian Turks are NOT at all related to Central Asians, but rather are more indigenous than they are of Central Asian extraction AND the point being that there is no Iranian racial group to speak of at any rate. Culturally and otherwise, the Azeris are linked to Caucasian, Iranian and Turkic groups, while the Anatolians are linked to the Greeks, Armenians, Kurds and other Balkan and Levantine groups moreso than they are Central Asian. However, there is no denying that their languages are part of a continuum that starts in Turkmenistan and so there is SOME ancestral linkages, we just don't know to what extent. Since the spread of Iranian languages there is little doubt that modern Iranians are for the most part descended from both pre-Iranian and Iranian tribes at any rate. As for Turkic groups celebrating Nowrouz, it's right here: http://www.payvand.com/news/06/mar/1225.html. Tombseye 14:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

well you are right about the academics. but nowadays we have pseudeo Academics posing as one. You know whom I mean. Ethnic groups could be defined by religion. language o race, but in the case of Iranian people the criteria is a civilizational cultural one. Nowruz is not a Turkic thing. I know that Kazakh and Kyrgyz celebrate it too but they do not do it as actively as their (culturally) Iranian neighbours do, moreover they have borrow it fom them. it was funny though that last year there was a Nowruz celebration at Columbia University new York and the anti/Iranianist loby had prevented participation of Iranians in it. --Babakexorramdin 15:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Kazakh's and Kyrgyz's Nowruz celebration is done only in the regions near to Tajikistan and/or in limited known minority inhibited places : I mean that is not a nationwide celebration ; just as Iraq or Turkey that Nowruz is only celebrated in the Kurdish regions of the country and not all of the nation.
The case of Russian language ethnic Jews and/or German language Frenchs are only examples to show the significance of cultural factors in definition of ethnicity other than language,There is a Persian language proverb that says " there is no argument in examples ",( that means the basic concept is important,arguing on the examples is useless).--Alborz Fallah 09:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Grouping people by language is a common approach, see other similar groups I cited above. If we are to group people by the culture, then you would not be able to distinguish most European people. Iranian people are those who speak an Iranian language, and people who do not speak an Iranian language are not Iranian people. It is very simple. Same with Turkic people or Latin people, these are speakers of a certain language group, but not necessarily people who have common cultural traditions. Grandmaster 06:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with your criteria and I have said it 1000 times. A blck african is not an Anglosaxon even though if he speak English. Brazilians or Mozambicans arent Portuguese either. The logics are not here at the stake. As you have panturkist affiliation you want to call Iranian peoples Turkic therfore chose language. In other occasion you would chose other criteria--Babakexorramdin 14:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, stop labeling other people as pan-Turkist, mind WP:NPA. This is your last warning, if you continue making personal comments I will have to ask for the admin intervention. There are no sources that call Azerbaijanis or Uzbeks Iranian people, every reputable source classifies them as Turkic people. See Britannica, for example:

Azerbaijani - any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran. [6]

So no original research, please. Grandmaster 07:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the criteria is not set by me, see these articles in Britanica: [7] [8] [9] If you believe that Azerbaijani and Uzbek people should be classified as Iranian people, please cite sources that included them among the Iranian people. It is generally accepted that Azerbaijanis are Turkic people because of the language they speak. Grandmaster 07:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, rather than debating in circles here, the point remains that there is no easy to apply criteria aside from language. I'm fairly certain I am not being biased since Khoikhoi and I were the primary people who made it a featured article and I tried to give an overview not just of the larger Iranian speaking groups like the Persians, Pashtuns and Kurds but also those that vanished etc. in Eurasian steppes. The inclusion of peripheral groups is simply too problematic and I am not disputing that things like Nowruz are Iranian in origin, but since other groups also celebrate it, it's not a reliable criteria either. Nor is dress or even customs and clearly religion isn't either. In addition, before we get into this further, ancestry is itself too tangled in the regions where Iranian peoples reside to make any uniform sense. Obviously, neighbors are related in some capacity and so again we are left with the only indicator that really works, language usage. The intention should be not to simply group people but to explain the origins of a group and their place in history and why they are considered, in some way and in this case largely through language, linked. Since there are no major sources that place non-Iranian speaking groups within the Iranian peoples we are again left with what makes sense, language as the main criteria of inclusion.Tombseye 14:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of Azeris, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Armenian, etc. all into one article is not only too much to fit, but it's absolutely ridiculous. This would be equivalent to Anglo-Saxons from England and Franks from France demanding that their cultural heritage be included in an article focused on the "Culture of Germany." Or better yet, Turkish immigrants demanding that they also be included in the "Culture of Germany" (which is essentially what the Azeris are asking for). Perhaps the article could be name changed to "Iranic peoples?" Which, even still, would not include Azeris, Armenians, Turkmen and a few others. Iranian as a political term should not be confused with Iranian as in "Irani," which is the Persian word for a Persian. Last time I checked, Azeris never refer to themselves as such, do they? Azeris are Iranians only from the political, 20th century, nation-state perspective. Culturally and geneologically, they are a distinct group of their own. The lead already makes it quite claer that this article is focused on Iranic peoples, rather than simply Iranians -MadarB 22:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are you talking so much nonsense. Azeris are not only politically Iranian. They are an Iranian people. Be aware Ignorance is something bad! there is seemingly something wrong with your ability of comprehension. There is said enough in this article and talk page why it is like this. Moreover something sensible is said in this talk page: if you apply langage as criteria then you should not talk about the Jewish people, but rather Germans, Russians, Arabs etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.47.246.45 (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

They can't be included as 'academically' Iranian. They don't speak an Iranian language and since there is no 'Iranian race' as such, their inclusion is highly irregular and problematic. 'Politically' Iranian is again as difficult to quantify as other criteria. People overlap, share cultural and historical ties etc. As for the broad categories of language groups, Slavs are those who speak Slavic languages even though Germans and other probably have Slavic ancestry to some degree. Arabs are Arabic-speakers so no surprise there and that's a single group as opposed to say Semitic peoples which is a collection of ethnic groups who speak related languages. Similarly, Iranian or Iranic peoples are those who speak the languages and are thus idenifiable as Iranian peoples as opposed to including those who don't. Iranians themselves having mixed and being related to their neighbors in Semitic Iraq, Turkic and Caucasian areas to the north, Mongol elements in the northeast, Indian influence in the south and southeast all make Iran itself an eclectic country. Without a unifying criteria, in this case language use, there is no unifying logic here. The Azeris are discussed, along with others like Uzbeks, under the Turko-Iranian section. Tombseye 15:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no cademic calling of ethnic groups. Ethnic groups are defined by criteria and academics do not do anything other than that. So Azeris or any other Iranian ethnic groups are academically as well as non-academically Iranian. There are of course psudeo-academics like Brenda Shaffer, but these non-professional use bogus criteria, it is the veracity of their facts rather than their "intended" approaches--Babakexorramdin 10:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please show me one authoritative encyclopedia that lists Azerbaijanis as Iranian people. Thanks. Grandmaster 11:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me what is called authoritative? seemingly you call Brenda Shaffer as authoritative but Kasravi as not. Not to speak about non-Iranian sources who testify the Iranian origins of Azeris. It is always the problem with panturks that they oonly accept things they like and call their opponents e.g. self-aware Azeris as chauvinists, Persian assimilated etc... Not to speak that the whole name of Arran as Azerbaijan is a fabrication. Knowing the history of yopur country as an Iranian province very well. All the attempts of Musavat/ Soviets has ben the eradication of your Iranian roots--Babakexorramdin 13:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Britannica run by "Pan-Turks"? I don't think so. Well, find something on the level of Britannica, or some authoritative individual scholar, who considers Azerbaijanis to be Iranic people. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It can get very complicated, and postulative, indeed if we start guestimating which modern nations have some minor part of Iranic descendence. An analogy would be to drum on about Spaniards might have ,say, 2% Germanic blood (because of the Visigoths) hence are part German, or -even more strongly- would could classify Romanians and Hungarians as partly slavic, becuase the Slavs provided a large substrate of what now constitutes the mentioned modern nations. To be objective we must somehow draw a line. lanuage, as postulated by some is one way, but clearly this has limiations as language does not equate with genetic ethnic origins. WHile it is interesting to theorize, standards must be met, and we cannot turn the article into a philosophical debate. Hxseek 10:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

We actually have gone over this issue before, but to reiterate, the ethnic group infobox implies that this is a single ethnic group. What's more the figures appear to be unverified as ALL of Iran is included as part of the Iranian peoples (?!) which seems rather biased. In addition, saying that the Iranian peoples MOSTLY speak Persian is inaccurate as the other Iranian languages combined outnumber Persian speakers (Pashtuns, Kurds, Baluchis, Ossetians, etc.). This does not mean that fixing these problems means we can include the infobox though. When this article was made into a featured article there was no infobox because we decided, through consensus, that the Iranian peoples are not an ethnic group, but a series of groups who speak related languages and, to varying degrees have some common historical currents and cultural traits (though by no means everyone of course). Thus, the infobox is not a viable OR useful option here.Tombseye 19:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we make an Infobox that is not an "ethnic" one? say , something like "Ethno-lingual box" that informs the reader about the deleted data in the box?(also look at Jews page infobox)--Alborz Fallah 19:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If you, or someone else is willing, yeah that'd be OK. It would adhere to the article's perspective so I see no problem with it. Hopefully no one else will either. Just make sure it corresponds to language use and, if possible, specify which groups we are talking about in each country. Yeah I really don't know about treating Jews as an ethnic group myself, but I'm not going to fight them over it as I haven't contributed to the article. Good luck! Tombseye 21:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

We should include the Azeri's as an Iranian people

All Iranians count them as an Iranian people, inside and outside of Iran, its only pan-turks who say that. Though that section is not refering to lanuage and instead towards ethnicity, so why can't be add Azeris to the list, it offends me as an Azeri not to called Iranian.

