Talk:Persians/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Persian People!?

Ok, I normally stay out of things I don't know about, but I reckon if I was from Persia, I'd want a better name than "Persian People!" That's just my opinion, but I reckon it should be worked on ASAP.
I realise it's also the name of a cat, but "Persians" sounds Ok, for the time being. At least, it's less offensive than "Persian People". Wikipedia would not start an article on "Black People", as that is a very unpolite term. Instead, "African Amercians" is better. Just my opinion. Scalene 08:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Archived

This page was too long and has been archived. See Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page. Do not bring back all the discussions, but only the ones that are necessary. Aucaman^Talk 18:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed dispute

Reverted Arhive - you can't while dispute is still going and there has been significant efforts to stop it. I have tried to add the comments back, but its got a little messy and I dont know the proper way of fixing it. I blame Aucaman for archiving it all of a sudden, if an admin knows the best way to fix this all up, feel free to do so. --Kash 12:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the dispute tag until Aucaman who is single-handedly challenging the world on this matter, can simply explain what it is, that he is disputing. --Kash 11:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think he doesn't want the word Aryan used, or at not used without some caveat that it is now considered offensive outside Iran and India. Zora 12:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The mediation is still open at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-02_Persian_people, where majority are in favour of using this term. There has been no users reporting that they find it offensive so far. I don't understand why anyone would. It has nothing to do with Nazi Germany. --Kash 12:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kash. We have provided countless references that the term "Aryan" IS NOT offensive, period. The term is used by many Western scholarly sources in relation to Iran and Iranians--ManiF 12:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC).

Using the term as an ethnicity is different to racism. We have said nothing about Jews, or even about Aryans being superior or anything like that. That was all Nazi propoganda. If he can't appreciate this, then it is his problem. Majority of users on the mediation have agreed that it has nothing to do with racism. --Kash 12:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, sounds fair.Zmmz 17:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

I'd suggest some formulation on the order of:

Persians have traditionally referred to themselves as Aryans, or the Noble people. The Sassanids called the heart of their empire Eranshar, Land of the Noble. The recent Pahlavi dynasty revived the term "Eran" or "Iran", insisting that this name was preferable to the "Persia" then being used by the European powers.

In the 19th and early 20th century, the term Aryan was much in vogue among Western linguists and ethnologists, as describing the peoples believed to have spread the Indo-European languages from Europe to India. German ethnologists elaborated theories claiming that Germany was the original home of the Aryans, who were a tall, blond, warrior people. These theories were adopted by the Nazis, who claimed to be defending the Aryan race from lesser races. The Nazi use of Aryan so discredited the word that it has been dropped from the acceptable vocabulary of Western science. It survives only in the compound "Indo-Aryan", used to describe the Indian branch of the Indo-European languages, and possibly, by extension, the people who spoke these languages.

The Persians, however, were using the word before it had a European vogue, and have continued to use it even after it has fallen out of favor in Western academia. Westerners who encounter the term are often jarred by the everyday use of a term that has evokes visions of genoicide for Westerners. Iranian social scientists, historians, and other researchers avoid the term when they are communicating with scientists outside Iran.

I'd suggest that you put that at the beginning, or something like that, and then use Persian instead of Aryan. I think "Aryan" should be mentioned, but insisting on using it frequently is counter-productive. Iranians may believe that it should NOT have those connotations, but it does. You can't change language by fiat. Accept that Westerners are going to be uncomfortable and do as the Iranian researchers do: avoid the term that raises people's hackles. Zora 12:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora is completely wrong here because the exact opposite case is true. Aryan is used in the Academic sense. See the Encyclopedia Iranica enteries on Aryan and Arya. (Articles 1631 and 1637) by two of them most eminent Iranian linguists of all times (Sir Harold Baily and Rudiger Schmitt). The funny thing is pan-Kurdist people like Heja use the EI and extrapolate facts that are not there, but yet when it comes to Aryans, he denies the same source. This is dishonesty in its purest form. (note I removed some comments on pan-Kurdists that had nothing to do with the article and I appreciate it if people do not change my own comments.). As per the word Aryan, I urge people to read the articles by the eminent scholar Asko Parapola[1]. I have written on this issue of Aryans in the previous page. The fact of the matter is that Emil Beneviste considers this term to purely ethnic in the Old-Iranian sense. Furthemore the Greek inscription of Shapur clearly calls him the King of the Arya Ethnos. See the article on Eran Shahr in the Encyclopedia Iranica: "http://www.iranica.com/articles/v8f5/v8f545.html" as well. All this is sufficient proof enough that the Aryans were an ethnic group who are the linguistic and cultural ancestors of modern Iranians (speakers). Also racially, the arab and turkic invasion did not have much effect on Iranians and so we can assume that Iranians are mainly of Aryan+pre-Aryan stock. There is no way anyone can deny the high academic standard of Encyclopedia Iranica and eminent scholars like Asko Parapola and Gerhad Gnoli (see the book 'the idea of Iran'). For example look at this recent article (Parpola, Asko, 1988. The coming of the Aryans to Iran and India and the cultural and ethnic identity of the Dasas. Studia Orientalia 64: 195-302. Helsinki: The Finnish Oriental Society.). And as per the comment of Zora, Professor Parpola is not just a linguist. His work encompasses "archaeology, historical linguistics, history, cultural anthropology, and historical population genetics." and he is a major Academic with many refrenced articles. In fact it is safe to say that he is the top researcher in topics dealing with Aryans. When you have published a single article like that of Prof. Parpola, then please argue that Aryans were not a group of people. But today Aryans are the primarily linguistic/cultural/racial ancestors of modern Iranians. Here is another recent article by Professor Gerhad Gnoli of Italy that uses the term Aryan clearly in the Academic sense: [2] . I request all debates about the historical validity of Aryans be removed since it is used frequently in Academia to refer to the ancient Iranian Persians and Medes. --Ali doostzadeh 06:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

C'mon, you guys aren't academics and you don't seem to read academic books. Here I've got two anthropology degrees, and I'm telling you that Aryan is deprecated; the WP article on Aryan is telling you that it's deprecated; Aucaman is telling you that he finds it offensive. I found this quote from an academic talking about the Indian use of Aryan...

“Why should it be so important that the Aryans … have been in the subcontinent since all eternity? That would come close to the Blut and Boden ideology of Nazism, with its Aryan rhetoric. Why the xenophobia? Does he really not see the parallel between Nazi attacks on synagogues in the 1930's and what happened in Ayodhya on December 6th?” (Zydenbos 1993) -- from a book by Edwin Bryant, Oxford University Press, 2000.

Mention Aryan and people think of Nazis. Now you guys can bluff and bluster and say that you don't care, you'll use the word if you want but -- isn't that kind of counter-productive if you want encyclopedia readers to LIKE Persians? Do you really want them to think of Nazis when they think of Tehran? That's why I suggested making it clear that while Iranians routinely use the word, academics outside Iran use Proto-Indo-Iranian for the original peoples and Persian or Iranian for later groups. Zora 14:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Who isn't an academic? You're not the only around here with a masters and it would be nice if you could stop making assumptions about others and whether or not they have a university degree. For a person who allegedly adheres to liberalism, you really do seem to enjoy this air of superiority that you feel a university degree grants you, though apparently you do not have a doctorate. SouthernComfort 15:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

To Zora

Your response shows that you do not have enough decency to admit you are wrong. On the contrary I have read many articles and books by eminent Western Scholars. You can ask anyone in the field and Professor Asko Parapola [3] is the top researcher in the field of anthropological and archeological origins of the Aryans. You have zero publications whereas he has several hundered.

The people that wrote the Encyclopedia Iranica articles on "Arya" and "Aryan" have hundreds of publications. YOU HAVE ZERO.

Aryan(Iranian) has nothing to do with being offensive. It is just variant pronounciation of Iran.

1) Herodotus calls the Medes as Aryan.

2) Several Old Persian inscriptions call Persians Aryans.

3) Moses of Khoren the Armenian historian collectively calls Medes, Parthians, Persians as Aryans.

4) Kanishka at the Ratabak call his language Aryan.

5) The Avesta is full of this word being used in the ethnic sense. [4]

If I have to, I will copy & paste every single mentioning of this word, I will. But please read the link above and be honest.

6) The title Aryan is used in many Parthian names: Aryashahr, AryaSakht, AryaFarnak..

7) The Sassanid Greek and Parthian inscriptions used Aryan equivalently to the middle Persian "Eran". Furthermore Shapurs Greek inscription says "ego ... tou Arianon ethnous despotes eimi" ( I am the king of the Aryan people). How much more clearer do you want?

8) 10th century historian Hamzeh Esfahani. In his famous book “the history of Prophets and Kings” he writes: “Aryan which is also called Pars is in the middle of these countries and these six countries surround it because the South East is in the hands China, the North of the Turks, the middle South is India, the middle North is Rome, and the South West and the North West is the Sudan and Berber lands”.

9) You lack academic credentials relatove to Profesor Parapola, Professor Frye, Professr Baily, Professor Witzel, Professor Gerhard Gnoli and Professor Rudiger Schmitt amongst many other great scholas that freely use this term without any political pressure. I will say it clearly. A nameless person like Zora has zero weight compared to such great scholars.

10) The eminent linguist Emile Benviste asserts that the Old Iranian Arya is documented solely as an ethnic name. This is unlike the old Indian.

So you lose in all counts. I would appreciate the help of Iranian and non-Iranian friends who care about Academic honesty so that we may legally deal with this issue through Wikipedia, because these people have absolutely no proof for any of their arguments and can not refute any of the above claims. With the above historical facts, there is no challenge. Ali doostzadeh 16:08, 8 March 2006

Dispute

Once again, all my edits to this article as being indiscriminantly reverted without any explanation. What does it mean for Persians to be "Aryan decendents"? Firstly, it's grammatically incorrect. Second, Aryan is not a race. What does this even mean? Aucaman^Talk 20:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman: The mediation case is about resolving the dispute. Please don't put it in the archive yet. Archive pages are not for ongoing discussions. --Fasten ^talk|med 21:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

See Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-02_Persian_people

Whatever

Zora, shut your mouth. You know nothing. Aryan isn't even pronounced "air-yan." You say it ARE-EE-EN. I GUESS ARYANS BETTER MAKE UP A NEW NAME FOR THEIR PEOPLE CAUSE SOME JERKS FIND IT OFFENSIVE. Just because the Germans got confused and decided that Aryan means nothing. Zora, you are an idiot. Don't speak. Aryans live primarily in Iran and Northern India and also in Pakistan and Afghantistan. However, none of these countries are monoracial, so being from there doesn't mean you're an Aryan. If Aryan isn't a racial term THAN WHAT DID ARYANS USED TO CALL THEMSELVES, EH? What racial term did they use? Did they call themselves "indo-iranians" or the foreign word "persian," eh? See?!?! You're a moron. Go swallow a frisbee and die. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.240.225 (talk • contribs) --Fasten 11:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Fasten, I totally agree with you. I am from north india where the Aryans preside. Yet whenever I say Aryan, people think German. Yet not many people recognize that even Adolf Hitler adopted our Hindu swastika.-Whizkidravi 10:47, 15 May 2006

Academic use or non-use of the word Aryan

Again another article which uses the word Aryan profusely: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/EJVS-7-3.pdf

The claim by some of these people that Aryan(which means Iran) has no use in Academia is totally debunked again and again. Also not only proto-Indo-Iranians, but old persians, medes,.. and etce called themselves Aryans and were referred to as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.62.234 (talk • contribs)

Again this is an excellent article and proves why anti-Iranians like Zora are completely wrong. Check out page 3. The article is from Harvard Professor and it shows that Zora is belligerently anti-Iranian due to the fact that she claims she knows more than Harvard Professors, Encyclopedias and many different scholars. I request the mediator to read this article and put an end to this aryan contorversy in this topic.

--Ali doostzadeh 07:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Aryan tribes

That's really not a good phrase to use, because it is so horribly ambiguous in English. The word "Aryan" was coined to represent the people who were the speakers of proto-Indo-European (PIE, to use the contemporary shorthand). Scholars have been arguing about the homeland of the Aryans for two hundred years. At the end of the 19th century, German scholars insisted that all PIE-speakers came from an ancestral stock in ... Germany, and that the proper Aryan was tall and blond. This belief came to horrible fruition with the Nazis and is now avoided, if possible.

I have been furiously reading archaeological, genetic, and linguistic texts in the last few days. The current belief seems to be that the PIE speakers were probably steppe peoples (Kurgan culture? Sintashta-Arkaim culture?) who mingled with folks from the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex, in the Urals and Central Asia, and then split, with one branch moving along the edge of the steppes towards Europe, and another branch, the Indo-Iranians, moving down through central Asia and then splitting into Iranians and Indo-Aryans. Witzel puts the home of the tribes, when still combined, as the central plateau of Afghanistan, from which they flowed in both directions.