This was discussed many times, please check the archives. Azeris do not speak an Iranian language. Iranian is a linguistic category, same as Turkic, Slavic, Germanic, etc. Grandmaster (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

it was dicussed before but we reached no agreement as Grandmaster went on intentionally misuing language for ethnicty and provided no acceptable answers to the questions asked ;) --Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Babak. "Iranian" is not a linguistic category: the difference is in the historical background. The new world classification of peoples depends mainly on racial-linguistic figures, but in the old world, the culture is the main indicator: language is only one item among many other important cultural items. History and religion has always been considered superior to the language in grouping peoples in the old world." Iranian peoples" is somewhat similar to "Jewish people" (both of them are old) , in contrast to Turkic, Slavic, Germanic people (that are more new).
Anyway, I think this debate is an on-going one and we still did not reach consensus , so considering it as an established "archived" reality may be unreal .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And let me mention again the difference between new-world concept of "ethnicity" and the old one : the new groups of people (ethnicities)in the modern societies originate mainly from immigration(changes in Place) , but in the old times , the difference between peoples was not mainly due to changing of the location of human groups ,but acquired changes in culture through out the time .One example are "Kurds" : the common ancestry between Kurds and other Iranian groups has undergone changes because of the mountainous barriers between them and the others through out the time - and not immigration- , and languages of Azeris had a change through time: then that is different to the German or Turkic groups in Europe or Russia(racial- lingual). --Alborz Fallah (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
One may ask "why should we use the older classification methods (ethnic identification) in new Wikipedia?" The answer is in that fact that the old terms are still in use! Without understanding the rational behind the old words and ideas, understanding them in the new era will became impossible.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

But the double standard is that even the 'new classifiers' won't call American blacks as Germanic and will call jews of different language as one nation! I think we have a strong case and do not need to convince our opponents. They have a political agenda and debate is useless. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ayy babak jan ...Debate is not useless! We may have confidence on others.That is not WAR! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not know. What I see is a large powerfull anti-Iranianist lobby in the USA coopting elements from the neighbouring countries. They are very racist and cruel, they do not only beat Iranians at the US airports, Iranians (even with European citizenship) are also barred from taking part in conferences, and journals are not sent to them. They may even not order scientific materials. Very serious. And the American Iranians are taking it easy. I cannot draw any other conclusion than "It is WAR!" --Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Either ways, we need to continue to fight for the Azari's to be counted as an Iranian People for the obvious reasons mentioned above.--Yami Sasha (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is an existential issue. Azerbaijan is a coreland of Iran and Iranian Azeris have been the most prominent Iranians. The anti-Iranianists try to detach Azeris from rest of Iranians in the hope to break up Iran. This has been the dream of Washington DC, Tel Aviv, Baku untill now and also Ankara in the past.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It seriously odd how our current Supreme Leader is Azari, yet he can't count as an Iranian. Isn't there anyway we can overpower that guy who keeps not allowing it on?--Yami Sasha (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The PanTurks are backed by the Oil industry, Isarel, and neoconservative and Zionist lobby in the USA. That´s why they always push their nonsense into all fora. On the other hand most Iranians are too scared and passive people. That is the root of all misery Iranians encountered with: a too strong enemy, and Iranian people who are passive and in fact fool themselves.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

So your saying that we are stuck? We can't edit this page at all, even though we have proof, and even a seperate page meant for the Iranian languages?--Yami Sasha (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

well we are weak and many administrators of wikipedia have sympathy for the anti-Iranianist lobbies. We should be more strong and less tolerant. It is a shame that THEY always raid Iranian articles and Iranians usually try to reach a compromise. Im not like that but Im not as many as the anti-Iranianists are. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I see, so we will have to live with this for the time being, its ashame how we can't bring out the truth.--Yami Sasha (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

this is exactly the point. we dont have to. fighting is always better than be conformist cowards, even if the enemy is too strong!--Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

About Tombseye Picture edit

Why are those pictures being edited? You say it "violates copyright laws and is not allowed either." Then why does ever other ethnicity page have a picture section yet the Iranian People page is left without one? These pictures have been sourced are accepted into Wikipedia, so why are they not allowed to be used just like in every other Wikipedia ethnicity page? --Yami Sasha (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a featured article, while most of the ethnic articles aren't. Also, this is not an 'ethnic article' but rather about a group that speaks related languages and has varying degrees of relations with each other not unlike the Germanic and Slavic peoples. In fact, when you put together pictures into a collage it violates copyright laws. We have it in an archived discussion and you can ask an admin. to clarify for you. Tombseye (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

So in this case we should delete the pictures in the Indo-Aryans which is a collection of ethnic groups and every other picture collection including the ones in the Egyptians, Persians, Kurds, Greeks, etc. since all of them have picture collections in the ethnicity bar on the right. Mind answering that?--Yami Sasha (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes all of those collages should be taken off. Those articles are also not featured articles, which makes a difference. There's a quality difference.Tombseye (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured article... mind telling me the difference? But other than that, if thats the case i'm off to remove all pictures from those sections.--Yami Sasha (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, who said that those pictures violate copyright laws? Why? Where is this discussion? Can you please explain? Shervink (talk) 09:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you heard him Tombseye, lets see the discussion and explanation.--Yami Sasha (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, since Tombseye apparently doesn't care or doesn't have the time to reply to my question, and as I cannot find the discussion he refers to, I guess we can put the pictures back. The fact that there are so many articles with this type of picture set on the page hints strongly in the direction that there is no problem with it. Shervink (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I emailed a few people who'll let me know where the conversation about picture collages is as I don't recall and I am strapped for time lately and don't relish the idea of wading through the archives looking for it. None of the articles with picture collages are featured articles. Frankly, it will devolve this article as the population counter (which needs links to verify the population counts) seems to be doing and turn it into a nationalist platform for Pan Iranism, which I'm not critiquing, but this is not the place or the article for that platform. Since this is an encyclopedia, our model should be Encyclopedia Iranica and other high standard academic literature anyway. Tombseye (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In this case since we don't even have those links yet, the pictures will go up.--Yami Sasha (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Margin of error is ridiculous

On the infobox it reads "150 to 250 million". Being off by 100,000 million is quite ridiculous. Also these numbers aren't sourced. Improvement is necesary in these areas. -- Cat ^chi? 15:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the edit-warring I've protected the article for a week. These figures can be checked and verified over the next 7 days. Neıl ☎ 16:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The estimates vary. Not in all countries censuses are taken in which ethnicity is asked, so for an elaborate discussion on numbers you should go to the demographics of those countries mentioned. I myself have named a few sources for my edits the Soviet census of 1989 and ethnologue, all the other numbers are based on sources too. Margins are large because we are dealing with estimates in a large number of countries. I do not see the problem. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Then giving a link or <ref> per number should be a trivial task. Estimates should be per someones research not our own. -- Cat ^chi? 22:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

estimates are of course based on someone elses research which could be read in the articles on the demographics of those countries. In general I am not a proponent of incorporating big chunks of text into boxes or and extensive ref. If there comes a policy to ref. all numbers in all boxes then it is fair to demand it here too, otherwise I do not see why the box of Iranian peoples should be an exception.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Then at the least, the numbers must be wikilinked to the articles they were taken from, and the demographic numbers in those articles need to be referenced. If they are not, then all we are doing is reporoducing our own unreliable information, which is unacceptable. Neıl ☎ 09:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As long as I see the numbers are sourced in the demographics articles. I agree with you, wikilinking of the name of countries to the demographics pages is a good idea.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to see one ref per number. If the actual source is the CIA worldfactbook, link to it. Wikipedia articles cannot be a source but the sources used in wikipedia articles can be. I'd not be this sensitive had this not been a featured article. I want verifiable numbers. Thats all I seek and thats all there is to it.

Also, if an ethnicity is not universally considered as a part of Iranian peoples, this should be noted in the infobox. Color coding can be used for example.

-- Cat ^chi? 16:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In the infor box only the number of people were included which were Iranian. Even the obvious case of Azeris as Iranian people was dropped because of continous Antiu-Iranianist Agitators here in the wikipedia. so the number Were minimal numbers. You want references to a source for each case, instead of linking to the demographic articles? By this you want to destroy infobox. WHat is surprizing to me is however the fact that you only demand this for the Iranian people. Also from your other statement about the contested character of some people, I have a feeling that you have an Anti-Iranian bias. In that case good faith cannot help. Because whenever one puts sources in the infobox you will come with another demand. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Numbers in Turkey.

CIA Factbook gives a figure of about 15 million for the Kurds. other estimates vary. There is no evidences that these numbers include the number of Zaza (estimated 2-4 Million people). In addition it can be guessed that some Kurds in major Urban centres are not counted Wether or not they identify themselves as Kurd or Turk. To that number should be added the number of Migrants from Iran, Iraq and Syria (Kurds and persians etc...), so the estimates between 14 and 19 million was a fair estimate -though Kurdish nationalists give too often higher numbers- , in the context of lacking ethnic censuses in Turkey and uncertainty about the number of (often illegal) migrants. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately fair estimate is not a reliable source. If CIA claims that there are between 14 to 19 million Iranian peoples we can use that. If there is no source on the matter, we cannot suggest anything. -- Cat ^chi? 16:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

For all cases is elaborately discusses how they came to the numbers. If you are concerned with this uyou should go to each info bocx and demand this. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

As I predicted the infobox has created problems. even with references people will just keep changing t because they don't agree with. we're better without it. people can look up the individual groups and their population figures anyway. no point really. Tombseye (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think accurate estimates can be given, but now that it was decided to be remove by you, I will remove it till then. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable/verifiable sources. You can alter numbers at your whim (such as introducing ranges) provided you have a source for it. -- Cat ^chi? 16:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The thing is why these "problems" always affect Iranian articles? Not many other cultural/national groups other than Iranians encounter so much "problems" --Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The listed numbers in the infobox do not come any near the given total. There are serious issues with the infobox which can be fixed. -- Cat ^chi? 16:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the current infobox can remain. IF someone wants to put in a new infobox, with references, that shows Iranian speakers only (and not the other groups or nationalist views) then there should be no problem in its return. Otherwise, the incomplete and completely inaccurate infobox that was there is completely pointless. And the given total should reflect the actual numbers and not a vast range that seems highly arbitrary. Like I said, I knew this was going to happen as people can't seem to agree on what the article says, that Iranian peoples are the groups that speak Iranian languages. Tombseye (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, that's your interpretation of what the article should say. Nothing wrong with that, but saying that " Iranian peoples are the groups that speak Iranian languages" is an unsourced statement by itself, since the references provided do not say anything close to it.Shervink (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's ask the readers if there is consensus about "Iranian peoples are the groups that speak Iranian languages"! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hazara + Aimaq

The Hazaras and "Aimaq" are an Iranian people by definition. They speak Iranian languages (in this case: various dialects of Persian) and live within other Iranian-speaking communities since the 13th century AD. While genetic research attests that they are a mix of East Eurasian ("Mongoloid") and West Eurasian ("Caucasoid") peoples, they are still defined as an Iranian people.

Please note that the Turks of Turkey are also defined as a "Turkic people" although they are genetically not related to Central Asian Turkic or Altaic speakers.

Genetic section

The version proposed by Cyrus11 is factually wrong and contains many mistakes.

• Ishkashemis are also Tajiks; the study makes clear that R1a1 is only at high frequencies within isolated Ishkashemi Tajik and Pamiri Tajik families. The larger rest of the Tajik population does not have high frequencies of R1a1.
• The Iranian population as a whole was tested, not just the western parts. The research says:

• Intriguingly, the population of present-day Iran, speaking a major Indo-European language (Farsi), appears to have had little genetic influence from the M17-carrying Indo-Iranians. It is possible that the pre-Indo-European population of Iran---effectively an eastern extension of the great civilizations of Mesopotamia---may have reached sufficient population densities to have swamped any genetic contribution from a small number of immigrating Indo-Iranians. If so, this may have been a case of language replacement through the "elite-dominance" model (29). Alternatively, an Indo-Iranian language may have been the lingua franca of the steppe nomads and the surrounding settled populations, facilitating communication between the two. Over time, this language could have become the predominant language in Persia, reinforced and standardized by rulers such as Cyrus the Great and Darius in the mid-first millennium B.C. Whichever model is correct, the Iranians sampled here (from the western part of the country) appear to be more similar genetically to Afro-Asiatic-speaking Middle Eastern populations than they are to Central Asians or Indians. This finding contrasts with a recent analysis of Eastern Iranian populations, which have high frequencies of Y-chromosome haplogroup 3, defined by the M17 analogue SRY-1532A (30). It is likely that the Dasht-e Kavir and Dasht-e Lut deserts in the center of the country have acted as significant barriers to gene flow. [10]

• Please do not use direct links in the body of the text, but use < ref > and </ ref >. This is an FA article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.152.85 (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My mistake I thought Ishkashemis are Ishkashemis and Tajiks are Tajiks...

The Iranian population as a whole was tested, where did it say that?

And also did they actually test 35 million people (males) ? Not a bad job at all...

Everything in the study is may or perhaps or appears, as it says in the study..? S.wells claims he is a branch at the very top in one video, but in another intervju he reveals that he is a r1b dec. He should know better when M45, defined by the marker M3, may be as little as 2,000 years old. Besides your study is from 2001, the study from 2004 reveals much higher r1a1 in Tehran and Isfahan, that is central Iran which is still higher than all Europe excluding east. The study made in Western Iran:

The Iranians sampled here (from the western part of the country) appear to be more similar genetically to Afro-Asiatic-speaking Middle Eastern .

Is it strange whole of West Iran have little gen infl.from r1a1 Indo-Iranians when it´s not even populated by Persians? Iran is not a homogenous country.

Intriguingly haplogroup K born in Iran are the patrilineal ancestors of most of the people living in the Northern Hemisphere, including most Europeans, Asians and Native Americans. The Iranians display considerable haplogroup diversity reinforcing the notion of Persia as a venue for human disseminations (spreading north, east, south and west).Cyrus111 (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The current version is still wrong. The article claims that Tajiks with high R1a1 frequencies are "Eastern Persians". That's not true. Ishkashemi Tajiks speak Ishkashemi, and Pamiri Tajiks speak Pamiri, both belong to the Eastern Iranian languages. So, these Tajiks are distinct from "Tajiks proper" and are more akin to the Tajiks of China. As described in the source, the high ferquencies of R1a1 are due to drift. That's why their neighbors, the Turkic Kirghiz have also very high frequencies of R1a1. And please do NOT use links in the article. This is a FEATURED ARTICLE and has to fulfill certain stylistic standards! Your edits ruin the good shape of the article.

Mazanderani

Persian

Kurd

Kurd

Gilaki

Lur

Balochi

Azerbaijani

Turkmen

Qashqai

Uninhabited

Arab

Arab

Talysh

And why was the source from Marija G erased and a "CN installed" when it clearly states in K. Kuriakis book that she states: The Process of Indo-Europeanization was a cultural, not a physical transformation. It must be understood as a military victory in terms of imposing a new administrative system, language and religion upon the indigenous groups... Maybe he didn´t read it? And explain your meaning of "Tajik Proper"? The Tajik and Persians are Iranic people from Proto-Indo-Iranian times and they are a mix of eachohter from after the Islamic conquest as well read Tajik article and the sources, 79% of Tajikistan are ethnic Tajiks just like 51% of Iran are Persians. I agree its now wrong cause the sources now used are older from 2001 rather than those from 2004 that are more accurate which I used. And where in the 2006 study [11] does it say about language replacement? And also here is the source of R1a1 proper - O -[12]

The "Tajiks proper" speak Persian which is a West-Iranian language. Ishkashimi- and Pamiri Tajiks speak East-Iranian languages. The difference is as big as between English and German. "Tajik" is just a general term of Turkic origin applied to Indo-European-speaking Caucasoid people. In the past, "Tajik" was used for a whole bunch of different peoples: Khwarezmians, Sogdians, Persians, Tokharians, etc. The Ishkashemi and Pamiri Tajiks with high frequencies of R1a1 are not "East Persians" as Cyrus11 claims. They are not "Persians" at all. : The "Tajiks proper" speak Persian which is a West-Iranian language. Ishkashimi- and Pamiri Tajiks speak East-Iranian languages. The difference is as big as between English and German. "Tajik" is just a general term of Turkic origin applied to Indo-European-speaking Caucasoid people. In the past, "Tajik" was used for a whole bunch of different peoples: Khwarezmians, Sogdians, Persians, Tokharians, etc. The Ishkashemi and Pamiri Tajiks with high frequencies of R1a1 are not "East Persians" as Cyrus11 claims. They are not "Persians" at all.

An English speking person would have a hard time understanding German, this is not the case of Tajik and Farsi speakers, or Dari for that matter. So your example is somewhat off. The speakers of these Iranian languages were part of one nation for a long period of time and are a mix of eachother there, did you bother to read Tajik article and sources?

And also, In the words of Richard Nelson Frye: Many times I have emphasized that the present peoples of Central Asia, have one culture, one religion, one set of social values.Cyrus111 (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

And here is the part about "language replacement":