In Persian and Sanskrit, the ancestors are Aryans. We can't use that word without explication in English, because it was annexed for the proto-Indo-Europeans. All we can say is that the original Iranians called themselves Aryans, and that term is still preserved in Persian. All this fuss and misery because people don't realize that the same sound, in two different languages, can have very different meanings. Zora 08:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Read page 3, it is very very clear on who is Aryan. End of discussion. Also you claimed that the term is not used in the Academia and you still have not recanted your statement. Perhaps you think Harvard is not part of the academic world :))) --Ali doostzadeh 16:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No, we cannot say the ....original Iranians called themselves Aryans, because that would be implying that they may have been imposters, or burrowed the word. If the encyclopedias say the Aryans who settled in the Iranian plateau, others, should not attempt to tell an entire civilization what they should call themselves.Zmmz 08:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Most Iranians call themselves Iranian, not Aryan. So why not call them Iranians? I study Middle Persian and the word "Ērān šahr" is frequently used by the writers. You never see the world Arya (although Eran, which would later be Iran, is derived from it). Arya was only used in Avestan and some Old Persian writings. Aucaman^Talk 08:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually in middle Parthian, it is Aryan Shahr. Also Hamza Esfahani mentions that "Aryan which is the country of Parsi.." (I have quoted this already in the above. The point is that both Iranian and Aryan should be mentioned and the correct meaning of Aryan should be conveyed to everyone so that some racist Nazis or others do not take advantage of it, since it has nothing to do with them.--Ali doostzadeh 16:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about middle Persian. Read the article's name. We're talking about Persians here, not Parthians. The fact that "Arya" was already dropped from the Persian language in middle Persian shows that its reintroduction into the language was probably intentional. Also read this by Ehsan Yarshater. It shows how the Nazis were instrumental in the introduction of racialist-nationalist phrases into the Persian language. Aucaman^Talk 20:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The modern Persian language is actually a mixture of middle Parthian and middle Persian(Pahlavik) and both of these languages are merely dialects of each other. Actually Parthian had a great influence since the modern Persian language evoloved from Khorasan. And the term "Ary" was not dropped but just merely pronounciated as "Ir". The fact of the matter is that the Greek translation of Shapours inscription mentions "Aryan ethnos" as as direct translation of Iranian people. The Parthian also uses Aryan instead of Iran. The fact of the matter is that the Indo-Iranians did not consider themselves "indo-Iranians" but they called themselves Aryans. The fact of the matter is that the Old Persians like Dairus called themselves Aryan. The word Aryan is also attested in the 10 century A.D. history book by Hamza Esfahani. It is replete in the Avesta. Since the old Persians called themselves Aryans, then the term should be kept. You can't change history because of personal taste. Darius the King says: By the favor of Ahuramazda this is the inscription which I made. Besides, it was in Aryan, and on clay tablets and on parchment it was composed. Again Darius the King said: I am Darius the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage. (http://www.avesta.org/op/op.htm) And in the Elamite inscription Ahura Mazda is called the God of the "Hariyans". And since other people like Armenians, Greeks and etc. called Iranians as Aryans, then the term is fully relavent to the article. In fact by introducing the correct manner that this historical term was used, then all so called nazi based theories will be made irrelavent since the modern Germans are not a descendant of Aryans. And by the way I.M. Diakonoff in his book the history of Medes said: "The only people that can be called Aryan and were called by others as Aryan are the Persians, Medes, Iranians of Central Asia (Khawarazmians, Parthians, Soghdians, Bactrian..), Indians and Scythians". So the article has nothing to do with Jews, WWII, Germans and etc. The ancient Persians were a branch of Aryans and the term is fully relavent to the article. Iran also means the land of Aryans and in Parthian it is called Aryan and in Greek it is called Ariana (Strabo). All these facts can not be brushed under the carpet because of modern political reasons. Fact of the matter is the evidence for the term is overwhelming and many scholars like Rudiger Schmitt, Prof. Witzel, Prof. Frye, Prof. Diakonoff, Prof. Beneviste, and others have used it. --69.86.16.239 03:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That article does not say anything about 'reintroduction of racialist-nationalist phrases into the Persian language'. It says how Iran told all the other countries to call us by the name 'Iran', which was already the name of the country in its own language.

There was no introduction of any phrases in to the language. The language was there, the 'phrase' (I am guessing you are referring to IRAN here), was already the name of the country in the Persian language. Sure, the reason behind telling other countries was to call us by the proper name, which was ofcourse to do with the Aryanism in Iran, but this was no introduction in to the Persian language, it was introduction of an old name to outside world --Kash 22:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That is misleading and inaccurate. Most Iranians refer to their ancestors, heritage, and ethnicity as that of Arya, or in english Aryan; much like the Bostonians of America calling themselves the Yankees. Zmmz 08:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No the use of the word "Aryan" is more misleading than anything I've said here. You cannot deny the fact that most Iranians simply call themselves Iranians. Aucaman^Talk 09:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

They call themselves Iranian, thats their nation. The point our friend Zmmz is making here is the fact that they refer to their ancestors as the Aryans. You can't deny this, Aucaman. --MysticRum 15:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That's why we are trying to reach a sensible compromise, e.g.

Proto-Indo-Iranians, historically also referred to as Aryan (arya-), a name still in modern use in Iran and India

A wording that doesn't deny the use of the name in Iran and, possibly, India but also casts some doubt on its use in english academic publications. The german wikipedia article, for example, states that Indo-Europeans are no longer referred to as Arier and that the hypothetical speakers of the Proto-Indo-European_language are referred to as Proto-Indo-Europeans. The german equivalent of the word Aryan has dropped out of academic usage as well, as it seems. It could be that the word has a different connotation, even when used in english publications, in Iran or India - so please be careful in refuting use of the word entirely as well as in demanding its use categorically. --Fasten ^talk/med 18:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Fasten, thanks for your efforts to reach a compromise. Is there any (Non-Iranian) source which talks about the origins of Iranians and does not mention the Aryan tribes? because 'historically' sounds like we are talking hundreds of years ago. --Kash 22:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Fasten, I`m sorry but do you feel like it is appropriate to tell an entire culture and ethnicity to what to call themselves, or use a watered-down, wishy-washy language to describe their ancestors just because one or two users here don`t like that word? Can you imagine telling for example the Pols what or how to call themselves?Zmmz 23:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I would thank you for not calling me a Teuton. The modern description of the ethnicity of Iranians is Iranian, not Aryan but I don't claim to know the modern use of the word Aryan in Iran. You should, however, consider the possibility that different subcultures use the word differently. It is often the case that native words or translations of native words are used differently from mainstream use among english speaking persons of the same nationality. If Iranian people use the english word Aryan to refer to their ancestors that may differ from western academic usage of the word. According to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight both views should be represented. I don't think many Americans are offended that in german an Amerikaner is, besides the nationality, also a very large cookie. --Fasten 11:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This article should be read by everyone

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/EJVS-7-3.pdf It is by a major academian. Page 3 is very clear. I request such scholarly articles should be used in all discussions that deal with the Aryans. --Ali doostzadeh 08:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about a very specific thing here. If they're Iranians, then they should be called Iranians. Aucaman^Talk 09:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Before discussing the content in detail let's please ask if the credibility of this source is accepted by all parties in the dispute? --Fasten ^talk/med 15:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. Not only because the person is from Harvard, but he is one of the foremost scholar on ancient Iranian and Indian languages. Also I have even lost track of what the dispute is, but I think a mention of Aryan is necessary. It is actually helpful to people that claim anti-racist cause, since it will deprive right-wing racist Nazis of such a term.

--Ali doostzadeh 16:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As much as I would like to discuss with you how that deprivation would be accomplished that is beside the point here. I would like to hear the position of Zmmz, Kash, ManiF and Aucaman, as some of the noisiest contributors to the dispute. --Fasten ^talk/med 17:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I will just say one word on why it deprives them. Basically it shows that the term Arya/Aryan is exclusively used and attested in Iranian and Indian literature. That automaticalyl delegitimizes people that claim they are from the "pure Aryan race" when infact they do not speak Aryan languages. That is a poor Gypsy in Europe is more Aryan than a German!

(Ali Doostzadeh).

Ali, did you read the article? He puts Aryan in quotes, as a sign that he's not claiming to believe the idea ("scare quote") and on pages 3-4, he says:

However, the use of the word Ārya or Aryan to designate the speakers of all Indo-European (IE) languages or as the designation of a particular "race" is an aberration of many writers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and should be avoided. At least from Neolithic times onwards, language had little to do with "race"; language also cuts across ethnic groups and cultures, and had little to do with ancient states or with nationhood, as the use of Aramaic in the Persian empire, Latin in Medieval Europe and Persian in much of the Near East and in medieval India may indicate.

The article does not in fact support your position. Zora 18:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is a different article and there is no quotes. Read page 3 totally. "The term Arya is the self designation of ancient Iranians... The ancient Iranians too called themselves ariia.. and the name of the country Iran is derived from the word itself. Speakers of Aryans..compromise the following culturally diverse group: West Iranians , Ancient medes, the modern Kurds, Baluchis and Persians as well as the Tajiks. Now where is the so called quotes you keep talking about it. The article is replete with the word Aryan. Even the title has no quotes. It is an article "Autochthonous Aryans? The evidence from Old Indian and Iranian tests". The word Aryan is used 350 times in this article, virtually none of them without quotes and yet you had the audacity to claim that is not used in the Academia! I am inclined to believe that you are here just for the sake of arguing . (Ali Doostzadeh)

Can we, please, agree on the credibility of the source before we use it to argument for either side? --Fasten ^talk/med 18:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a credible article. Ali is just misinterpreting it. I followed the link he gave, I read the article, I copied the quote warning against careless use of Aryan on pages 3 and 4. I'm perfectly willing to accept Fasten's proposed compromise. Zora 18:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This is what you quoted. However, the use of the word Ārya or Aryan to designate the speakers of all Indo-European (IE) languages or as the designation of a particular "race" is an aberration of many writers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and should be avoided. I totally agree. The use of Aryan as the other has shown is language, culture and ethnicity. Not race! So read the rest of it as well from the same page. The term Arya is the self designation of ancient Iranians... The ancient eastern Iranians too called themselves ariia.. and the name of the country Iran is derived from the word itself. Speakers of Aryans..compromise the following culturally diverse group: West Iranians , Ancient medes, the modern Kurds, Baluchis and Persians as well as the Tajiks. (Ali Doostzadeh)

I agreed again. But Zora and Aucaman haven't responded yet. Why not? I think they should respond with a yes or no. If it is no, then they have to provide their credentials relative to this Harvard Professor. Of course they think they know more than a Harvard Professor! who has spent a lifetime researching the subject!! I think it is the job of the mediator to agree with the side that has the stronger evidence. The article is all the evidence that is needed about the legitimacy and the use of terms such as "Aryan culture, Aryan language, Aryan ethnicity". So to say the Persians or Baluchs or Pashtuns are an Ethnic Aryan group is totally legitimate by all historical accounts. (See page 3). Note 350 times there is the use of Aryan and yet Zora claims the term is out-dated in the Academia whereas the article is just from the past couple of years or so! (Ali Doostzadeh)

I thought that was an interesting article and I cited several sentences from it, saying that the term Aryan, in English, was confusing and inexact. Witzel in fact uses the terms Indo-Iranians, Iranians, and Indo-Aryans, which do in fact seem to be the terms of art today. I just don't understand how you can be asserting that the article says the exact opposite of what it in fact DOES say.

The proposed compromise, which used those terms and then explained that Aryan was still in use in India and Iran, seemed NPOV to me, acknowledging both the academic and popular usages.

I have been hesitating to rewrite the para, because my immersion in the issues is still recent and I have a lot of reading I want to finish. But perhaps a rewrite might solve this problem. I've noticed that edit wars hinging on a single disputed word can often by expanding the section, to give room for all views to be presented. Zora 06:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to take out that first sentence for now. It goes a long way toward meeting my concerns. It is also not sourced. There's no way one can scientifically prove that Persian people are "descendants of Aryans". We can make statements like "the Persian language is close to other Aryanic languages" or something like that, but the use of racialist language has to stop. Aucaman^Talk 07:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What is it that is not sourced? Britannica says "Persians, Kurds, and speakers of other Indo-European languages in Iran are descendants of the Aryan tribes that began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the 2nd millennium BC."

Because that is not what academics accept now. Genetic testing has gone far towards establishing that the spread of a language and culture does not necessarily mean the spread of genes. This is still cutting edge stuff, and it hasn't necessarily made it into older encyclopedias. If you're using a set of encyclopedias printed in 1980, of course it isn't going to have any of this stuff. But here it is in the Witzel article you keep citing and haven't read:

MALLORY's model is, in effect, a rephrasing of what EHRET had described in 1988 in more general terms (derived from Africa): an immigrating civilization joins the local one, transforms it by taking on many of its aspects and then sets in move a recurrent, billiard-like spread of this innovative culture. In the end, no one at the start of the process may be genetically linked to anyone at the end of the process. (This is precisely what seems to have happened in the case of

Aryanization of S. Asia).

Witzel is extremely critical of theories that presuppose material culture = culture = language = race. That WAS the norm for older archaeology, and that's what everyone learned at school. But that is not generally accepted now. Zora 08:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Not all Persians today are descendant of Aryans today , NO RACE HAS STAYED PURE, but that did not stop Britannica from mentioning it did it? we have the right to mention the same thing.

Gol 08:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I already said that nobody is pure. Yes genes are not the same as language and not all Persian speakers today are pure Aryans and I mentioned that 100 times before but saying that they are descendant of the Aryans does not mean that each and every Persians is a pure Aryan today. Britannica does not think it is wrong and has mentioned it when they and other major encyclopedias decide to change it then we should too. all the other aricles mention the Origin of ethnic groups while I am sure you agree they are not all pure today, still the original ancestors are mentioned. And also, please do not edit my post. There is enough space for you to make your own post.

Thank you.

Gol 10:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Gol, there is nothing wrong with inserting comments in someone else's posts. It is done all the time. As long as one indents and signs. It saves having to quote. As for the descendants bit -- people speak Persian who don't have ANY genetic connection with the Indo-Iranians. That is the whole point of the Witzel quote. The old paradigm of the invading Aryan hordes is dead. Zora 10:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you are trying to brush aside my point. Yes there are Persians today who are not related genetically to original group. But there are also Germans today who are not related to original group and French and Arabs…etc but their original ancestors are still mentioned. Why not the same here? Saying that Persians are descendant of Aryans does not mean all Persians today are pure Aryans, only a 5 years old would think that, who can even imagine a group of people staying same for over 3000 years? I am sure the scholars of Britannic, knew this fact and by mentioning it they did not meant to imply all Persian today are Pure Aryans. The fact that no racial group is completely pure is not something that was determined yesterday! it has been around for a long time. I am sure you know that but still the origins are mentioned.