• ... Intriguingly, the population of present-day Iran, speaking a major Indo-European language (Farsi), appears to have had little genetic influence from the M17-carrying Indo-Iranians. It is possible that the pre-Indo-European population of Iran---effectively an eastern extension of the great civilizations of Mesopotamia---may have reached sufficient population densities to have swamped any genetic contribution from a small number of immigrating Indo-Iranians. If so, this may have been a case of language replacement through the "elite-dominance" model (29). Alternatively, an Indo-Iranian language may have been the lingua franca of the steppe nomads and the surrounding settled populations, facilitating communication between the two. Over time, this language could have become the predominant language in Persia, reinforced and standardized by rulers such as Cyrus the Great and Darius in the mid-first millennium B.C. Whichever model is correct, the Iranians sampled here (from the western part of the country) appear to be more similar genetically to Afro-Asiatic-speaking Middle Eastern populations than they are to Central Asians or Indians. This finding contrasts with a recent analysis of Eastern Iranian populations, which have high frequencies of Y-chromosome haplogroup 3, defined by the M17 analogue SRY-1532A (30). It is likely that the Dasht-e Kavir and Dasht-e Lut deserts in the center of the country have acted as significant barriers to gene flow. The Turkish and Azeri populations are atypical among Altaic speakers (Table 1) in having low frequencies of M130, M48, M45, and M17 haplotypes. Rather, these two Turkic-speaking groups seem to be closer to populations from the Middle East and Caucasus, characterized by high frequencies of M96- and/or M89-related haplotypes. This finding is consistent with a model in which the Turkic languages, originating in the Altai-Sayan region of Central Asia and northwestern Mongolia (31), were imposed on the Caucasian and Anatolian peoples with relatively little genetic admixture---another possible example of elite dominance-driven linguistic replacement. ... [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.158.56 (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You are still using the older study from 2001 because this seems to benefit some sort of agenda for you? Why not use the more recent report where the studies have advanced and are more accurate?Cyrus111 (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What other, "newer" study are you talking about?! As for "Tajik": it is a general term applied to many different peoples. The Ishkashimi and Pamiri Tajiks speak East Iranian languages. That means that their language is closer to Pashto than to Tajik proper which is a dialect of the West Iranian Persian language. The difference is as big as between English and German. You can't just put them in one box and claim that they are "eastern Persians" as "Persian" itself is also a general term applied to a wide range of Southwest Iranian speaking tribes (including Hazara, Aimaq, Lurs, Bakhtiaris, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.140.191 (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If you even bother to read the article you will see the changes made that will suit you better and if you bother to read the newer sources you will see the newer results of Nasidze in Tehran and Isfahan. And if you bother to read Karlos. K book as I have outsourced, you will see Marija G:s statement. And again an English speaking person would have a hard time understanding German, this is not the case of Tajik and Farsi speakers, or Dari for that matter.Cyrus111 (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Cyrus, this is an FA (Featured Article). If you want to edit or change a larger part of the text, you need to consult this on the talk page FIRST. Aside from obvious factual mistakes (i.e. you do not know the meaning of "Tajik" and you admitted that you do not know the meaning of "Ishkashimi") your edits also contain obvious misinterpretation of the sources. A few days ago, you even claimed that "early Indo-Europeans were Mongoloid" and pointed to a National Geographic source that did not say such a thing. You simply misinterpreted the sources and added your own POV to it. You are doing the same thing here. Now, you even claim that Pashtuns have a high frequency of R1a1, although you do not present any sources for that claim. In short: your edits are destroying the FA status of this article. Please first write all of your concerns in the talk page. I agree with you that more information could/should be added. But certainly not the way you want it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.140.191 (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW: you are adding sources to claims that are not even related to the subject. In addition, you added a source to a quote that does not appear in that source. That's considered vandalism and falsification. Please do not revert to that wrong version again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.140.191 (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

82.83.140.191, I thought we were consulting for some time now.. I did not admit not knowing the meaning of "Ishkashimi or Tajik" I was being friendly sarc.

My claim of early Indo-european mongoloid look is not how you have interpreted it, I was saying they were Eurasian types, read this: [14]

"The assumption that the Indo-Europeans were blue-eyed found some currency when northern Europe was regarded as the original Proto-Indo-European homeland, but placing the homeland in Southwest Asia changes the physical type that must be assumed.

Mongoloid is a very broad def. just like cauc. example, both finnish and Dravids are cauc. this does not mean they resemble eachother, the same with Mongoloid. and NG Illustrated mongoloidic people in ass. with r1a1. should they have showed Bushmen? The fact is r1a1 is not or should not be ass. with any type of look. Why? see the Altaic, they are mongoloidic yet they also have the r1a1 that is also found among Dravidians and Indians Russians and Persians who display var. I am not saying that the altaic people were the branch of Indoeuropeans that went to Persia or India, I am saying that r1a1 carrying people have diversity in appearence. And I was not adding my POV for any specific reason it was a discussion in the discpage.

And here is the qoute from the source that you claim dont show up [15] PAGE 277

And now I even claim that Pasthuns have frequency of R1a1 yes I do, and yes they do Both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and here is the source that I didn´t present. [16]

And you are still using Spencers older 2001 report, here is the newer one [17]

Please do not revert to that wrong version again

Your current version lacks the data presented giving it a more narrower view.. Cyrus111 (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Cyrus111, it seems that you lack basic knowledge of the toppic. The alledged "newer report" of Wells (not Spencer, which is his first name!) is not an updated version, but a report limitted to the Caucasus! You can use it as an addition, but not as a replacement! And Dravidians are NOT considered "Caucasoid"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.132.92 (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The newer report is from Nasidze and its not limited to cauc. it covers the frequency of r1a1 in Tehran and Isfahan something the older study dont. Forget S.Wells he has not been to Iran for a long time use the newer study from Dr. Nasidze Cyrus111 (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Cyrus, stop pushing this childish "Aryan" nonsense, or you'll just succeed in getting the article de-featured. This is not the place to discuss Indo-European origins, nor is it the place to discuss Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA), nor any other haplogroup, in any detail. dab (𒁳) 11:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Pamiri peoples

the classificatoion shows some mistakes: Sariqoli are the socalled Tajiks of China, they along with Shughni, Wakhi, Muni, Yazgulemi and other subdivision form the Pamiri people. this should be fixed--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

R1 is an Indo-European Marker. It gave rise to R1a (West European), r1a1 (scythian), and R1b (Turkic/European) groups. (To postulate that R1a1 and R1 are very different bio-groups, indicates a lack of understanding of these typse of studies.)

From: Kivilsid,2003

"Two tribal groups from southern India—the Chenchus and Koyas—were analyzed for variation in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), the Y chromosome, and one autosomal locus and were compared with six caste groups from different parts of India, as well as with western and central Asians. In mtDNA phylogenetic analyses, the Chenchus and Koyas coalesce at Indian-specific branches of haplogroups M and N that cover populations of different social rank from all over the subcontinent. Coalescence times suggest early late Pleistocene settlement of southern Asia and suggest that there has not been total replacement of these settlers by later migrations. H, L, and R2 are the major Indian Y-chromosomal haplogroups that occur both in castes and in tribal populations and are rarely found outside the subcontinent. Haplogroup R1a, previously associated with the putative Indo-Aryan invasion, was found at its highest frequency in Punjab but also at a relatively high frequency (26%) in the Chenchu tribe. This finding, together with the higher R1a-associated short tandem repeat diversity in India and Iran compared with Europe and central Asia, suggests that southern and western Asia might be the source of this haplogroup. Haplotype frequencies of the MX1 locus of chromosome 21 distinguish Koyas and Chenchus, along with Indian caste groups, from European and eastern Asian populations. Taken together, these results show that Indian tribal and caste populations derive largely from the same genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians and have received limited gene flow from external regions since the Holocene. The phylogeography of the primal mtDNA and Y-chromosome founders suggests that these southern Asian Pleistocene coastal settlers from Africa would have provided the inocula for the subsequent differentiation of the distinctive eastern and western Eurasian gene pools."

So R1 , R1a, were likely already present in Iranian populations. R1a1 frequency in Ukraine, reflects emmigrating (R1a) Iranian Scythian tribes. Later, the R1a1 scythians could have re-settled on the plateau and left some genetic imprint on Eastern Iranians - we know from history the nomadic scythians tribes re-entered the plateau at some later point. Alternatively, but definetely less likely (because R1a1 diversity is higher in Ukraine), R1a1 may have been present in small percentages of the Eastern Iranian population, who left at some point, and founded a population of Scythians in the area of modern Ukraine. This scenario can explain higher diversity of R1a1 in Ukraine, as a (more or less) pure population of R1a1's can grow/diversify faster.

All of this makes perfect sense, as the cold adapted Caucasoid group, Haplogroup R (evolving in central asia), may have migrated south to the Iranian plateau and the surrounding area, where the land was habitable. At some later point, these R1 derived "Aryan" tribes scattered NW into the baltic (R1a or, less likely, as R1a1), and west into Europe (R1b via Turkey).

The large frequencies of certain haplogroups (R1a, R1b) in Europe do not mean as much as many would like to think. One has to understand that Europe and central asia were largely uninhabitable. High frequencies, without accompanied diversity, usually just suggests a founders effect. From an examination of the pooled diversity and geographic spread of sister clades, Iran and it's surrounding area seems more likely as an IE homeland. Asides, from the Basques (Who are ironically, products of J derived Iranians @ 10,000 ybp), Europeans are a relatively recent group of people. This isn't to say paleolithic genes are not represented in modern day europeans, but it's safe to assume that 70-80% of europes genes are neolithic.

They should rethink the notion that Basques (R1b) aren't genetically similar to IE's. The same with Ashkanzai Jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zadeh79 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Iranian IE homeland is probable.........

Zadeh79 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)R1 is an Indo-European Marker. It gave rise to R1a (West European), r1a1 (scythian), and R1b (Turkic/European) groups. (To postulate that R1a1 and R1 are very different bio-groups, indicates a lack of understanding of these typse of studies.)

From: Kivilsid,2003 "Two tribal groups from southern India—the Chenchus and Koyas—were analyzed for variation in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), the Y chromosome, and one autosomal locus and were compared with six caste groups from different parts of India, as well as with western and central Asians. In mtDNA phylogenetic analyses, the Chenchus and Koyas coalesce at Indian-specific branches of haplogroups M and N that cover populations of different social rank from all over the subcontinent. Coalescence times suggest early late Pleistocene settlement of southern Asia and suggest that there has not been total replacement of these settlers by later migrations. H, L, and R2 are the major Indian Y-chromosomal haplogroups that occur both in castes and in tribal populations and are rarely found outside the subcontinent. Haplogroup R1a, previously associated with the putative Indo-Aryan invasion, was found at its highest frequency in Punjab but also at a relatively high frequency (26%) in the Chenchu tribe. This finding, together with the higher R1a-associated short tandem repeat diversity in India and Iran compared with Europe and central Asia, suggests that southern and western Asia might be the source of this haplogroup. Haplotype frequencies of the MX1 locus of chromosome 21 distinguish Koyas and Chenchus, along with Indian caste groups, from European and eastern Asian populations. Taken together, these results show that Indian tribal and caste populations derive largely from the same genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians and have received limited gene flow from external regions since the Holocene. The phylogeography of the primal mtDNA and Y-chromosome founders suggests that these southern Asian Pleistocene coastal settlers from Africa would have provided the inocula for the subsequent differentiation of the distinctive eastern and western Eurasian gene pools."

From: M. Regueiro (2006) "From the disparate M198 frequencies observed for the north and south of Iran, it is possible to envision a movement southward towards India where the lineage may have had an influence on the populations south of the Iranian deserts and where the Dash-e Lut desert would have played a signifi cant role in preventing the expansion of this marker to the north of Iran. The lower frequencies of M198 in the region of Anatolia (11.8% in Greece [27] and 6.9% in Turkey, with a statistically significant longitudinal correlation [2] ) and the Caucasus (10% in Georgia, 6% in Armenia and 7% in Azerbaijan) [24] suggests that population movement was southward towards India and then westward across the Iranian plateau. In addition, the detection of rare R1-M173* and R1a-SRY1532 lineages in Iran at higher frequencies than observed for either Turkey, Pakistan or India suggests the hypothesis that geographic origin of haplogroup R may be nearer Persia."

So R1 , R1a, were likely already present in Iranian populations. R1a1 frequency in Ukraine, reflects emmigrating Iranian Scythian tribes.

This makes perfect sense, as the cold adapted Caucasoid group, Haplogroup R (evolving in central asia), may have migrated south during the LGM to the Iranian plateau and the surrounding area, where the land was habitable. At some later point, these R1 derived "Aryan" tribes scattered NW into the baltic (R1a or, less likely, as R1a1), and west into Europe (R1b via Turkey).

The large frequencies of certain haplogroups (R1a, R1b) in Europe do not mean as much as many would like to think. One has to understand that Europe and central asia were largely uninhabitable. High frequencies, without accompanied diversity, usually just suggests a founders effect. From an examination of the pooled diversity and geographic spread of sister clades, and the distribution pattern of R1 and R1a in Iran and it's surrounding area, Iran is a likely candidate as an IE homeland. Asides, from the Basques (Who are ironically, products of J derived Iranians @ 10,000 ybp), Europeans are a relatively recent group of people. This isn't to say paleolithic genes are not represented in modern day europeans, but it's safe to assume that 70-80% of europes genes are neolithic.

They should rethink the notion that Basques (R1b) aren't genetically similar to IE's. The same with Ashkanzai Jews

Why not use some of this research from the Geneticist in the r1a article since they insist on using Spencers 2001 report where everything in the report is may or perhaps or if so. It doesn´t even include Dr. Nasidzes 2004 report where r1a is covered in Tehran and Isfahan.

Whats to rethink about Ashkenazi Jews? They are Iranian in origin, not necessarily R1a1 Iranian Scythian tribes but being carriers of R2 which is found througout Iran and parts of south Russia .

Among Europeans there are at least two confirmed clusters of R2 individuals among Ashkenazi Jews (This haplogroup is rare among Europeans), which may reflect either an Iranian or a Central Asian (Khazar) origin of a portion of this group. R2 is a Y-chromosome haplogroup characterized by genetic marker M124, and is rarely found outside India, Pakistan, Iran, and southern Central Asia [18]. Cyrus111 (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Genetics

Haplogroup M17, also known as R1a1, has proven to be a diagnostic Indo-Iranian marker.[53] The highest R1a1 frequencies are detected in the Central Asian populations of Ishkashemi Tajiks (68%) and Pamiri Tajiks (64%), both groups being remnants of the original Eastern Iranian population of the region.[53][54] Apart from these two groups, the eastern parts of the Iranian Highlands generally reveal the highest frequency of R1a1, up to 35%, similar to Northern India[55], making it higher than South and West Europe and Scandinavia, while Western Iran (excluding major cities like Tehran and Isfahan), [56] appears to have had little genetic influence from the R1a1-carrying Indo-Iranians, about 10%, attributed to language replacement through the "elite-dominance" model in a similar manner which occurred in Europe and India.

Just a comment: we cannot say that R1a is an "Indo-Iranian" marker. The paragraph mentions that there is low frequency of the markers in western europe, scandinavia and (erroneously) southern Europe. R1a rates in southern Europe (ie in Southern Slavs vary from 40 to 15%- very significant rates ! In fact, the highest rates of R1a are found in Sorbs and other Slavic peoples such as Ikraininans and Poles. So one may theorize that is is an Indo-European marker, not solely an Indo-Iranian marker. Hxseek (talk) 06:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hxseek, this theory is probably right, there's a large possibility. R1a1 haplo group developed in Western Asia 17.000 years ago defined with mutation M17, which separated it from initial R family. Iran was probably a part of the region where this mutation occured. But in Europe it's usually called East-European or more general Indo-European haplo. All those R1a1 bearers in wide areas of EE were definitely migrators from Asia, the nomads many of them. BTW, establishment of Persian Empire resulted with massive migrations of different groups from the Near-East to the north, lately from the north to Europe. Well, it's perhaps the last massive wave of R1a1 to Europe. Today we recognise many of these R1a1 as Slavic speakers, but it doesn't mean that they were Slavs 2.000 years ago. Zenanarh (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

An anon removed Khazaras, but they are Iranian people, since they speak an Iranian language. Grandmaster (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"Later" developments madness

The following paragraph was the first under "Later developments"

In ancient times, the majority of southern Iranian peoples became adherents of Zoroastrianism, Buddhism (in parts of Afghanistan and Central Asia), Judaism and Nestorian Christianity (largely among the Kurds and Persians living in Iraq). The Ossetians would later adopt Christianity as well, with Russian Orthodoxy becoming dominant following their annexation into the Russian Empire, while some converted to Islam due to the influence of the Ottomans.

That mess is unrepairable. Its jumping from "ancient times" to the 17th century with nary a care for consistency or precision.
"Ancient times" is what? (why do editors use "ancient" anyway?) Makes no sense in a section titled "Later developments", and the para that followed this one is about a 7th century event. Whats "majority"? Why the restriction to southern Iran? Buddhism in "ancient" times in Afghanistan? (no doubt someone meant Bactria/Sogdiana). The "Judaism and Nestorian Christianity" is an anachronistic juxtaposition that can't be resolved. Besides, Iraq didn't exist until the 20th century (presumably someone meant Mesopotamia). And Judaism was all over the place, not just in Mesopotamia. And supposedly Ossetians would "later" convert to Christianity -- later than what? "Ancient"? 20th century?
Crazy. So removed. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right ! But I think its better to correct it than to delete it . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I too think it should be fixed (there is already a 'Religion' section btw). The question is how. I tried rephrasing it several times before I gave up. I need to think about it a little bit... I'll take a crack at it in the next few days. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Kumzari

Somebody should add Kumzari to the demographics section. The code is too complicated for me, I can't figure out how to add them to the list. --Kurdo777 (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Genetics

Some genetic testings of Iranian peoples have revealed many common genes for most of the Iranian peoples, but with numerous exceptions and regional variations.

Wow, I've seen some stupid things written in wikipedia but I can tell you that this one ranks among the stupidest ones. This is almost funny, I mean we're not talking about citing sources here, we're talking about having the slightest clue of what one is talking about. "Revealed many common genes between Iranian peoples?" WTF? Scientifically the sense that this makes is "all Iranian people have evolved from different species living on the same planet". Common genes are "revealed" between different species, not between different people, for crying out loud. One may "reveal" common genes between human and the fruit fly or the zebrafish or some eukaryotic microorganism like yeast. Saying that there are some common genes between Iranian people is only interesting and makes sense in a world where "Iranian people" stands for a group of humans, birds, fish, insects, bacteria etc. And what would it prove in that world? That the group of distant species described as "Iranian people" have all descended from the same planet. Yeah, evolved from the same earthling prokaryotic cell, none of them are aliens. What a great opening line, and what a great supervision of the article. Miskin (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

And, wow, I just noticed that this is a FA. No comments, great job wikipedia. Miskin (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem , I think if you correct it , that would be more positive. I think the editor want to say genetic markers of Gene ancestry ( such as HLA , genes of Immune system , Mitochondrial genetic material and Y-chromosome haplotype ) . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted and removed the edits of an IP in this section. First of all, because most of it was POV, and secondly, because many of the attached sources were simply misinterpreted to fit the POV. Tājik (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of the civilizations map

No offense, but that is perhaps one of the worst civilization maps I've ever seen. It's ridiculous how it considers the entire continents of North and South America as "western civilization" as well as Russia and Australia - yet it separates Arab and Persian civilizations and Chinese, Japanese, and Korean civilizations. IMO, this is poor historical knowledge at best. Intranetusa (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Iranic and part od Turkic peoples belong to the same civilizatiuon (another part is closer to the Mongolian Asiatic realm). Arabs and Iranians do not share the same civilization. It conflates in some areas such as Iraq however. North America is Anglo-saxon but south America is different.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 07:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Iranian genetic

I spent nearly 10 hours editing the genetic part over a week period yet someone managed to undo all my hard work. I looked at various different sources and have attached source for every single one of these changes/claims. My intentions of changing it was to expand the segment and include all possible haplogroups found in various Iranian groups. Here are the main changes and reason why:

1. y-chromosome haplogroup R1a1 is THEORIZED to be Iranian genetic maker. It is based on Kurgan theory, which says that Iranians originated from south of Russia. The main remains in Kurgan Area is from tribe of """"""Scythian""""". However the modern day descendands of Scythians are Ossetians, who are mainly from """"Haplogroup G""", and not R. G is not even close to R. This is a very big flaw in Kurgan theory. Ossetians are originated from southern Russia. Their migration from South east of Russia to Caucus mountain is so recent (due to Mangol Invasion) and is well documented. Furthermore this theory is not supported by linguistic and archeoogical finding. Another problem is that,even assuming Kurgan is the oldest remain of Iranians, how can a language be spread by one specific haplogroup?? I mean were ancient Iranians from a single race?!did they not mixed with any other race? the answer is YES THEY DID MIX WITH OTHER RACES. even in Kurgan Area although the majority of bones have caucasionid structure, there are some that resemble Far-eastern bone structure. Kurgan theory is weak and though not accurate. The only Europeans who appear to have this haplogroups are Slavs. However in old-Europe people, Such as Italians (Romans),Greeks,French, or even Irish/Scotts, who are all anciet Indo-European communities, the proportion is insignificant. some of the very origional peopling of Europe seem to lack such haplogroup. 2. Haplogroup r1a1 is a y-chromosome haplogroup, does it seem reasonable to assume that even if Iranian language was spread around by one specific haplogroup, it was Y-chrom and not mtDNA ? Diagnosing r1a1 is a classic example of sexisim in science.