Gol 10:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The term "descendant" has a very specific and strong meaning. When you say Persians are descendants of Aryans that actually does imply means they're pure. I suggest we mention that Iranian tribes moved into the Iranian plateau but don't exactly call Persians descendants from them.

As for other articles, most of the descriptions are very comprehensive discuss relations with other groups. I only looked at German people and Italian people, but you can look at any other group. This is the only article where people are discussing notions of purity for over 2000 years. Aucaman^Talk 11:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has said that Persians have stayed pure over 2000 years and saying that they are descendent of Aryans will not imply that they have stayed pure for such as long time. This is common sense in my opinion. Does not look different from other articles about other ethnicities. We can say the original group of Persians were the descendant of Aryans if you like it better. To make sure no extremely uninformed and irrational reader makes a mistake of thinking these people have stayed pure for 3000 years!! (Professional scholars of Britannica were not half as worried as you and Zora are or they would not mention this term!!)

However, as I recall your problem was not with implying that Persians are 100% pure but with the term Aryan itself. And here you are just trying to change Aryan to Iranians. How about saying Aryan tribes moved to Iranian plateau? Will that be OK for you?

Gol 11:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The term "Aryan-speaking" is acceptable by me, although I still don't know what's wrong with calling them Iranian? Persians are Iranians, not Indo-Aryans or any other Indo-Iranian group.

And good thing you brought up Britannica. Let's look at their defintion of "Aryan": "In the 19th century the term was used as a synonym for “Indo-European” and also, more restrictively, to refer to the Indo-Iranian languages (q.v.). It is now used in linguistics only in the sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages (q.v.)." Aucaman^Talk 11:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

what's wrong with calling them Iranian?

What is wrong with mentioning their origin? You can not refuse that by just asking “what is wrong with calling them Iranian” that is not a proper reason not to call them descendent of Aryans. Britannic did not say they are descendant of Aryan speaking people. If it was necessary to distinguish it would since it has the best scholars and as Ali mentioned it is not just the language but the culture as well. More importantly the definition of the term Aryan, whatever it is, should be defined in the Aryan page.

We can even say they are descendants of Aryans who came to Iranian plateau and eventually mixed with the original inhabitants, so that no idiot would think that these people by a miracle have stayed pure for over 3000 years!!

Gol 17:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Witzel states:

§1. Terminology: At the outset, it has to be underlined that the term Ārya (whence, Aryan) is the selfdesignation of the ancient Iranians and of those Indian groups speaking Vedic Sanskrit and other Old Indo-Aryan (OIA) languages and dialects. Both peoples called themselves and their language årya or arya ...

The word has been used to describe different groups even when it was in current use. Even if there are groups (e.g. english speaking Iranians) who assign a specific meaning to the english word Aryan Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight requires that different views are equally represented. What you want is a compromise in wording. --Fasten 16:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What people choose to overlook

People overlook the fact that no Persian speaker in Iran calls himself "Persian". This is only done in the west where the term Persian and Iranian in many instances have become equivalent. The Persian speakers (and this does not just include tehrani Persian dialect but host of other dialects from the North to South) in Iran have from ancient times called themselves Iranian. Now the term Iranian in the ancient times was called airyanem(avesta) and Arya (old Persia). So just saying Persians speak an Aryan language is one fourth of the truth. Persians from ancient times to today have called themselves as Iranian and more importantly were known as Aryans. And the word Iranian stems from Arya/Aryan. This does not mean racial purity, but the fact is Iranians (Aryans) have Aryan culture, language, myths, customs and etc. For example Germans were overran by Huns and the Huns controlled the Germanic tribes for a while. But yet the Germans consider themselves Germans and not Huns although there are some Hun genes there for sure. It is the same issue here. No modern Persian (dialect or standard) speaker in Iran calls himself Persian. They call themselves Iranian (Aryan in the ancient times). The fact of the matter is Professor. Witzel amongst many other sources considers Persian as Aryan.

Here is a quote from Encyclopedia Britannica:

Iran is a multilingual and diverse cultural society, and the majority of the population is extremely young. Nearly one-half of the people speak Farsi, and another one-fourth speak some other Indo-European language or dialect. These are descendants of the Aryan tribes, whose origins are lost in antiquity. (Britannica, 2004 under Iran)

So Aryan language does not do justice. The fact is Iranians call themselves from ancient times as Iranians (Aryans). The name Iran is just the modern pronounciation of the word Aryan (Old Persian). Not even the Indians have kept this name for themselves and only Iranians have. We have Aryan myths as part of our culture, see the Shahnama. We have Aryan(Iranian) customs: Nowruz, Mehregan, Tiregan, Sizdah Bedar.. So the term Aryan and Iranian are synonomous and the word Aryan morphed into Iran only in middle Persian, although there are examples of the word "Aryan" in post-Islamic text, as Hamza Esfahani used the form "Aryan" and not Iran, in describing Iranian lands. The term Aryan and Iran are the same as demonstrated by dozens of linguistics and sources. The Old Persians and Medes called themselves Arya and during the Sassanid times the pronounciation of Middle Persian changed this word to Ir and plural Iran (Aryan). So the article should mention these facts and not just the term Aryan language. Also I doubt the people here are more knowledgable than the Prof. Witzel who uses the term freely. The ancient Indo-Iranians who have left the modern Iranian his customs, myths, language and lineage (note I didn't say pure) called themselves as Arya and we have still kept this name through the name Iran.

--Ali doostzadeh 16:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be in contradiction with your earlier statement:

Yes it is. Not only because the person is from Harvard, but he is one of the foremost scholar on ancient Iranian and Indian languages.

What made you change your mind? --Fasten 14:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone might be editing my text. I did not contradict my position and it is clear: (Ancient Iranian persians considered themselves Aryans). The modern Persians are descendants of ancient Iranians (Aryans) and Zoroastrians and they speak their language, practice their culture and have their myths (Shahnameh). Modern Persians do not call themselves "Persians" or even "Paarsi", but they call themselves Irani/Iranian which is just the continuiation of the term Aryan. Also note the Encyclopedia Britannica made a clear point here: Iran is a multilingual and diverse cultural society, and the majority of the population is extremely young. Nearly one-half of the people speak Farsi, and another one-fourth speak some other Indo-European language or dialect. These are descendants of the Aryan tribes, whose origins are lost in antiquity. --Ali doostzadeh 17:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread your earlier statement to suddenly doubt Prof. Witzel. --Fasten 10:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Absurd statement

This is one of the most absurd statements I've seen in a long time:

"The Persians of Iran are descendents of the Aryan tribes who were a branch of the Indo-Iranians, an Indo-European people that migrated to the region during the 2nd millennium BC, as well as indigenous populations such as the Elamites."

"Aryans" are now a branch of Indo-Iranians??? And Indo-European is an ethnicity? Some people here don't know the difference between a linguistic group and a racial/ethnic group. Someone needs to go in there and change this. I tried and it was reverted without any reason. Aucaman^Talk 02:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Some scholars beleive that the proto indo-european speakers (thought to originate somewhere north of the caspian) spoke a single language(called the proto indo-european tongue). This later developed into a vast array of languages as they migrated outwards.Bescn 08:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

There's also no evidence that all Indo-European people spoke the same language any time in the past. I don't think it's relevant to this article anyway.

You also never answered any of my questions, although they weren't directed at you in the first place. Aucaman^Talk 08:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess thats why its called a hypothesis and not a fact. Some scholars theorize on it based on structural similarities betwen IE languages and so on. Ethnic groups arent necessarily based on a common origin. Its all in identification. Bescn 09:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Again none of this is in any way related to this article or the questions I've raised about a specific sentence in the article. Aucaman^Talk 10:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

the sentence should read, "The Persians of Iran are descendents of the Iranian tribes, who were a branch of the Indo-Iranians, that migrated to the region during the ca. the 9th century BC. It was just a misuse of "Aryan". The Indo-Iranians are so named because they are made up of Iranians and Indo-Aryans. There is no evidence of 2nd millennium Iranians in the region, they started to appear around 900 BC. dab (ᛏ) 13:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Number of Persian-americans

The 2002 US census[5] recorded just 338,266 americans with "Iranian" ancestry. No resource is more reliable to this regard as the US census bureau . If 900,000 or so persian americans existed (as some persian nationalists claim), wouldnt they have declared themselves as such ?

Even that 338,266 is an grossly exaggerated figure because Persians are only one of the ethnic groups that constitute Iran - numbering just 51% of the total population according to the CIA factbook[6]. A good number of those 338,266 "Iranian-americans" are likely to be belonging to non-persian ethnic groups in Iran such as Kurds, azeris, lurs, gilaki, arabs, baloch, turkmen and so on. If anything the 338,266 is an absolute maximum for the number of persian-americans.

Furthermore, the 913,000 figure espoused by some persians comes from the Joshua People's project. This evangelical site has huge discrepancies when it comes to population data. For instance it gives a figure of only 977,000 for Serbs within Bosnia-Herzegovina, whereas the real figure is 1,479,930. In other words, it is unreliable. Nowhere as reliable as an established institution of statistics such as the US census bureau, which leaves the declaration of ethnicity/ancestry to the person(s) in question as opposed to an unauthoritative estimate.Bescn 08:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

913,000 figure is more accurate as most Iranians identify themselves as "Asian" or "White" in the US census.

http://www.niacouncil.org/faq2.asp#2

How many Iranian-Americans are there in the U.S.?

It is estimated that there are upwards of one million Iranians in the United States. They are dispersed throughout the country and have large concentrations in metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., New York, and Chicago.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ifs_news/hi/newsid_4730000/newsid_4738200/nb_wm_4738232.stm

More than 600,000 Iranians live in Los Angeles many of whom are critical of the regime in Tehran.

--ManiF 08:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Haha . So youre comparing a random news article to an official professionally conducted census by the US census bureau ? Are you for real ? Why didnt those 600,000 iranians you mention declare themselves to be iranian? The question was not filed under race(white, black, asian, native american) but under ancestry(german, irish, japanese etc). Huge difference. If anything, the Iranian-american number of 338,266 should be multiplied by a factor of 0.51 to obtain the persian-american population, seeing as Persians form just 51% of Iran. Reverting back, sorryBescn 08:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

BBC is not a random site. National Iranian American Council is not a random site. United States census is based on what people report themselves as. Many Iranians don't identify themselves as Iranian due to political conflict between USA and Iran. The actual number of Iranians in United States in between 1 to 1.5 million, at least 900,000 of whom are Persian.

http://www.niacouncil.org/pressreleases/press008.asp

While there are problems with the way the census is administered, the biggest reason why we expect to be under-represented is that many people who received the long form failed to mark themselves as "Iranian". This may have been due to the poor design of the census form or because of the individual's privacy concerns.

--ManiF 09:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

BBC and the Iranian site you mention do not have a scientific way of carrying out polls in the US the way US Census Bureau does. See WP:V. Aucaman^Talk 09:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

According to this website total population of Persians is 27 million?! Is it exact?Diyako Talk + 09:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well we already have two good sources on the population in Iran. You can add yours as a third source if you want, but the source is not significant enough to rule out the other ones. Aucaman^Talk 09:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What are the two good sources? There has only been two census done in Iran and thats it. One in 1935 and one in 1993. I really doubt there are 99,000 Persians in Afghanistan. The site seems like another ethnologue wannabe with the exact same information copy & pasted. In fact they give reference to ethnologue, so it is not a new source. I have about three sources: Britannica, CIA Factbook, Encarta. --Ali doostzadeh 15:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Outsider's 2c.: Why don't you guys just include both figures, as you already did for those within Iran? While I agree the Joshua website isn't particularly trustworthy, as it doesn't document its own sources in detail, the argument that the US census might be underreporting strikes me as reasonable, and the Joshua figure isn't even the highest one around (some sources that have been used for other countries seem to be reporting even higher figures for the US.) The census figure might be given some precedence, though, because it's the only officially endorsed and transparently verifiable one. Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay I'll add both. Aucaman^Talk 10:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's strange! Some people choose some points of a source which are in their interests and ignore others which they do not like. The source wich shows a higher number for Persians in US has a much lower number for Persians in Iran as well as total population of Persian people. I'm not sure why some people prefer to censor the same source which is in some cases even supported by themselves.Diyako Talk + 10:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. Aucaman^Talk 11:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The joshua source is just the ethnologue source and they give references to it, so it is not new source. I doubt any of these Christian missionary sites which are not scientific, can be deemed as reliable. The Joshua source for example gives just a reference to ethnologue. Also there are other sources (CIA factbook, Britannica, Encarta, Encyclopedia of Orient), besides two actual censuses in Iran (1993 and 1935). Here is another missionary site for example: http://www.acts.edu/oldmissions/Iranhist1.html Also I disagree with most of these sites in their classifications. Note the site above classifies speakers as Mazandarani, Tati (which means Persian in Turkish), Dari-Farsi as non-Persian, which is not true. I am from the region myself and my parents do not speak standard Persian.

Also note the wikipedia entery on Jews says they are descendants of ancient Israelites (I am not sure why there is no mentioning of Khazars?) and those who converted. I think we can say the same here, the Persians are descendants of ancient Aryans and those that have been assimilated into Iranians. Also please do not confine the term to speakers of standard Tehrani Persian, since Tehrani Persian is just the original Khorasani dialect of Pahlavi that spread after Islam. There are other groups of Pahlavi(middle Persian) dialect speakers (including myself). It is the same with Kurds I might add, they have various dialects, but they are considered one unit.