3. Please check the main article in wikipedia to see the very big short comings of this theory before putting it in Iranian page as origin of "ALL" Iranians. This is a very huge claim. At least if you put it up as an Iranian maker make sure you point out that it is a THEORY, and NOT FACT. I'm not saying that I think R1a1 is or is not Iranian genetic maker, what I'm saying is that it is still not-a-well-supported-theory.

2. so let's imagine that R1a1 is Iranian maker. But what about the rest of us, from central and Western parts of Iranian plateau, and Anatolia??Y-chromosome I, J2 and others appear to be abundant in Kurds, south of Iran and rest. Another thing is that There are many regional exceptions. For example I can't say that Iranians of Iran belong to a single gene pool,such as R1a1, because each city of Iran appears to show differnet dominant haplogroup, although overall they share many common haplogroups. Let's say the frequency of I happening in Tehran is as high as Scandinavia and the Balkans (35%), but it does not mean that a person from south of Iran is from that Haplogroup.

3. I added haplogroup G to genetic section. This is what majority of Ossetians belong to.They are the single direct desendants of Scythians. It is a very important to add this because this haplogroup appear to show up in variety of Middle-eastern and European communities.

4. There was ""NOTHING"" in this section regarding mtDNA of Iranians, and to whom they trace their maternal ancestory. I looked at different studies, but mainly I took it from Spencer Well's study. PLEASE, PLEASE check his work I pretty much copy pasted the main Ideas. The mains Idea in his study is that Iranians maternal ancestory is mainly from western Euroasia, and not from East or southern asia. Kurds, Lurs, Mazandarani, Gilaki and pathans are close to each other. Feel free to expand the maternal section though.

5. when we are talking about Iranians, we are not talking about Iranians of country of Iran or afghanistan. Iranian include Parsis of India, Zaza of Anatolia, Taylash of Caucas, etc. When these people search for their name on wikipedia they see the Iranian connection. so it is only appropriate to add them to the discussion. That is why I added some specific examples and brought up their names, because in the old genetic page the only people included where Iranians of obviously Aryan countries of Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Iran.

6. I have listed every single source that I used, PLEASE check them and READ them.

7. anybody who has an interested/majored in geneology, go ahead and make changes. I did my best to expand the genetic section, but it could use better analysis and further expansion. I do not claim to have written the best piece of genetic literature. But I strongly oppose undoing it to the old page, as it was ridicious and did not even include y-chromosome or mtDNA haplogroups that exists in modern Iranians. it only featured a single haplogroup, and I strongly disagree with such incomplete work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddd0dd (talk • contribs) 23:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I had to reword it since apparantly my fellow Iranians LOVE to have the word Indo-European mentioned in genetic section, although there is something really WRONG with this hypothesis. What bothers me is people are accepting a "hypothesis" as reality and putting it up there as as if it is solid "fact".Ddd0dd (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You writings are:

a) Not supported by the sources you mentioned; apparently, I guess, you are not familiar with genetics and scholastic publications

b) Your edits are based on unencyclopedic selective quoting

c) Your edits give the wrong impression that certain people, you have mentioned, are "pure" and "direct direct descendants" of certain other peoples; based on this wrong assumption, you add your own POV to the article, violating WP:OR.

d) It is not our business to discuss our opposition to your POV writing, since this is an FA! First of all, YOU need to discuss your concerns and ideas BEFORE changing the article and - as it is right now - destroying its FA status!

e) You seem not to be familiar with basic Wikipedia rules and requirements. I frankly ask you to study WP:HELP BEFORE further editing this FA. The way you simply copy edit certain papers etc to the article which do not fit the layout of the article, you do not help to improve the article, but actually destroy it. Tājik (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Please check articles for many other nations,Italians, Dutch, etc. who just either losely mention major haplogroups, or don't mention genetics at all. Haplogroups could be used ONLY to see what percentage of a population belongs to a certain haplogroups, if you really want to be neutral you just have to mention haplogroups, without writing another single word. Everyting else is just "analysis" and could always be contradicted at any given moment. The proposed expansion maps are also "analysis" which today seem reasonable, but tomorrow they could be contradicted.

I have supported every single claim in my proposed changes. Unless you are not able to open these links you should be able to see them. Modern day Iranians are NOT from one haplogroup, although there are similarities, they are various geographical differences. You are telling me that I have selectively quoted. It appears to me that you did not have problem when this selective quote was about 2 isolated Tajik population, who merely count of 0.1% of all Iranian population. If you think that mentioning specific communities is wrong, then it is more appropriate that we eliminate all sentenses including specific Iranian populations. I recommend limiting genetic part to listing haplogroups in Iranians, and do not add analysis or name of "any" Iranian community to prevent such problem. Everything that previously and currently written in genetic part are "claims" and not facts. Genetic studies have very strong limitations. That is why I so strongly oppose to putting a "proven" Iranian maker in the article. Any person with limited knowledge of science knows how "faulty" it is to make such claims from a hypothesis.

I have NOT CALLED OSSETIAN ARE PURE DESCENDANDS OF ALANS, I called them "direct" descendand because they are various other populations in the world that have "indirect" Alan connection, most notably Balkan and many Central Asian nations. "Direct" is in terms of language and historic heritage. Again I have not "claimed" that they are Alans, it is rather a well known fact that they are, like Tajiks having a Persian linkage somewhere along the line. It is a "fact" evident by historic and linguistic factors. G seems to follow their movement in Euroasia. again, It is PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE TO ADD ALL IRANIAN AND THEIR HAPLOGROUPS INTO THE DISCUSSION. Again you did not seem to have a problem when the article only brought up R1a1 and 2 isolated tajik populations. I wonder why. and PLEAse refer to Haplogroup G Y-chrom for a discussion of Ossetians. Ddd0dd (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

the fact about Iranians is that they are not from a single haplogroups. However they are similar haplogroups that are repeated in some populations, notably J2,I, and E3. So what I did is that I first named the haplogroups, then gave examples of communities who appear to have most contribution of it. As I have previously stated I have not written a master piece of scientific art work, but the old genetic section is not complete. the only haplogroup it mentioned was R1a1.

Feel more than more than free and welcome to undo these changes. it is not my "erse baba". I think it would be a good idea to put this part up for "expansion" and "attention of an expert". Ddd0dd (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is your POV and your edits violate WP:OR. Tājik (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

ok, tell me what where you think I violated NOR. is it the percentages that I gave? Please be more specific, and more accurate(e.g. pure ossetians) Again I am aware of the limit of the arguments made, which is a reflection of all scientific papers.I feel that we need to eliminate all the analysis in the genetic section to prevent such conflicts. We should probably just list what haplogroups Iranians belong to and don't even give examples, since each one of the genetic studies coming out of that region seems to give different results.Ddd0dd (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Iranian conncetion of Amazon

First of all they have possible conncetion to Iranians. But if we want to put something like that in introduction to Iranians, we might as well put many other stuff such as Taj Mahal in introduction. At least those connections are based on reality. I'm gonna delete the Amazon part from intro and add to "Eastern Iranian" segment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddd0dd (talk • contribs) 03:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well never mind user Scythian is apparantly too eager to put it in Iranian intro. I still think putting Greek fantacies as Iranian introduction is wrong.Ddd0dd (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? The Scythian 18:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed Amazon from intro, since it is a legend,and the connection is not a established one, it is a possibility.I added it to eastern Iranian. I believe you undid it without saying why. At least this is what is shown in history. Ddd0dd (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You can add that amazon and say by some sources, by minority sources or as a hypothesis or etc. --Wayiran (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You can say that only if you provide good, reliable citations that note it as a hypothesis. Specifically, these cites must note it as a minor theory. Otherwise, we are coloring the reference with our personal opinion, and that is not allowed in Wikipedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne, if someone includes factually wrong information in the article (which, by the way, is an FA), then there is no need for consensus. The section about genetics is now filled with factually wrong information, copied from a scientific paper which the author obviously misinterprets. I have no idea why you have boldly reverted to the wrong and POV version (which also includes original research), but I am sure that you have a good explanation for it. Because right now, you are just about to destroy the FA status of the article! If you think that the current POV and OR in the genetics section is correct, then please provide sources - I want exact quotes! If you can't, then I think it's time to call an administrator for help and protect the page against further edits for a while. Tājik (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that an editor took that info and misrepresented that info, then you are correct, we cannot use that interpretation. Is that what you are suggesting? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am saying. I was the major author of the genetic section, and I needed 2 weeks to go through at least 10 scientific papers and catch the correct information. Almost all other authors misinterpret those sources or they quote selectively. The current version is wrong, it contains pseudo-scientific and misinterpreted information. It has the sole purpose to "prove" that the Kurgan hypothesis is just a "weak theory" (while it is indeed the predominant theory supported by most scholars) and to somehow declare Iran and Iranians as the "origin of the Indo-European peoples". That is simply POV. And the selective quoting is OR. Tājik (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I see now. Thank you for explaining it to me. I tend to revet large-scale edits as a matter of form, especially when it doesn't seem like a lot of discussion took place in regards to them. From your description, it appears that the bad edits were accreting, and my edit reinstalled the crap. My apologies; I will self revert immediately. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope you didn't take my harsh reply as an offense. Regards. Tājik (talk) 11:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

lol did a debate about Iranians being Amazon warriors really just happen? Really? Only on you, Wikipedia! --♥pashtun ismailiyya 21:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Tajik thank you for spending 2 weeks going through the papers. I did not make any "claims" genetic section, I just gave a bunch of ratios. If you did not see percentages then it is not my concern, it is a concern between you and your optometrist. I will not put up the ratios up again,nor will I make any changes to "Indo-European roots", seems pointless to argue with you and tell you that each one of these "scientific papers" are giving a different story. --Ddd0dd (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they do not. I decided to stick to Wells et al., because I consider him to be most reliable. Tajik (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a study done in 2001, with excellent sampling.130 people from south of Iran and 33 of North,where ratio of Iranian living in North/South is 3/1, without mentioning actual areas sampled... I through repeating the same point. --Ddd0dd (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)--Ddd0dd (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not have time to check the latest papers. If you have any, please present them on the TALK PAGE first. 130 samples is OK. The point is that R1 frequency is significantly lower West of the central deserts - it does not matter if it's 2%, 5% or 10% - that's low compared to 65% in the Pamir and up to 70% in Kashmir. Besides that, the reason why your edits were reverted is because the text was written poorly and you added a good amount of your own WP:OR, most of it seemingly nationalistic motivated, to it (especially regarding the Kurgan theory). Tajik (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

comes from a person with no knowledge in science, genetics, or history. It gets better, an ignorant who didn't even read the attacked papers and lie about reading them first, accuses me of POV, an tells me that that they actually didn't read it. You don't even understand genetic terms, so how can you even question it?! I told you in your page,and let me repeat it to you here. As a person with no background in science, you are not aware of difference between theory,hypothesis, and fact. Go ahead, educate yourself before you leave a comment. There are alternative hypothesis regarding Indo-European origin (including Indo-Iranians). One of them is Kurgan ( haplogroup R1a1, """""""or mtDNA haplogroup N"""", it is not only R1a1), Anatolia ( haplogroup G), and eastern Africa (Haplogroup E)there are at least 2 more that are considerable. Even withing hypothesis framework, and even accepting a certain hypothesis are more accurate, origin of none of these haplogroups are certain. For example R could be from Central Asia, India, Iran or most likely Afghanistan. None of these alternatives are mentioned in this article. Until you take a biology course and read some more, please do me and yourself a favour and quit commenting on something you have NO IDEA about what so ever. Please stick to your area of specialty, whatever it is ( I guess it's checking to revert anything that doesn't have the word Tajik it it). It amazes me how you comment so confidently,talking about something that you don't know S/ about, and even aruge about it. --Ddd0dd (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You should try to avoid personal attacks, which might get you - rightfully - banned (WP:PA), keeping in mind that your only purpose is to destroy this article's FA status. Whether you like it or not, the Kurgan hypothesis is the most widely accepted among scholars. And Wikipedia is supposed to present the consensus among scholars. If you want to discuss the validity of the Kurgan hypothesis, then you should go to the respective article, instead of destroying this one.

What I can tell from your writing is, that you do not have much understanding of scientific works. Besides that, your actual aim is stubbornly nationalistic, trying to convince people that the common consensus among scholars is wrong and that Indo-European people "originated in Iran". Tajik (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This would be my last reply to you 1.Genetic section has been under criticism for a long time, just check other discussions. Most of what is posted there is written by people with no knowledge of anything science, since it mentions there is a "proven" Indo-Iranian maker.2.Attack?! really?! It's the truth: you are frocefully pushing your ideas on subjects that are out of your reach and your knowledge. You are completly ignorant about scientific matters, yet come here, lie about reading these papers, and then accuse others of POV and attacking you, and then easily dismiss everything others write on basis that this user doesn't know what they are talking about. First of all you haven't even read most of those papers. Second even if you read them you don't understand what they say! tell me, what does conventional phenol-chloroform method mean?! You in no way, shape or form are capable of commenting about other's skills and abilities in an area that you have 0 understanding of. And trust me this is not a personal attack, this is simply a reminder to you to stop making changes to articles that you have limited knowledge of. This page is not your "erse baba". 3.At least I had the curtsy to respect other's opinions ( to be specific YOURS! eventhough you have no idea what you are talking about)and to not enforce my ideas when there was a concern. I probably should had enforced my ideas against yours, but then it was never my intention to worsen this article or get into edit wars I care about what is written in this page and how accurate they are. I want someone with qualifications and knowledge and understanding of subject matter to comment on genetic section. Therefore I'm just gonna cut this nonsense as I'm through with this useless argument, and wait to have a constructive one with that qualified person mentioned previously. Good day to you.--Ddd0dd (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The word "proven" is not my invention, it is a direct quote from the scientific paper (Wells et al.) - if you had read them, you would know that. Besides that, you do not have to teach me anything about biochemistry. I am a medical doctor and wrote my dissertation in molecular pathology and cancer research. I know how to work with PubMed, Source, Ensamble or UniProt. And you certainly do not have to lecture me about PCE or any other extraction methods. If you want to discuss the validity of the Kurgan hypothesis, then please feel free to discuss it in the respective article. This article is about Iranian peoples. Tajik (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Demography of Turkey

I have reverted the changes regarding Turkey. I think that sources should be presented. Tājik (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, I didn't see any source in previous version? Anyway, the sources are present in Zaza people article. As for Kurds, it's unpublished synthesis in the infobox. -- Mttll (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

new map

The new map on Iranian languages has some major mistakes. I have already contacted its creator, but I just want to mention that it is based on an earlier version made by de:User:Postmann Michael, a banned user of the German Wikipedia known for creating factually wrong maps. Just an example: the proportions given for Afghanistan totally contradict official numbers and most scholarly sources. Kabul and the Panjsher Valley, for example, two of the major centers of the Tajik community, are shown as Pashto speaking. Uzbek- and Persian-speaking areas in the north, where the Pashtun population is a tiny minority, is also shown as Pashto-speaking. The proportions in Iran are also wrong. Zabol, for example, is shown as Baluch-speaking. I suggest to remove or to replace the map. Tajik (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Pashtuns

Aren't the Pashtuns part of the Iranian race? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.161.174 (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Pashtuns speak an Eastern Iranian language, as noted in the article. The term "race" is incorrect terminology and its use is extremely frowned upon by most contemporary anthropologists, please see the article on racial theory. I looked at the Iranian peoples article right now and found that mention of Pashtuns was deleted at least a couple times, once by User:Tajik where it was stated it was a Middle Iranian language, and once where it was deleted from a list of Iranian peoples. Tajik was right about the first edit, and I'm not sure who made the second edit but I've returned the information. Originally the information contained Ghilzai and Muhammadzai as subgroups, however these are tribes like almost all the other groups have, and cannot be considered as different as Tajiks are from Aimaks/Hazara. However, Tajik and I are currently discussing this so I'll tell him to input his opinions, or at least a temporary solution. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 17:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Iranian vs Iranic vs Persian

Every article relating to the Persian Empire, people or cultures, has now been replaced by "Iranic/Iranian." While many may not differentiate between "Persian" and "Iranian," its actually so controversial and even offensive. If you read any wikipedia article relating to this topic, you might think that the current country of Iran laid the foundation to everything of "Persian" origin. While you might argue which term came first, "Persian" should definitely be used instead of Iranian. One simple fact is there are numerous countries, cultures and ethnicities whose origins are "Persian" and there is only one country whose people are actually called "Iranian." So, if you call the origin of all the rest nations to be Iranian, it is almost if you were saying that the current country of Iran is superior to all others and they are the founders of the rest nations culture! While in reality, Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and other countries all share the same origin, and none of them can claim to be the founders of their culture. I realize this has been a long, long debate, especially for English speakers, Iranian and Persian are just not interchangeable both ways. It seems pretty logical, but somehow people go out of their way to replace every word "Persian" to "Iranian."

So I say, as a Persian, that we reserve the term "Iranian" exclusively to everything related to the currently existing country of Iran, and "Persian" to everything related to the Persian Empire, which Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and other countries, as well as Iran belonged to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.52.24 (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Tajikistan and Uzbekistan belong to the Iranian or Iranic civilization. they were most of the time not part of Persian Empires if you by that mean a predecessor of contemporary Iran. Azerbaijan republic, Armenia , Bahrain were. Secondly Persian means 1- Persian speakers of Iran or ethnic Fars 2- Inhabitants of Southwestern Iran called Persia (Ostan-e Fars0, they speak many iranic and Turkic languages 3- Persian people in the historic context refer to people who used Persian as lingua Franca and belonged to the Iranic culture. European languages used the term persian rather than Iranian. IRANIC or Iranian languages are a language family. persian is only one of them. Please do not revert these terms.I think most of confusion comes from the fact that the Iranian TV channels in Los Angeles use the term Persian instead of Iranian. this comes as inferiority complex but also avoid negative prejudices by Americans there.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference to the Tocharians in the section 'History and Settlement'

"The Saka, Scythian, and Tocharian tribes spread as far west as the Balkans and as far east as Xinjiang"

The above statement with reference to the Tocharians taken from the section 'History and Settlement' is at best inappropriate and confusing, at worst grossly inaccurate. The Tocharians are most definitely not an Iranian people (Ref. JP Mallory et al.). In my view this reference to the Tocharians is best omitted.