--Ali doostzadeh 16:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Two notes on terminology

Main page: Wikipedia:Disputed terms

Aryan

This is not "Wikipedia" but "the English Wikipedia". All words used in this Encyclopedia are in English (language) and have the meanings and connotations of English words.

Now, most of us, especially those of middle age and above (or younger ones who have studied European history) know that the term Aryan was used in Nazi propaganda. It represented an ideal type of human being and was a an essential part of the Nazi justification for conquering or wiping out other "races".

In the English-speaking world, primarily the West, Nazism is all but discredited, and genocide generally frowned upon.

So the association of Aryan with Iran appears to link Iranians with Nazis.

2500 years ago Darius called himself Aryan, 1700 Kanishka called his writing Aryan. The Avesta dated between 3200-2700 years ago is also replete with this word. I do not think the Germans were part of history back then. The issue has nothing to do with Nazism, Genocide and etc. For example maybe to the Rwandan Tutsis, the term Hutu could be offensive. That does not mean that some groups should censure it. So by explaining the correct term of Aryan, any distortion of the history of this word is actually corrected. --Ali doostzadeh 16:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

irrelevant on en: (but do go ahead and start a Wikipedia project in Avestan or Old Persian). dab (ᛏ) 14:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian

Also, the English word Persia may not be "what Iranians call their country" because they hardly ever use English when talking or writing about their country.

This point, as well as the point above, are relevant because Wikipedia contributors sometimes dispute what is the "correct", "true" or "proper" name for a group of people.

Actually, what they call themselves may not be what English-speaking people call them. And even different schools of thought within the English-speaking world use different English words.

So may I suggest that we (1) use the most-commonly-used English words (for a group of people) in our English Wikipedia articles; (2) mention every other significant word used for them, even if it's not generally used by English speakers? --Uncle Ed 14:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree with Uncle Ed`s suggestions; both Iran and Persia should be used. And in regards to the word Aryan, here are a few notes,

• Aryan is not a self designation, as it is a historical name given to certain etnicities.
• It's used in english language by almost all of the scholary sources in relation to Iran and Iranians.
• No further, inaccurate explanation about the word Aryan is necessary, when it's used by many Western sources in regards to Iranians` origin. These notions are backed-up by all the major encyclopedias, such as Columbia Encyclopedia[7]Zmmz 04:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Much evidence has been cited saying that Aryan, in English, is a deprecated term and used only in reference to past disputes in modern historical/linguistic/population genetic writing. Zora 04:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is a repetitive argument that you and user Aucaman keep insisting on: all any reasonable editor has to do is simply open-up a dictionary and look up the word Aryan and Indo-European; I’ll leave it at that--here`s one from the Merriam-Webster dictionary[8]. ThanksZmmz 04:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No Zora, this has been discussed over and over, you and I both know the term "Aryan" is not deprecated in English, in regard to Iran and Iranians. The term is still used by many scholarly sources in relation to Iran and Iranians. --ManiF 04:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If we were arguing about plate tectonics and I said "X's study published in 2003 says Y, and that seems to be the consensus in the field right now" and you said, "No, that can't be right, this dictionary, published in 1980, says X is wrong", people would see that your argument is invalid. However, this is social science, not geology, and many readers don't seem to be as wary of deprecated notions (many of which have become become entrenched in popular culture). But -- I'm OK with having your views up there, for readers to judge, as long as the more current ones are presented too. Zora 05:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, plate tectonics has nothing to do with this case, that is related to Earth Science. Back to the references; the last time I checked my Merriam-Webster dictionary, and Columbia Encyclopedia are of the 2005 edition. But, readers should look it up for themselves, and as such this dispute will be proven to have no real basis.Zmmz 05:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I agree with Uncle Ed that both the words Iranian and Persian should be used. Now, in regards to the word Persian, there seems to be a very clear the definition of the word: here is a link to the Merriam-Webster dictionary that defines the word as, Persian; Function: noun 1 : one of the people of Persia : as a : one of the ancient Iranians who under Cyrus and his successors founded an empire in southwest Asia b : a member of one of the peoples forming the modern Iranian nationality 2 a : any of several Iranian languages dominant in Persia at different periods b : the modern language of Iran and western Afghanistan -- see INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES.[9] ThanksZmmz 07:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there have been sufficient links to dictionaries and encylopedias. There are two drawbacks:

Encylopedia articles are not close to the source (WP:RS):

Note that unsigned encyclopedia articles are written by staff, not by experts, and do not have the same level of credibility.

and there have been references to encyclopedia articles that state the word has fallen into disuse. This statement has an unfair advantage, because it is more likely to be a new information. To have the same credibility another source would have to explicitly state that it has, in fact, not fallen into disuse. The other sources, however, merely state what it means (or meant) they do not refute the claim that the word may have fallen into disuse recently.

What this should mean for the discussion is, in my opinion: The supporters for using the word Aryan would need to provide a larger amount of recently published academic references to prove their point. As this puts an undue burden of proof on the supporters the opponents should be very careful with their demand to remove the word, even when there are sources that seem to support their side, simply because supporting that the word has fallen into disuse is so much easier than supporting that it has not fallen into disuse. --Fasten 13:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

See also: #Fasten 11:55, 15 March 2006

Population range (45 removed)

Even assuming the 900,000 figure for Persians living in U.S., the total figure is between 36 and 42 million. The upperbound of 45 million is an exaggeration and it is not backed by evidence.Heja Helweda 05:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually Heja, me and you have been through this before, and I see your persistence in ignoring our conclusion as a foul indication. How can there be only 45 million Persians when at least 61 million speak it as a first language?--Zereshk 06:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Not every Persian speaker is ethnically Persian. If the oft-quoted CIA statistics are to be believed, around half the Iranian population is Persian, ie around 34 million. There are definitely more Persian speakers than this.--Ahwaz 06:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

And Iran isnt the only country with Persian native speakers, i.e. Persians.--Zereshk 06:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes Actually my mother dialect is not standard Persian and I consider myself Persian. The problem with such users is that they want to confine the term Persian to just standard Tehrani speakers. Also in Iran no one calls themselves "Persian" and I have a problem with this whole article, because it is outsiders view on Iranians. As per Hoja's comment, he forgot that about 10 million speakers in Afghanistan (Tajiks, Hazaras, many Pashtuns whose mother tongue is Persian) and at least 8 million in Tajikistan and Central Asia (many in Uzbekistan)... So even if we take 58% of Iran (CIA factbook Persian and Persian dialects) 42+8+10, we get at least 60 million native Dari-Persian speakers. Funny thing is that Hoja who is a Kurdish ultra-nationalist classifies various mutually unintelligible languages as one Kurdish people. For example Gurani, Zaza, Sorani and Kurmanji are all mutually unintelligble. In fact Gorani and Zazai are not classified as Kurdish by virtually all linguists. Even within these, there are sub-dialects. So I am not sure what is the use of just confining the term Persian, to the standard Tehrani Persian and even not mentioning Afghani Persian or other Persian dialects. This is almost as ridocolous as confining English speakers into Texaners, Ebonic speakers and New Yorkers.

--Ali doostzadeh 06:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I just added up the numbers in the Table, and could not get the 45 million figure. Also please refrain from personal attacks such as calling me an ultra-nationalist. Thanx. Heja Helweda 04:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

ei baba, attempts for the Balkanization of Iran on WP isnt new. Theyve been at it for over 150 years. Only now, theyre on the internet, and thriving on WP!--Zereshk 07:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down and don't jump into conclusions about my secret motives. This is just a matter of adding up the numbers provided in the Table.Heja Helweda 04:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What table? BTW if you cared about accuraccy why don't you mention how you lumped about 10 old ethnic groups (urartu, hurrians..) into Kurds in another entery. I really doubt you care about accuraccy. The fact of the matter is about 95%+ Iranians know the Persian language as a first or second language. But the percentage that speak it as their first language is not known, but it can be estimated from provincial statistics. For example one statisctis from Hamshahri put it that 95% of Kids born in Tehran speak it as their first language.. There is different statistics. All I know is that from your other posts you do have an anti-Iranian motive. --Ali doostzadeh 18:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

And I am very diasppointed most of those attacking Iranian nationality are Kurds (who are Iranians also) here. The whole carving of a "Kurd" or "Persian" ethnic group is a product of modern century political work. Even the oldest "Kurdish" writings which are in Gurani have a good amount of references to Iran. Also if you look at 19th century travel logs of British travellers, when they asked people about languages like Kurdish, Laki, Luri and etc. they would know them as "Foors-e-Qadim" (old Persian). Also for example in Kermanshah the majority of inhabitants in the city speak Persian as their first language, but they may be Laks or Gurans or Lurs or Kurds or even immigrants. So the term Persian is not really an ethnicity and the actual ethnicity term that Persian speakers use is Iranian. Persian in the context of modern Iran is a language and in the west it is an equivalent term to Iranian as well as the Persian language. These people who are twisting various definitions are trying to balkanize Iran as you said. Also in Pahlavi the term Kurd meant Choopan(Shepard, Nomad) as it does in Tabari today. It did not have an ethnic meaning, but referred to various Iranian speaking groups. The definition was even widened during Islamic times to include Arabs of Iraq and Daylamites of Tabaristan, amongst other more nomadic groups. Unfortunately due to discrimination against Sunnis since the start of Safavids, some Kurds have become separatists, although they do not understand that it is the to the interest of all real Iranians to see Kurds prosper and their culture be robust. I also blame the Iranian government here. For example Turkey backs the small turkomen minority in Iraq, but the Iranian government has not done much for Kurds or Tajiks.. --Ali doostzadeh 08:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem here is the confusion between Persian as race, Persian as culture, Persian as language and Persian as political/national identity. If you mean to include Arabs, Kurds and Balochis who were among those inhabiting the Persian Empire as Persian as historical or national identity, then they are Persian. But then this means that the term Persian is more broad than culture, for these groups had their own cultures that were influenced by Persian culture but still retained distinctiveness.

If we are to define Persian as language, then the problem gets more difficult, since this could embrace many people who do not see themselves as Persian. Indeed, you could then argue that Hindi-speakers are Persian due to the similarities between Farsi and Hindi.

Race has its own problems, particularly if you go down the root of racial purity. What of those of both Azeri Turk and Persian parentage? This is a dangerous path that many ultra-nationalists such as the neo-Nazis of the Andjoman-e Padishahi tread and why they employ racist language.

In my mind, the Persians were and are a collection of cultural groups with a common bond and a sphere of political influences that varied across time - sometimes smaller than the current territory of Iran and sometimes far larger. It is far more nebulous that something that can be defined as nationality in political terms or language. Perhaps if this is a starting point, there can be a better understanding of what Persian people are.--Ahwaz 09:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well everyone has their own opinion. and you also bring up a good point. For example is Khuzestani who is half from Dezful (Persian speaking) and half from say Khorramshahr (maybe Arab speaking) considered a Persian? Or the hundreds of thousands if not millions of Azaris who have intermarried with Tehranis, Shomalis, Qazvinis, Hamadanis, Esfahanis and other Persian speakers? For example the supreme leader is half Mash-hadi and half Azari. My own family includes Tehrani, Shomali and Kermanshahi and as of late an Azari. For example in Kermanshah, the majority of people are native Laks or Gurans or Kurds, but in city they all speak Persian as their mother language. The term Persian has no fixed meaning. Sometimes it refers to Iranians. Sometimes it refers to the Persian language (which by the way beside 40+ million native speakers in Iran has about 20 million in Afghanistan and Central), and sometimes it could mean political term (Iran was called Persian before 1935). Sometimes it could mean a people from a province: Pars and sometimes people associated with ancient Persian. Sometimes it has an european viewpoint, sometimes an arab viewpoint and etc. The term Persian I remind you is at least 2700-2800 years old and has become fluid. Now this article is about "Persian people", but in reality in Iran, we do not call anyone "Persian". Everyone identifies themselves as Irani and if they want to mention their region, they say Khuzestan, Dezfuli, Esfahani, Khorasani, Tehrani, Shomaali, Yazdi, Sistani.. and etc. At most the term "Farsi-Zabaan" is used, but this does not mean necessarily that someone whos mother-tongue is Persian. The statistics here also should mention about 95%+ of Iran speak Persian as their first or second language (this is from Hamshahri newspaper). For example the term Arab these days is just a linguistic term but even that is not 100% accurate. For example many of the Druze, Lebanese Christians, Copts and even some Egyptian intellectuals do not consider themselves Arabs, but just Arab speakers. But the term Persian is not a linguistic term and for example many people in India used to speak as their first language under the Mughals, but they were Indians. The fact is the term Persian for the most part has been used by outsiders and Iranians have always referred to themselves as Iranians. The Sassanids also separated their territory into Iran and Aniran. Also where to draw the line between dialect of modern Persian and branch of it is hard. For example some people now are claiming eastern and western Farsi dialects for Tehran and Kabul, which does not make any sense since the languages are the same. Even according to some sties, Bakhtiari, Luri, Laki have about 80% common vocabulary and syntax with standard Tehrani Persian. So maybe there are not standard Tehrani Persian, but nevertheless the people are definitely Persians and sharers of the Sassanid, Parthian and Achaemenid heritage as well having as myths the Shahnameh adn etc.

--Ali doostzadeh 18:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is ostensibly about the Persian people. There is another article about the Persian language. Speakers of dialects of Persian need not necessarily belong to the Persian people (just like not all speakers of English dialects are English, or all speakers of German dialects are Germans; come on, this is extremely trivial, and not a special case at all). dab (ᛏ) 14:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

Aryan

"The term 'Aryan' is still widely used in countries such as Iran and India (see example), but is sometimes avoided today in Western scholarship due to its Nazi connotations."