The history of the Tocharians in the Tarim Basin, as well as their languages, is well-documented. This reference should either be removed or clarified via (an) appropriate footnote(s) referring to relevant academic works or articles. Appropriate cross-references to Wiki-articles which deal with the Tocharians should be included. Geoff Powers (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. However, I do not think that it's necessary to remove the word. Instead, a short note should be inserted, explaining that they were a related Indo-European group. Tajik (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Without wishing to appear pedantic, I consider the sentence I quoted to be a tautology, implying that the Tocharians were somehow 'mixed up with' Iranian tribes (Sarmatians, i.e. Iazyges, Roxolani, etc.), subsequently migrating with the latter to the Balkans, when in fact the range of activity of the Tocharians was very narrowly concentrated in East Central Asia. As I suggested above, this reference to the Tocharians should therefore be deleted.Geoff Powers (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

rv

I have reverted an IP anon who had placed a link to Irano-Afghan race on top of the article. Tajik (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have, again, reverted an anon IP who had deleted a large section without any further explanation. Tajik (talk) 08:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

inclusion of all people of "Iran"

Have you seen [19]? can not we add those who are living inside/near Iran but are not linguistically Iranian?--Exerting (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC) To clarify, I should say no, that is why this page is not called PEOPLE OF IRAN.--Exerting (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"Semitic roots"

I have removed the section "Semitic roots". First of all, because it is a misinterpretation of the source (it talks of Afro-Asiatic, while - in fact - the major people in the region prior to the Aryan dominance were the Elamites. Secondly, the info was not new. The quote is used in the next paragraph ("Indo-European roots"), explaining that scholars favor the "elite dominance" model and consider the central deserts of Iran as "barriers". Tajik (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The person apparently does not know WP:3rr and WP:UNDUE. An article is not supposed to mention all possible theories. I suggest complete removal of anything related to non-established writers according to first sentence of WP:POV:"The article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue.". That writer is certyainly not among "the main scjolars".--Xashaiar (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wells is a good source, but he has already been mentioned - the very same article. SOPHIAN is misinterpreting Wells. He has not added anything new to the article. He is actually falsifying the source, pushing for his own POV. I suggest to restore the last stable version. Tajik (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

But the claims taken from wells contradicts rest of article. (Which you say has been misrepresented). So according to User:SOPHIAN's inclusion all the theories about immigrations are false. Please restore the stable version. --Xashaiar (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The "elite dominance" theory is the leading theory among scholars. The "Aryan dominance" established Iranian languages in the region, but the genetic influence was - in comparison - small. That is a very natural and normal phenomenon. However, SOPHIAN's claim, that the population has "Semitic origins", is POV. The population of the region dates back to many thousand years ago, and the Semitic influence was just another period in that long history. Many other groups, some of them still very mysterious, existed there, including Sumerians and related peoples, Elamties, Dravidians, etc. All of them shaped the so-called Mediterranean people of which the Iranian peoples are a part. However, due the the very early influence of Indo-Europeans, a genetic influence cannot be ignored. The number of Indo-European nomads was relatively small compared to the authochtonous population, but not as striking as in later times, such as the Mongol invasion. SOPHIAN should be reverted. Tajik (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have re-removed the section. It's undo weight given to a single source, which is already covered elsewhere in the article. User:SOPHIAN should get a WP:consensus before attempting to re-introduce this redundant material with a misleading section header. --Kurdo777 (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, I am not an expert on the issue, but I think we should get rid of the entire Genetics section. It's racialist material that serves no real purpose, and is not a necessary component to a page that's about an ethnolinguistic grouping. What does everyone else think? --Kurdo777 (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I basically agree with removal of all "bloody things" from wikipedia. So I agree with your proposal.--Xashaiar (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree. Population genetics is a serious, scientific field and should be covered in the article. But the recent changes by SOPHIAN (talk · contribs) are misinterpretations and POV. He is also stubbornly ignoring the talk-page and Wiki-rules such as WP:3RR. Tajik (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Genetic evidence proves Iranians (from Iran) have 2 genetic sources Semitic and so called Indo-European with semitic origin being much larger why have section on smaller group without having section on larger group? The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 05:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue of Elamites is already covered in due proportion, you're misinterpreting a source, please get a consensus for your edit. --Wayiran (talk) 07:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

@ SOPHIAN: "Indo-European" and "Semitic" are not proper names for genetic analysis. The reason why the last section is named "Indo-European roots" is because of the fact that modern Iranian peoples are - by definition - Indo-Europeans and that we want to examine if they are also the descendants of the earliest Indo-European speakers. All other roots, such as Semitic, Altaic, Dravidian, etc. are irrelevant. The paper quoted in the article (Wells, 2001) is not speaking of "Semitic peoples" but of "Mesopotamians". It's an undisputed fact that early Mesopotamians - Semitic and Non-Semitic (Elamites, Sumerians, etc) - had large populations in Western Iran. Using that paper to "prove" that modern Iranian peoples have "Semitic roots" is totally POV. Not only does it ignore the important pre-Aryan Elamite population (which is more important than the Semitic peoples), but also ignores the fact that the Iranian peoples living east of the central deserts (making up more than 50% of the Iranian peoples) had much lesser genetic imprints from Mesopotamia. Even today, more than 3000 years later, the R1a1 frequency among the eastern population is up to 50%. Tajik (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Amazing how the genetic section is written based on an 8 year old paper. Is there any newer paper this article could use?--74.12.101.44 (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Iranians are NOT semitic. While there are some Arab Iranians and Arabs living in Iran, the majority of Iranians who are ethnic Iranians are Aryan. Many scholars believe that these Elamites were either mostly wiped out or pushed out of Iran into Iraq, which was under the Persian Empire for a while. Majority of Northern and Central Iranians are Aryan. You have some Arabs living in Iran or are Arab-descent Iranians by nationality only - not ethnic Iranians. Trust me, you can tell the difference in race. And most Iranians do not race mix. While most people in the world have some mixture, it is still maybe 13% or less (mostly Asian blood). Cyrus the Great even allowed the Jews to live under the empire in isolation, under his protection (human rights). Some Iranians are a mixture of Nordic, Mediterranean, Alpine, etc. Like some of their Eastern European cousins, there is some asian admixture. There are separate mongolian descent Iranians in the far East, and people who are descendent of slaves (blacks) living in Southern Iran - deep south. I myself am of Haplogroup HV2, which is a European group and Mediterranean group. Macedonians, Greeks, Iranians, Austrians, Anatolians (White Turks), as well as Basques and Eastern Europeans are part of this group. Germans today call Iranians "brother". Many southern Germans, especially are mostly Alpine as well. There are a lot more mediterranean and Alpine Iranians than Nordic, but it's there. Greeks, Celts, Iranians, Northern Indians, Slavs, Germans, etc. are genetic cousins. It is also said that Croatians are closely related like the Greeks. Many Celts also passed through Northern Iran. Celts are closely related to Basque people.--69.149.75.198 (talk) 07:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The north nostratic indo-european marker is haplotype J2,J1 is south nostratic semitic marker and R is very old pre-nostratic=Dene-Caucasian.

The north nostratic indo-european marker is haplotype J2,J1 is south nostratic semitic marker and R is very old pre-nostratic=Dene-Caucasian.

But of course Iranians are linguistically a mix and creolisation of proto-indoeuropean Iranic mixed and spoken by Dene-Caucasian speaking R haplogroup carriying persons.

R haplogroup is found everywhere in the world ans it's very ancient. Humanbyrace (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Article Scope

What is the scope of this article? Is it Iranian as in the people of Iran or Iranic as in an ethno-linguistic sense? The article is confusing since it seems to jump between the two. For example it includes Azeris who are a people of Iran therefore Iranian in a political sense but also includes Kurds of Turkey who are not Iranian in a political sense but Iranic ethnolinguistically. It also includes Uzbeks who are neither Iranian politically nor ethno-linguistically. One could argue it is cultural but that is highly dubious associating generic shared practises of different peoples to a State.
If it is political, then it should only include those peoples associated with the Republic of Iran and remove those outwith the political boundaries of Iran
If it is ethnic then it should be renamed to Iranic peoples and remove the non-Iranic peoples from the article
If it is cultural then it shouldn't be called Iranian. Xaghan (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hazaras?

Hazaras are a turko-mongol people. How can they be iranians if they are descended from Genghis Khan??? If a family of black africans move to afghanistan and they speak farsi they would still be black africans.Time Buddha (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

and why is the pakistani controlled region of kashmir shown as part of india on the following map?

File:Moderniranianlanguagesmap.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Time Buddha (talk • contribs) 17:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

double standard by user:Tajik

in this edit by User:Tajik, i noticed it was about a section which stated that azeris were iranian peoples even though they speak turkic language because they descend from iranians. On the article Hazaras, User:Tajik has been pushing POV edits on how hazaras are iranian peoples and he says on the talk page that its because they just speak iranian language even though they descend from mongols.Time Buddha (talk) 04:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Peoples doesn't make sense

Please change it to "people" otherwise "PEOPLE" wouldn't even bother themselves to read this article. Also Iranian is not an ethnic group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.153.45 (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)