This statement is a direct violation of WP:V and WP:NOR.

In any case the word "Aryan" has a very specific but yet general meaning in English language and is used to refer to Indo-Iranians as a general linguistic group. It does not designate a race. The term "Old Iranians" is used to refer to Old Iranians. Stop making up your own terminology. Aucaman^Talk 18:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman, sources have been provided to you in the talk page archive. I've removed the footnote, but "Aryan" stays. You know that it will just start up an edit war with the Iranian editors when you remove it, so please try to come up with a realistic compromise. --Khoikhoi 18:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

If it only refers to a linguistic group, why is it that at Naksh-i Rustam there is an inscription that says:

I am Darius the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great Earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage.

--Khoikhoi 18:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

There Aryan means "noble". No source has been provided saying Aryan means "Ancient Iranian". The whole paragraph is unsourced!!! Go ahead and add in your sources if you want to keep it. Aucaman^Talk 18:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong again. Emil Beneviste mentions that the term Aryan in old Iranian languages denotes ethnicity and not title. Also by the way linguistically the word "arab" does not mean Arab, but it means desert dwellers. The word "turk" does not mean Turk, but it comes from tigra (pointed hat). So the word Aryan which most likely does mean noble, denotes an ethnic term. Virtually every ancient ethnic term has some meaning. --Ali doostzadeh 22:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. This article has said that they are "descended from the Aryans" since almost day one. (that's back in November 2004)

Here's a source for you, the Catholic Encyclopedia. It says:

The history, religion, and civilization of Persia are offshoots from those of Media. Both Medes and Persians are Aryans; the Aryans who settled in the southern part of the Iranian plateau became known as Persians, while those of the mountain regions of the north-west were called Medes.

and

The term Persian, as applied both to the people and their language, has now a wider significance than it originally bore. A more appropriate term would be Iran or Iranian. The early inhabitants of Iran were Aryans, and their languages and dialects, for the last three or four thousand years, belong to the so-called Aryan family. Even the Persian language of today, notwithstanding the immense influence exercised upon it by Arabic, is still the lineal offspring of the language spoken by Cyrus, Darius, and the Sassanian kings.

--Khoikhoi 19:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Here Aryan means Indo-Iranian, a linguistic categorization. You're trying to say that Aryan means Old Iranian - where are your sources? Aucaman^Talk 19:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Again do not make me quote witzel, Avesta, Old Persian and the modern word Iranian which is continuiation of Aryan. All the evidences are in the page. Aryan is a well know ethno-linguistic group and both the Medes and Persians as well as Parthians have been called Aryans by various sources. (Avesta, Old Persian, Herodotus, Moses of Khoren, Bactrian inscription of Kanishka, Sassanid Parthian and Greek inscriptions..). --Ali doostzadeh 06:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

britannica says that Aryans are:

"Prehistoric people who settled in Iran and northern India."

Gol 19:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Gol : You can't be serious. Quoting isolated statements from encyclopedias and mostly ignoring what others wrote is not a contribution to the discussion. Please read #Fasten 13:28, 17 March 2006 (and #Fasten 16:31, 15 March 2006, #Fasten 11:55, 15 March 2006) --Fasten 16:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman : Do you acknowledge that use of the english word Aryan in Iran, even if differing from modern western academic use, could constitute a point of view that might deserve representation? --Fasten 18:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

We were not discussing whether the term is isolated or not, his argument was that there is no proof that Aryans are ancient Iranians, I gave him proof.

Gol 19:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there have been sufficient links to dictionaries and encylopedias. There are two drawbacks:

Encylopedia articles are not close to the source (WP:RS):

Note that unsigned encyclopedia articles are written by staff, not by experts, and do not have the same level of credibility.

and there have been references to encyclopedia articles that state the word has fallen into disuse. This statement has an unfair advantage, because it is more likely to be a new information. To have the same credibility another source would have to explicitly state that it has, in fact, not fallen into disuse. The other sources, however, merely state what it means (or meant) they do not refute the claim that the word may have fallen into disuse recently. --Fasten 12:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Dating

Aryanic tribes moved into the region about 2000BC.[10] Like I said all your information is against WP:V and WP:NOR. Aucaman^Talk 18:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who changed the date and removed the link to Columbia and why, but I have restored it. Instead of just deleting the paragraph using the incorrect date as an excuse, you could have just corrected it. SouthernComfort 04:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The Aryans came about 2000 B.C. and split into two main groups, the Medes and the Persians. [11] That's what Columbia says, BTW, not "Aryanic" tribes. SouthernComfort 04:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well if you really want to know who did it it's not hard to figure it out.[12] The question is why are you reverting my edits when I'm trying to fix this? Aucaman^Talk 07:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You didn't try to "fix it" - you deleted it outright or removed the term "Aryan" which is what the source uses. You need to stop going around to different articles deleting the term "Aryan." That is totally unacceptable and improper behavior. SouthernComfort 08:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Update

I don't know if I've made this clear before, but I'm not against all uses of the word "Aryan". In the English language, Aryan is simply a linguistic term (almost) synonymous to the term "Indo-Iranian". It is not used to refer to a specific ethnicity or race. As such, the term Aryan cannot be used interchangeably with the term "Old Iranian". The first paragraph of the disputed section is simply unsourced. Either provide sources or remove the paragraph. Aucaman^Talk 14:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you acknowledge that use of the english word Aryan in Iran, even if differing from modern western academic use, could constitute a point of view that might deserve representation? --Fasten 21:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The answer is yes, but not in this article. Perhaps in the Aryan article, or the Aryan race article. I would even support the establishment of new article covering the usage in Iran. The term is only used by Iranian ultranationalist-monarchists (most of whom now live outside Iran) in a highly racialized matter. You also see the term in the first page of 5th grade Iranian history books, but that's just the legacy of the above-mentioned group. In any case, it's not related to this article and any mention of it is likely to violate WP:V and WP:NOR. Aucaman^Talk 23:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

To say that "The term is only used by Iranian ultra nationalist-monarchists" is your POV. We have provided countless examples on this page that the term is used by many scholarly sources such as Mariam Webster Dictionary and Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia, Iranica in regards to Iran and Iranians. --ManiF 10:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's good to follow arguments section by section, not sentence by sentence. We were talking about the specific case of the term meaning "Old Iranians", not the general term itself. Mariam Webster Dictionary and Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia, and Iranica do not use the term to mean "Iranian and Iranain alone" - the way you are. Thanks for joining in the conversation. Aucaman^Talk 11:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Webster Dictionary and Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia, and Iranica do use the term in relation to Iran and Iranians, specifically the background of Iranian ethnicities. --ManiF 12:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Now you're just making things up. I've yet to a single source that says Aryan mean Iranian. A simple Google search further illustrates my point (you only see 5 hits from uneducated people in forums). There are simply no sources out there saying Aryan means Iranian. Aryan is usually taken to mean Indo-Iranian - and that's not the same as Iranian. Aucaman^Talk 15:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason is that you do not read. The Sassanid trilingual inscriptions use Aryan for Iran in Greek and Parthian. --Ali doostzadeh 22:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

See my comment in the section below this. We're talking about the use of term in English. Aucaman^Talk 08:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil Aucaman. I'm not sure what you mean by "Now you're just making things up", but I don't appreciate being called a liar. We have provided countless quotes from Encyclopedias that explicitly state Iranians/Persians were descended from Aryan tribes, and that's what the majority of the editors want included in the article.

• The 2001 Version of The Encyclopedia of World History says: The Medes were an Aryan (Indo-Iranian) people who entered the Iranian plateau around 1500 along with the Persians, Parthians, Bactrians, and Arachosians, while other Aryan tribes went on to conquer northern India.

• The current version of Encyclopædia Britannica says: The Persians, Kurds, and speakers of other Indo-European languages in Iran are descendants of the Aryan tribes that began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the 2nd millennium BC.

• Merriam Webster dictionary defines "Aryan" as "of or relating to Indo-Iranian"

• The current version of The Columbia Encyclopedia says: Some of the world’s most ancient settlements have been excavated in the Caspian region and on the Iranian plateau; village life began there c.4000 B.C. The Aryans came about 2000 B.C. and split into two main groups, the Medes and the Persians.

--ManiF 16:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of Aryan

Why are you changing the subject? When I say "you're making things up" it means you're doing neologism. You claimed that the English word "Aryan" means Iranian. Where's your source for that? I already know that Aryan means Indo-Iranian. But you understand the difference between Indo-Iranians and Iranians, right? Aucaman^Talk 07:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact you constantly change the subject and reject what everyone else has to say and return to your original argument again and again. Instead you go around deleting sourced statements and any appearance of the term "Aryan." Your behavior is out of line. SouthernComfort 08:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

User:SouthernComfort, you still have to explain edits such as this - an unexplained removal of the dispute tag without any consensus on the talk page (and with a mediation case already in place). Aucaman^Talk 11:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I 100% agree with SouthernComfort. Aucaman and some other editors have changed their own argument 10 billion times! They change it and return to the pervious one a after a few days, he was arguing passionately against the same thing that now he is arguing for!! At this point it is even hard to understand what is it that he finds wrong in the article.

Gol 20:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Afghan Historian's contribution

From a historical point of view, it seems Aucaman is more or less correct and ManiF and Ali are both wrong, to a certain extent. The Aryans were the prehistoric peoples who spoke the Indo-Iranian parent tongue that would later evolve into Iranian, Nurestani and Indo-Aryan. Iranians are a branch/descendant of the Aryans. In a sense the orignal Iranian peopls are Aryans, with the understanding that all Iranian peoples are Aryans but not all Aryans are Iranian peoples. If Aryan meant the Iranian peoples, then by golly are North Indian people Iranian peoples? Are the Punjabis, Kashmiris and Sindhis of Pakistan also Iranians, along with Pashtuns and Balochis (who are Iranian peoples)? Are the Bengalis and Sinhalese Iranian peoples? This just shows how ridiculous this definition of Aryan is. Aryan is an ethno-linguistic term that in ancient times signified the Indo-Iranian speakers that migrated and settled in both the Indian subcontinent and the Iranian plateau. Aryan was also frequently used in ancient times to refer to the ancestors of the Indo-Aryan branch of the people, who are as ancient and significant if not more older a branch of the Aryans than the Iranians. India was as much an Aryan area as the areas settled by Iranian peoples and to define Aryans as just Iranians is an example of mere ignorance and only excludes this ancient and probably more antiquated branch of the people who founded one of the worlds oldest continuing civilizations. The first recorded mention of the word "Aryan" was used in the Rig Veda to signify the Indo-Aryan migrants who spoke Indo-Iranian. The people who were Aryans were the people who spoke the Indo-Iranian language and split up a long time ago. Today, the term applies to the Indo-Iranian languages spoken in both the subcontinent and the Iranian plateau (plus Central Asia). The modern Iranian peoples and Indo-Aryan peoples are descended from Aryans but are not necessarily Aryans as they do not speak the Indo-Iranian parent language and do not follow original Aryan tribal customs. Both branches changed and evolved from the original Aryan culture. Zoroastrianism and Hinduism changed and revised much of the original Indo-Iranian religion and later faits such as Yezdism, Manicheanism, Buddhism and Jainism depart from it even further. Iranian peoples today mostly follow Islam. Indo-Aryans today follow Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism, and Jainism. Basic point is, Aryan signifies the prehistoric peoples who invaded Iran and India. The Indo-Aryans and Iranians are branches of the Aryan people. One branch does not signify the whole Aryan race. Case closed. Afghan Historian 20:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hitler

Didn't Hitler consider the Persians superior? If you say no, he actually considered them superior MORE than the germans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.53.217.41 (talk • contribs) --Fasten 15:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Abundant amount of sources

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/er_ermazdesn.htm First sentence: Inscr. Mid. Pers. êr [´yly], plur. êrân [`yl´n]), an ethnonym, like Aryan (Old Persian) ariya- and Avestan airya-, meaning "Aryan" or "Iranian."

Note Prof. Gnoli is one of the foremost scholars of ancient Iran. (Do a google search on him and you will get 14000 links).

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rels/002/lectures/lecture8.html

Use of Aryan by Professor. Frye.

"The question is not the integration of old Aryan beliefs into the religion of Zoroaster, but the reverse, the acceptance of the teachings of the little known priest in a small principality in eastern Iran by the majority who followed priests of the old Aryan pantheon. The Magi accepted Zoroaster probably as they had absorbed other teachings, but Zoroaster became the founder and the prophet of the new syncretic religion . . . This is the real problem to explain." -- Richard Frye, op. cit., p. 77

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/arya.htm By Late Sir Harold Bailey (died 5 years ago, the article is very recent) (the foremost scholar on Saka Khotanese and Iranian linguistics)

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/aryans.htm Prof. Rudger Schmitt (the foremost scholar on Old Persian)

So here have four of the top experts (plus Prof. Witzel which makes 5) who have all used this ethnic terms for Iranians. I have also mentioned Prof. Asko Parapola (makes 6). There are many many scholars who are not concerned with politics and are just trying to do their work without hinderance. If you put the names of each of these Professors in google, you will get thousands of link. So I am not sure what the problem of some people is with the word Arya(Iranian)? And yes even in Islamic sources (Hamza Esfahani 10th century A.D) use the word Aryan and Persia equivalently.

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0415103177&id=dz3d7ymB1f4C&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=shapur+++king+of+aryans&sig=hCRo0jNuo0AaEJmwzIfV8M5qhxk from: The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars: A Documentary History edited by Michael H Dodgeon, Samuel N C Lieu

From the above, Shapur the Sassanid kings incription. Part of it is: "I am the Mazda worshipping divine Shapur, King of Kings of Aryans (i.e. Iranians) and non-Aryans of the race of gods...I am the lord of the Aryan nation (i.e. Iranian) nation."

So here we have middle Persian (which is very close to modern Persian and much closer than modern English is to middle English) stating clearly from a inscription.

The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism by R C Zaehner http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN1842121650&id=7FktVgTyDGsC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=iranians+aryans&sig=DmIu8Uy3F10x7XS_JWjbMObE3tY

Another book clearly uses the words Iranians and Aryans equivalently.

Here is a book about the Holocaust Curriculum and the Holocaust: Competing Sites of Memory and Representation by Marla Morris

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0805838120&id=dqnU3OdFIsYC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=iranians+aryans&sig=s2jfFfRUaVfzjwlihG79Sjgrn_M

Once Christians "discovered" their new roots, their relatedness to Indo-European Iranians or Aryans, they could boast of their supposed superiority over the semites or the jews

Another book by a top Iranian studies Professor: http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN9004008578&id=VPBlAncugn8C&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=iranians+aryans&sig=4gLkBHfwvdJ0SzGXi49brRSgJcs

The term Iranian derives from the Old Iranian ethnical adjective Aryaana, itself a derivative and synonym of Arya

Another source: Cambridge history of Iran:

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN052120092X&id=Ko_RafMSGLkC&pg=PA409&lpg=PA409&dq=iranians+aryans&sig=qjChpx2yT0rI9gshbDYRp5qA4mU

Note these are not random google sites, but top references used by many many academians. So the usage of Aryan(Iranian) is widely spread in the literature and it is used in Achaemenid, Sassanid and Islamic (Hamza Isfahani for one example) sources. The word Iran infact is the best proof of this continuity. Greeks and Armenians have also used this term in their addressing of Iranians (Persians,Medes, Parthians).

--Ali doostzadeh 06:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Response

Sorry I've already read most of these articles. The question of meaning of the Old Persian term ariya- and whether or not it was an ethnic self-designation is not at all relevant to this article or the discussions we're having. The question is: What's the English definition of the term Aryan and how it should be used. Historically a lot of different ethnic groups have chosen to adopt the term and used to identify their people. This does not in any way change the meaning of the term in English. If there was an Old Persian Wikipedia then you could have used the term to mean Old Iranian. But this is the English Wikipedia and the usage of terms is dictated by the English language. In English the term Aryan means Indo-Iranian and its usage seems to be diminishing due to the same exact confusions you seem to have. Aucaman^Talk 07:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Aryan is not a mere definition, it is an ethnic group which by itself consists of variety of definitions and as you can see, many English textbooks use the term Aryan beyond the term Indo-Iranian. The first claim was from Zora that the term is not in academic use and she was proven wrong. It seems you accept the fact that the term is used in the academic world. Obviously there is no choice for any unbiased reader , when this amount of abundant evidence is brought forth. As per your claim above, it is wrong, since I have brought a good amount of material written in English to show that term is used beyond Indo-Iranian! But besides being wrong, your argument is actually irrelevant from my POV, since the term is not English but it is Iranian and when there is an article about Iranians, it is totally relevant to use terms related to Iranians. Just because the language of English Wikipedia is English, it does not mean anything since the English speaking world spans America, England, Australia, India and many many other places. For example some words are used differently in American English than Brittish English. So there is no such concept as English definition when defining an ethnic group, since what is the most important is the historically established sources defining such a group. Each term and word must be sought in its own language and translated for any other language. And this btw does not mean that if I am going to define Chinese by Chinese records, then I should go learn Chinese. --Ali doostzadeh 07:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You have not addressed any of my concerns and the large number of irrelevant links you provide (and your excessive writing) is not likely to make your case look any better (if not worse). Aucaman^Talk 08:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman please act WP:CIVIL, if you have any problems with the links go through them and express your concerns. --Kash 11:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman your concerns are emotional and not academic. Because I have given English sources that strictly identify Iranians as Aryans and these are written by top scholars in Iranian studies. Previsouly you claimed that the word Aryan and Iran are not related and I gave proof above that they are the same. Another use name Zora claimed that the term is not used in Academia and again you were proven wrong. I have also given sources from Avesta, Achaemenid, Middle Persian, Parthian, Greek, Armenian, Modern Persian and etc. When discussing an article about Iran, then we are discussing the opinion of top Iranian scholars about Iranians. We are not discussing "Semite/Aryan" conflict of Nazi Germany. The two issues have absolutely nothing to do with each other. As per aryan in Indic languages, I must also add that some scholars claim that Aryan in Indic language is not necessarily an ethnic term but this has nothing to do with the Iranian branch. Every scholar on Iranian languages concurs that Aryan is an ethnic term and that is why today there is Iran(aryan) and Iranians(Aryans). --Ali doostzadeh 05:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the phrase from Britannica that says, Iranians , Persians and Kurds, are descendant of the Aryans. Why can’t we mention the same thing here? No editor who is arguing against the term has EVER answered this question of mine. Instead they changed the argument and said irrelevant stuff such as ”the term is confusing" or "the term is racist” As I said above they have changed their own argument 10 billion times. If Aryan has other meanings and other people are descendant of Aryans then it should be mentioned in the Aryan page. This is about Persian people and they are descendant of the Aryans according to the most legitimate sources out there.

Gol 20:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you include the Sinhalese people into this definition of Aryans as well? --Fasten 17:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Another compromise proposal?

Hi guys, you know I've mostly stayed out of here, but ...:

I think you are less far apart from each other than you yourselves think. If I read this correctly, Aucaman's main concern at the moment is that "Aryan", where used as a modern English term, should be understood as a cover term for both the ancient Iranians and Indians, but not as a synonym of "Iranians" alone. As far as I've seen, sources seem to agree with that, including the list of sources Ali submitted above. "Aryan" is only ever mentioned as either a modern English term for the larger group, or as an historical name used back then.

But - that does not preclude us from using the term. Ancient Iranians were Aryans. There's nothing wrong with sometimes using a larger cover term in the place of a more specific term, if it's done properly. There are contexts where it is legitimate to replace a mentioning of "apples" with "fruit", and there are other contexts where that would be confusing. We just shouldn't be doing it in such a way as to imply that the extensions of both these terms were identical.

If you all could just refrain from stoning me to death for a little while, I'll submit a suggestion for a wording shortly. Lukas ^(T.|@) 13:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Your wording implies that term Aryan only has linguistic implications and is outdated, which are incorrect notions. Also, we would appricate it if you didn't address Iranian editors with ethnic Muslim stereotypical and condescending comments like "just refrain from stoning me to death". That's highly inappropriate! --ManiF 15:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

As a christian I would appreciate it if you wouldn't annex the phrase "stoning to death" as if you had invented it or owned it and I'd also appreciate if you wouldn't refer to quaint traditional practices as stereotypical and condescending. --Fasten 17:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Telling others on a WP talk page to "refrain from stoning me to death" is not only incivil, but highly offensive and disrespectful. Even more so in our post-9/11 world. How you can justify such a saying here is bizarre. SouthernComfort 21:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What's the relation to 9/11? --Fasten 18:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, let us see - perhaps the massive amount of prejudice and bigotry directed towards Muslims after the attacks, and even more so in Europe after the all the incidents there (Spain, London, Amsterdam, Paris riots). There is such a thing as basic civility and two concepts called "sensitivity" and "tact." SouthernComfort 03:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

There's also such a thing as looking for offense where there is none intended. Death by stoning was originally a Jewish penalty, and many Christians are familiar with it from the New Testament, Acts, where Stephen is stoned to death. It's not assuming good faith to think that Lukas was thinking of Muslims when perhaps he was thinking of St. Stephen. Zora 04:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

His comment was directed towards editors of Iranian background. Most Iranians are Muslims. I think that is pretty obvious. Many such offensive comments are made in jest, but that doesn't make it right. Again, "sensitivity" and "tact." And by the way, "stoning to death" in this day and age is rarely ever equated with Judaism and even more rare with Christianity. It's not very nice to justify comments which others find offensive. And if you don't believe me, go ask Muslim editors here on WP what they think and how they would react to such a comment. I would have thought that you, of all people, with your involvement in the Muslim articles, would at least have enough respect to not support the use of such a comment and to know that it causes offense. SouthernComfort 05:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. This or similar phrases are often used without any intended reference to any religion. --Fasten 11:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, for reasons that I've already outlined, and it is absurd to suggest that the comment was made without any reference to Islam when most of the editors involved here are Iranian and most Iranians are Muslims. Comments perceived or interpreted as anti-Semitic or racist are quickly condemned in our day and age, and ther is zero tolerance on WP for such comments or attitudes - the same should hold for anti-Muslim comments and phrases. You may not view it as anti-Muslim, but then again you're not Muslim or from a Muslim background. SouthernComfort 20:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't insist on the "linguistic". As for the "stoning" comment, sorry, that wasn't meant to allude to any such stereotypes, I apologize if it was understood like that. Lukas ^(T.|@) 16:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I don't see how my version was marking the term "Aryan" as outdated any more than yours? Lukas ^(T.|@) 16:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I made another try. By the way, I hit the save button accidentally before I could fill in the edit summary. That "S..." was supposed to be: "Same thing without the 'linguistic' - I really can't see what problem you guys could probably have with this one now." Lukas ^(T.|@) 20:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside opinion (my two cents)

See Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-02_Persian_people#Outside_opinion_.28my_two_cents.29

Fasten 18:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this is good advice. Is there a mediator both sides can agree on? If you have difficulties to pick an impartial mediator you can ask a cabal mediator you can agree on. --Fasten 11:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The mediation case needs a new mediator. --Fasten 18:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well before we do anything else, the other side has to give a consistent definition of the term "Aryans". Who are these Aryans? What does it mean to say "Persians are descendants of Aryans"? What kind of message are you trying to send? What's the reader supposed to take away from this? Where's the defintion coming from? Aucaman^Talk 18:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The definition is in the many books that have been linked here. Read it first and then most of your questions are answered. BTW the term persian is not used in Iran, but the term Iranian (Aryan) is. Persian (Parsi/Farsi) is used for the language, but the ethnicity is called Iranian(aryan). --Ali doostzadeh 18:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You're still not giving me a definition. And no, this article is claiming that "Persian" is an ethnic group, not just a language. I wouldn't object to deleting this article and making a new one called Iranian people. The Iranian peoples article seems to be having a lot of problems of its own. Aucaman^Talk 18:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a class for me to give you a definition. I can not define Chinese or Arab in one sentence either. Go read the article by Prof. Baily, Prof. Gnoli and Prof. Schmitt and you will get a clear definition. Their links are all posted by me and so there is no need for you to repeat the same thing. I am not sure what your interest here in all these articles are anyways and some users mentioned you change your argument. As per the term "Persian people" I will discuss the issue further with other people, but I actually do believe the term should be under Iranian people, since all Persian speakers in Iran call themselves Irani and not Persian. I will discuss this issue further and see if there is concensus, but for example the term Persian since it is at least 2700 years old has come to refer to variety of concepts. But the term Iranian is more solid since it not only derives from Aryan, but it is a ethno-linguistic-cultural term used by Iranians themselves. I'll let the article here stand until I discuss the issue further with some folks since in reality all modern Persian speakers call themselves Iranian and only in the English speaking world, the two terms Persian and Iranian have been used equivalently and not just for standard Persian speakers.

--Ali doostzadeh 21:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian is an ethnicity. What are you talking about?! --Kash 19:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You know exactly what I'm talking about if you're Iranian. User:Ali doostzadeh brought this up and I was telling him that I agree with him. Thanks for keeping us on track :) Let's hear your defintion of "Aryan" now. Aucaman^Talk 19:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not following you. Please provide links to what you are talking about. Are you saying that 'Persians' is not an ethnicity group? because if this is the case, you are wrong --Kash 19:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Haha I just read his comment. He must been confused by all this disputes you are putting everywhere. He has confused the words, Persian ethnicity in Persian language, is "Irani", same as how Iran has been called Persia for the longest time, even though it's always been called Iran in Iran. Confusing world! :) --Kash 19:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah how about that defintion now? Aucaman^Talk 19:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No, because it is not relevant, and it would make the article confusing to the reader. --Kash 03:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah so why don't define who these Aryans are so that we can clear the confusion. Aucaman^Talk 04:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Lol what? The term Aryan has its own article and if thats not enough it even has little brackets with less-confusing words in it! :) --Kash 04:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

So it's referring to the Indo-Iranian linguistic group? Aucaman^Talk 04:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No, read the Aryan page to understand what it means in the context of Iranians --Kash 04:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The Aryan page is about the history of the term, not its linguistic usage. Aucaman^Talk 04:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Nah, read it carefully. "Since ancient times, Persians (Iranians) used the term Aryan to describe their lineage and their language, and this tradition has continued into the present day amongst modern Iranians."

Perhaps you don't understand what lineage means? --Kash 04:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Response

"Since ancient times, Persians (Iranians) used the term Aryan to describe their lineage and their language, and this tradition has continued into the present day amongst modern Iranians."

This is not a good definition for the word Aryan. You also might want to read this, which you have so far ignored. Aucaman^Talk 11:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Response

What are you talking about? What has that got to do with Persian people and their history? The defnition of the word is in the article right here on wikipedia, read it and try to understand it. You also have to understand that the use of the word Aryan in context of Iranian people especially Persians is part of their history and has nothing to do with "racial" ideas. --Kash 20:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman's behavior

Do not remove delete sourced information from an encyclopedia and replace with information from someone's personal page on a university server [13] [14]. See WP:V, and also review WP:CIVIL. SouthernComfort 08:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My sources come from better sources and I was just quoting it. I suggest you stop making comments about my "behavior" in article talk pages. Aucaman^Talk 08:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The "source" you provided was from someone's personal page. SouthernComfort 08:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No it's a WSU-supported website. Stop making baseless accusations. See WP:AGF. Aucaman^Talk 09:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. It's the website of someone named Richard Hooker [15]. It's a personal page, perhaps of a professor or student. SouthernComfort 09:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like something designed for high school students with its textbook-style layout. And you have not addressed the issue of your behavior, in deleting a massive chunk of sourced text, sourced from an encyclopedia. See WP:V. Your removals are inappropriate and cannot be justified. SouthernComfort 09:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Any such source should probably go out the window per WP:NPOV. Such websites are not credible sources.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 17:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Response

I not going to bother feeding your troll. Just in case you were interested, User:Zmmz got blocked for doing exactly the same stuff you're doing right now. Article talk pages are not the place for these kind of accusations. If I've done anything wrong you should report me for vandalism. My source comes from here, which is a university-run project, not a private website. Your behavior has been far worse than anything I've done. In fact you're about to get blocked for constantly reverting other people's edits. Have a nice day. Aucaman^Talk 09:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but http://www.wsu.edu/~dee is a personal page on a university server. --ManiF 09:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The current article has a much better definition than that anyway. Only difference is "Indo-European" instead of Aryan, and "East to Mesopotamian region" is a POV of the author anyhow. The current article here has a much better defined information. --Kash 20:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

new problem?

Aucaman what is the problem this time? You have to discuss it in the talk page before adding the tag. From what I remember your previous questions were answered but you changed your argument so many times that I really don’t remember which part you did not like. So pretend I am new here and tell me what is wrong?

Gol 19:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Folks, you don't unilaterally remove tags, unless the editor who put them up has disappeared. Otherwise, you keep the tag up as long as the tagger has problems with the article. When the tagger says that the dispute is resolved, then you can remove the tag. Don't just say, "There, I answered your objection" and remove the tag. Zora 19:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora, sadly the editor in this case has a habbit of not "disappear"-ing. Tens of editors have expressed their opinions on the case and yet he keeps putting on the tag without explaining what his problem is. --Kash 20:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

C'mon, I think he has explained, and you guys haven't listened. Zora 20:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

We answered all of his questions he simply dismiss what he does not like as irrelevant, and unimportant and takes the argument to places that it does not even belong. At this point I don’t even know what is his problem with the article which is why I asked him to explain. He has changed his argument 10 billion times.

Gol 21:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You haven't used the opportunity for mediation either. --Fasten 20:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Again adding the tag without discussing it in the talk page. Because he knows he cant say anything that has not been answered already.

Gol 07:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No new problems

No new problems. Just the old one. I still don't know which groups you're referring to when you say "Persians are descendants of Aryans". Who are these Aryans again? The link goes to the Aryan article which discusses the history of the word Aryan. Aucaman^Talk 21:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The definition of Aryan should be discussed in the Aryan page but just to make it clear here as well, here is the definition of Aryan from Britannica: 'a people who, in prehistoric times, settled in Iran and northern India.' Gol 06:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Your old problem has been addressed hundreds of times before! --Kash 23:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"Hundreds of times" eh? Then one more time would not hurt. Let's hear your answer to my question now. Aucaman^Talk 23:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not here to answer your questions Aucaman. The text is referenced. --Kash 23:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Announcing that you're not going to answer questions is not the way to settle a dispute. Look, can't the article say that there is a dispute about just WHO should be considered Persian? and why? Then we add various references demonstrating that there are various points of view out there. The problem is insoluble only if you think one view has to win. If there's room for all views, then the reader can decide. Zora 23:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There is not dispute on who is considered to be a Persian. If you are going to start your old argument about genetics, then save it. We know no one has stayed pure but the original ancestor of each race is mentioned and for the 100th time, it does not mean that each and every member of that race is a pure descendant. It just means that the original ancestors were as such. Thank you. Gol 06:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you guys need to read the wikipedia article on Aryan instead of acting ignorant. --Ali doostzadeh 08:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

Removing Sourced info has no meaning you should respect to these sources. Xebat Talk + 16:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Your sources don't claim what you pretend they claim. --ManiF 16:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but he is using the term "Farsistan" out of context. At any rate, the original name of the province was Pars. SouthernComfort 16:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"descendants of Aryans"

The Persians of Iran are descendents of the Aryan (Indo-Iranian) tribes that began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the 2nd millennium BC.

What's the rationale for including this sentence? It can be interpreted as a racial statement. I propose taking it out.

1. It would not change anything. The very next sentence says that Persian was brought to the region by Aryan speakers.
2. The sentence also makes it sound like modern Persians are direct descendants of the original Aryans, which is not true (take Mohammad Mossadeq, a Qajar or Turkman descent, as an example)

If this is not taken out, I'd have no choice but to add some other sourced information to clarify the racial origins of Persians and make the section more neutral. Taking out this sentence, however, would solve everything and we can move forward. For those who like to use the word "Aryan", the very next sentence contains the correct usage of the term. Aucaman^Talk 04:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say "direct" descendents? It says "descendents" which is accurate (and sourced). Where is your source that states that Mossadegh was of Turkmen background? Just because he was related to the Qajars? He was also of Bakhtiari lineage. And what other sources did you have in mind concerning "racial origins" (I thought you didn't like such "racialism"?) - genetic studies? SouthernComfort 06:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

We're not talking about accuracy. We're talking about neutrality and relevance. As far as I can see, that sentence is talking about race and is not really relevant to this section. But if you're going to keep it, per WP:NPOV and WP:POV, we would have to add other racial theories to make the section more comprehensive/neutral. So it's really up to you. We can keep the sentence but add alternative points of view, or we can just erase it and not have to talk about who is a descendant of whom. But you're right, I prefer circumventing any discussion of race and that's why I'm asking that first sentence to be removed. As for Mossadeq, as it is explained here, he was from the Qajar family - who are ethnic Turkmens. Hopefully you agree that the Turkmens are not "descendants of Aryan tribes". Aucaman^Talk 08:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No one ever claimed that each and every Iranian, or even those who are Persian are direct descendant of Aryans and that there is no other blood involved. Aryans are the original ancestors. Is there any group of people who can claim that they are exactly the same as their ancestors or they belong 100% to a particular group? The answer is no but all groups have mentioned their original ancestors. We have a source that says Persians are descendant of Aryans. Do you have a source that says they are not? If it was inappropriate, as you say it is, then the most legitimate source would not mention it. Also, we should talk about accuracy. It is the most important thing and saying Persians are descendant of Aryans is accurate and as SC mentioned it is sourced as well. Gol 19:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Whereas I think it would be a good idea to include both theories - the old "Aryan invasion" theories and the later "material culture and associated languages spread through contact, not descent" theories, buttressed by recent genetic testing results. The issue has been divisive enough here that it seems worthwhile to lay it out for encyclopedia users, so that they don't get confused if they read other materials and run into one or the other of these positions. The usual Wikipedia solution: give both theories, references and arguments for each, and let the reader decide which is more compelling. Zora 09:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times. The most relevant and used theory has been posted. If you have any theories that directly challenge this, post it here. --Kash 11:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

How about we go with, the Aryans, of the Iranian branch, invaded the region and brought with them their languages, including Persian or something like that? What we do know is that the Aryans did invade the region and they were of an Iranic variety (probably after a split with the Indo-Aryans and Nuristanis and possibly the Dards) and that their languages predominated and Persian is derived from a language they brought (Old Iranian which in turn became one of the many ancient languages such as Old Persian). Also I agree with Zora that we can include both the Aryan invasion theory and language replacement theory as the best solution since we don't know to what extent all Persians are descended from just Perso-Aryans. Would this be agreeable to people? Tombseye 18:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary historians don't necessarily accept any "Aryan invasion" theories. Witzel says it's more like billard balls bumping each other: steppe peoples conquer BMAC complex peoples, who adopt horses, chariots, and PIE mythology and language, then BMAC people tromple the people closest to them, and so on. Just contrast theories that link language spread and descent, and ones that don't. Zora 19:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, but my point was to try to create some concensus as people seem to be arguing this issue to death. For example, the English people along the coasts seem to have more Anglo Saxon ancestry than the English further inland. Similarly, Persians most likely vary themselves regionally and so making claims of being entirely descended from some ancient tribe is somewhat difficult to verify here. Ultimately, the languages are what we know to have been passed down, while other traits were also inherited such as the mythology and chariots etc. Frankly, I'd say the Persians are the partial descendents of the Aryans who mixed with local peoples and show relationships to the nearest geographic neighbors to varying degrees. Thus, eastern Persians have ties to Afghanistan, southeastern Persians to Iraq, and northerners to Azerbaijan and the Kurds etc. People don't correspond neatly to borders or language families or ancient tribes such as the Aryans. The US Library of Congress focuses on the languages brought by these ancient tribes rather than some 'ethnic' designation that cannot be verified [16] for example. Tombseye 18:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for original research, the current version is a compromise in itself, and conforms with all the other encyclopedias. --ManiF 18:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What I've said is not original. Note the Library of Congress which simply refers to an ancient tribe known as Persians along with the Medes, Scythians etc. It makes clear the linguistic link rather than some ethnic ties. Here is what Encyclopedia Americana says as well about the Aryans migration:

The Iranians did not find the Iranian plateau empty. In the north the Mannaeans and other non-Indo-European peoples had built cities and had created a settled culture more highly developed than that of the invaders. In the south, the Elamites, centered in present Khuzistan, had expanded onto the plateau and met the invading Persians. We do not know how the indigenous peoples were absorbed, but they adopted the language and traditions of their conquerors. Undoubtedly, they also contributed much to the formation of the Median and Achaemenid empires. -Richard Frye, Harvard University

So this is hardly my view or original research, but in-depth academic views on the subject do believe that the modern Persians are, at least, a combination of invading Aryans and native peoples. Tombseye 18:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You are getting carried away, whether there were people living in the Iranian plateau or not does not concern the descendants of Persians who came later. Inter-marriages and the so called 'mixing' may have happened later. In any case I think Cyrus and Darius probably knew better about their origins than Richard Frye. - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 11:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, nearly every book on the Persians mentions the merger between the early Iranian tribes and native peoples. It happened everywhere they, the Aryans, went. What do you think people do when they encounter another, possibly numerically larger than themselves in some cases? There is no evidence of genocide, so we must assume that the Persians merged with a local group. The Celtic and Latin peoples in Spain encountered the Basques who are still there for example. Perhaps Cyrus and Darius were just emphasizing their linguistic background as speakers of Aryan tongues, but regardless I think Prof. Frye knows more about the subject than either you or I. Tombseye 18:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No need to be rude. As I said before, thats not relevant. Frye's hypothesis is not relevant to the descendant of the Persians, in no where he has mentioned that Persians are descendants of any other. About what Darius said perhaps you should read it again: "A Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage" I very much doubt that he was referring to the Indo-European language theory in this matter!! Infact that theory of "Aryan tongue" was a 19th century theory by Max Müller if I am not mistaken. - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 18:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't being rude and you seem to misreading quite a bit of what I'm saying. Aryan lineage could simply mean a patrilineal line from a father. It says nothing about the maternal side for example. What's more language replacement makes people believe many things as well. There is no pure Aryan anything and the Persians, like the Northern Indians, are only part Aryan to varying degrees. I do disagree with the usage of 'Nordic' as we don't know what the early Indo-Europeans looked like exactly, but they were most likely similar to Europeans in general. Actually, Max Muller changed his earlier assertion that the Aryans were synonymous with Indo-Europeans and instead placed them as a branch of the larger Indo-Europeans. At any rate, genetic testing clusters Persians with West Eurasians and not Europeans in general, meaning that they are more native to the region than perhaps Persians would like to believe. Tombseye 00:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Tombseye, such concerns are already adequately reflected in the current version, which is a compromise in itself: "Aryan tribes split up into two major groups, the Persians and the Medes, and intermarried with peoples indigenous to the Iranian plateau such as the Elamites." --ManiF 18:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well Mani, that is a good start, but I think the starting sentence should simply state that the MODERN Persians are a fusion of, at the very least, the invading Aryans of the Iranian branch and various native peoples. Realistically, invasions from others probably have impacted them as well, but this much at least would do. Tombseye 00:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, hopefully this is the end of this latest disruption on this article -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 19:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Update

Since people insist on removing the dispute tag [17][18], I'm going to add some of the information giving a different point of view to this whole discussion of race. These are added in accordance with WP:NPOV ("All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one"). Whatever you do, do not take them out without a full agreement or you're in violation of WP:NPOV. Here's the full quote from Wilson's book:

"Of the common racial tradition there's not a trace in Persia. A typical Persian does not exist, because there are within the limits of the Empire many distinct type, easily recognized, though they originally represent geographical and climatic areas rather than different racial origins. Yet no other race, perhaps except the English, has such a mixture of blood in its veins. The original inhabitants of Persia, whose descendants are to be found comparatively unaltered in Gilan and Mazandaran, on the shores of the Caspian, in forest country, were replaced in some areas and in others assimilated, by Aryan-speaking Nordic nomads from Eastern Russia, and by Turanian-speaking Mongolians from Western Siberia. This took place as early as 2000 B.C., and continued many centuries."

Aucaman^Talk 19:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Outdated racialist theories (Aryans being "Nordic") have long since been discredited and abandoned. That you would attempt to inject such racist nonsense in this article is appalling. SouthernComfort 05:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I second this, Aucaman please leave discredited racist ideologies out of wikipedia -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 09:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent vandalisms

I would like to ask Aucaman to stop vandalising this article or we would have to get it protected again. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 18:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

what is this?

A typical Persian does not exist

what is this? This is very biased and vague. I see no other article, German, Italian, French etc… writing such a thing. Why should we have it here? Are you saying those other races have stayed purer compare to us? If there is no typical Persian then there is no typical Italian, Greek or Russian either.

Gol 00:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, there IS no typical Italian, Greek, or Russian. Nationalities are not races. Zora 01:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Persian is not a nationality, at least not since 1935, it is an ethnicity. If what you say is right, why is it that articles about Italian or Greeks or Russians don’t mention anything like that?Gol 01:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicities aren't races either. See the Ethnicity article. IMHO, it's a negotiation. I say I'm X. Other people who say they are X accept me as X. People who are not X classify me as X. Any of those three things can break down. I can deny that I'm X. The people who say that they are X can refuse me. Non-Xs can refuse to recognize my Xness. Then of course the Xs can split into the Ys and Zs, producing confusion and possible bloodshed. Not a "fact". All in people's heads. However, it's hard enough to change millions of minds all at once that there's a certain momentum involved. Zora 21:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

When did I say ethnicity is the same as race? You guys brought race into the argument long before when you started talking about genetics. Saying Kurds are not Iranian people since they are genetically mixed!! (As if genetics has anything to do with it) So remind yourself and your friends that ethnicity is not the same as race. Question still remains if your claim about Italians and Russians is true how is it that no article mentions that? why should it be mentioned here when they dont mention it? are we mixed while they have stayed pure?Gol 00:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Races and ethnicities are pretty well established by now, and it is not as wishy-washy as some authors may claim, Zora. Genetic tests, and archeological evidence have brought us pretty close to facts. And, I almost regret to say this, but with all due respect, your “anti-natialist” ideology[19] gives the grounds for others to dismiss many of your views, due to the fact that you may be pro, or against some things.Zmmz 21:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Zmmz, everyone has a POV. It's better that they be acknowledged, out in the open, so that others can calibrate their perceptions accordingly. If you say that you don't have a POV, it's claiming that you have got the TRUTH and everyone else is wrong. It's like someone from New Orleans claiming that he doesn't have an accent, but that everyone else in the US does. We've all got accents. Zora 21:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You can't tell anything about genes from archaeology -- or language either. Genetic testing is the only way to do it, and genetic testing shows big differences between people living on the eastern Iranian plateau and those living on the west. The westerners are more closely related to the people further west. So much for a genetically defined "Persian people". Zora 22:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is, you cannot edit an encyclopedia according to your ideology. Facts are different than truth, and it is highly inappropriate for anyone to edit an article with a pre-meditated mind set of being anti or pro something. The place for ideology is in a newspaper article or even Wikimedia, not here. We need the lens focusing on history, to be as clear as possible, free of any bias.Zmmz 22:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I’m not sure who exactly supports the finding about a Genetics test showing that after 2500 years of mixing and mingling, people in East and West of Iran are vastly different?; it seems a bit off-the-wall. Nevertheless, archeology could also refer to literature findings etc., which shows a certain kinship, or continuity between certain people, making-up a culture and a nation.Zmmz 22:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman is adding discredited racial nonsense to the article, such as the Nazi idea that Aryans were "Nordic." I've reported his behavior to an admin. SouthernComfort 00:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, merely out of curiosity, are there any universally accepted reasearch or sources that support this statement[20], besides an antiquated 1927, rather obscure research?Zmmz 00:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman, your source is nearly a century old. This is so ridiculous. --Khoikhoi 00:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I`ll take that as a no. From now on, if anyone has a section to submit, specially containing questionable hypothesis, please discuss it in the discussion, thoroughly, first.Zmmz 00:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My information is properly sourced and is presented to neutralize the other racial statements in the article (i.e., that paragraph following it). By the way, that source you've provided does not say that Persians are "descendants of Aryan tribes", so you might want to go back and fix it. Aucaman^Talk 01:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no point to respond to this; it was answered numerous times previously.Zmmz 01:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent academic source

I just found a reference to a book by Gene Garthwaite called The Persians. You can read the first chapter for free at [21] Sorry about the long URL, but it can't be helped.

In that sample, Garthwaite doesn't take much of a position on the invasion/assimilation/descent question, though he does say that belonging to a tribe was expressed by an "idiom" of kinship -- that is, the tribesmen may not in fact be related but everyone cooperates in the polite fiction that they are. That may be relevant to the early tribes.

But he has other interesting things to say, that would fit well here -- particularily on the difficulty of defining the term. Zora 01:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Good sources. I think it makes some great points about the history of Persians and the role of modern nationalism to create a continous link with the ancient Persians/Iranians etc. This is one of the better sources and I do appreciate that it is considerably newer than the early 20th century stuff that is outdated for our purposes. Tombseye 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Modern nationalism, eh? That is purely your opinion. The historical record proves that hypothesis to be totally incorrect and prejudicial. SouthernComfort 13:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually it's an opinion shared by quite a few academics rather it being 'my' opinion whatever that's supposed to mean. I don't know what your problem is but extending the views of this academic to me just because I find it plausible does not make it my opinion. Tombseye 03:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but, Sources and Authors with hypothesis are numerous; however, this is a major article, about a rather large ethnic group; unless sources have gone through rigorous scrutiny, and are universally accepted by most scholars, they will be disputed. This article must only include basic, factually accepted theories. Nevertheless, to include various hypothesis, you can write an article in Wikimedia, or even start a new, sub-article that describes the certain hypothesis you agree with. Zmmz 03:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Zmmz, we are allowed to include several POVs. We are required to include all relevant POVs. That is WP policy. You don't get to unilaterally abrogate it. Zora 03:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No we are not. That depends very much on the content of a few subjects; it is not the job of an encyclopedia to promote all views (which may be numerous). It is the job of academia to search for the facts, and there can only be one version of the truth, e.g. one ethnicity applied to a certain king etc. Remember, in many ways, scholars are invloved in the battle of history vs. archeology, meaning, the best source of knowledge is the actual, physical evidence, and then its results can be recorded in history. So, as much as possible, facts first, hypothesis second.Zmmz 03:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, has anyone discussed this issue in a university here? During a course at UCLA, I do recall the issue of the Persians coming up and we did touch upon how the synymous nature of Persian and Iranian had roots in the popular usage in Europe of the term Aryan whereas Persia had geographic connotations albeit vague as Persia has sometimes extended from the Tigris to the Indus and into Central Asia and the Caucasus. Also, most academics do believe that the modern Persians are a fusion of the Aryan invaders, native peoples like the Elamites, and various other invaders over the centuries. One need look no further than the Persian archaeological remains that clearly show how much they learned from the Elamites and the Sumerians. Tombseye 03:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree facts are much more important than hypothesis which any scholar can come up with (Whether qualified or not.) If something is truly significant then it will be mentioned in major encyclopedias such as Britannica or Columbia. If they are not there, why should they be here? Just because a very small number of people, maybe only one person, believes in them? Even if most scholars and historians disregard them? not that I am saying that this source is bad but Zora seems to want to include EVERYTHING that was ever written about a subject whether accurate or not. Gol 05:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

That source is not bad, but it doesn't suit this article. The author is basically expressing his opinions and as Zora has said, doesn't really take any solid position. A separate article dealing with these subjective theories may not be a bad idea, but they don't belong here. SouthernComfort 13:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hold on, before everyone dismisses this article (and Encyclopedia Americana which is the online Colliers Enyc.), here are some exerpts that aren't opinion at all, but fact-based: 'Ethnic complexity has also helped to define the history of the Iranian plateau. Such complexity is seen in the economy, settlement patterns, and movements of peoples to and across the plateau region. Language, as a significant ethnic indicator, becomes even more important for historical analysis and differentiation after writing emerged. By the eighth century bc, the Iranian plateau and its adjacent environs included Semitic speakers of Assyrian, Hebrew, and Aramaic; Dravidian peoples, for example the Elamites; Indo-Europeans speakers of Scythian, Armenian, Persian, and a number of dialects; and Turkic speakers toward and in Central Asia.'

This cannot be deemed opinion as that is all taught in universities. In fact, Garthwaite even emphasizes his reliance upon not just Greek sources that demonized the Persians, but Iranian sources as well. The usage of Iranian and Persian is also given a historical context in terms of usage. I fail to see where this can be deemed subjective when he clearly discusses time-frames as well as different usages over the centuries. This is not even anything unique to Persians as the Russians have had similar issues since Russian civilization really begins in Kiev and is often claimed by Ukrainians as separate, while the Russians view Ukraine as part of Russia in this regard. This part on where Persia is also interesting:

'Where is Persia/Iran? In the beginnings of recorded Persian history, Persia was the home region of the Achaemenian dynasty (c.550–331 bc), located in the southwestern part of the Zagros mountains and Iranian plateau. Persia was derived from Pars, or in Old Persian Parsua, or today’s Fars province. (The Sasanian dynasty, c.224–641 ad, the fourth of the ancient Persian dynasties, came to power from their home in Fars, too.) The use of Persia, or the Greek Persis for the larger region of what we know as Iran was a Greek concept that becomes reified in the west. Interestingly, the Achaemenians appear not to have had a general designation for the whole of their empire, but utilized existing regional names for specific parts of it. The designation “Iran,” was used by the Greek historian, Erastothenes (third century bc) and derives from the Old Persian word ariya (Aryan). The Sasanians, however, called the core of their empire Iranshahr (the empire of the Iranians) or Iranzamin (the land of Iran). Subsequent and modern usage derives from this Sasanian precedent. The boundaries of these ancient empires fluctuated and reflected the ability of their dynasts to defend or expand them. The greatest territory of any Persian empire was that established by the Achaemenians and extended from the Mediterranean to Central Asia, while the Sasanian empire, the next largest in extent, stretched from Mesopotamia to Central Asia.'

These arguments are probably given sources in the book. Keep in mind also that academia is a vicious field in which errors are denounced by other academics so IF this were truly subjective opinions, it would not survive the scrutiny of the academic community. Tombseye 03:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicities and races are not as wishy-washy as some controversial authors may state. Yet, if some hypothesis were accepted by the majority of scholars, multiple sources must be provided to support the claim of acceptance. Furthermore, all nations are made-up of complex, and varying sub-ethnicities (example: Alexander the Great was actually a Macedonian, not Greek, yet, scholars refer to him, correctly, as a Greek General) etc., but I’m not sure exactly what that has to do with the culture and nation that was and is Persia/Iran? Trying to argue and reduce the kinship, as well as the genetic and cultural ties of a very complex culture/people such as Persia to a mere ideological mirage, and that [it] (as a cohesive, national unit) may in fact be non-existent, seems a bit frivolous to be honest. Unfortunately, due to the “anti-nationalist” ideology of user Zora[22], it is at best plausible to assume, and frankly fair to dismiss some of the multiple arguments the user puts forth, in order to indicate there is no such thing as a “Persian culture”, or even “Persian people” per se. Zmmz 04:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. People just don't get it. I said that there is no bounded structure called Persian culture. There is a congeries of traits that, associated, make what people usually call "Persian culture", but it's fuzzy around the edges and changes all the time. So far I haven't had the time to finish reading it, but Dan Sperber's book on Explaining Culture seems to be where I want to go. A epidemiology of memes. As far as I can get from that dang French structuralism forced on me in grad school. I'm surprised to find, now that I'm doing some reading again, that this is where anthropology is going these days.

It's distressing when I say something and people hear something entirely different. Zora 05:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I`m sorry, but those are your own words. Trying to erase the Persian ethnicity of Rumi, and statements like these, The Iranians are just as scary as the Hindutva folk, your “anti-natialist” ideology, and other statements[23][24][25] are at best cause for concern.Zmmz 05:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Zmmz, will you please STOP with the ad hominems and innuendos? Of course I have a POV, I've never hidden it, and I agree that it should be one of many, not the only one. It is not cause for concern that I think a description of Rumi as "Persian" is way too simple, nor is it cause for concern that I have political views. For what it's worth, I think it's just as scary that Dubya has the bomb as that the IRI is trying to get it. Don't like bombs, OK? Especially in the hands of ideologues. Now can you stop talking about me and talk about ideas? Engage with them? Not just say that since they aren't in the Encyclopedia Britannica they can't be true. Zora 07:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity and race can also be quite subjective and often it's a voluntary club. For example, here in the US, we have a term called Hispanic. Now Hispanics can be of literally any 'race' and yet are defined by the media as a 'race' and also many people of Latin American descent who grow up in the US view each other as related, which is great in terms of race relations, but realistically someone of Italian-Argentine ancestry is more related to an Italian-American than to most people from Ecuador. Alexander also identified himself as a Greek and Macedonian is often considered a subtype of ancient Greek, but I think this just adds to the whole notion of how ethnic groups exist as a matter of convenience. I don't agree that there is no such thing as a Persian culture, but I do believe that the Persian people as an ethnic group have been evolving in terms of absorbing many neighbors and smaller groups in Iran for example. All in all, the main thing I would object to is saying that the Persians are only the descendents of the Aryans as I think, judging from what we know in archaeology etc., that the Persians of today are a combination of various peoples with the big two being the Aryans and the natives of the Iranian plataeu. Tombseye 04:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

“Ethnic groups exist as a matter of convenience”, is a bit of a radical idea, right from the left field. I understand your ideology, but it may be more appropriate to start a new article about how ethnicities are really indefinable, or something as such. I think it is more appropriate to leave major articles such as this one, to be marinated in some conventional, more universally accepted concepts that clearly define nations and ethnicities to be more than a “mere convenience”. Also, when you state, “someone of Italian-Argentine ancestry is more related to an Italian-American than to most people from Ecuador”, it may be less confusing, and more relevant to stick to discussing only this article, instead of, introducing overly complex notions of what Americanism means, which is only about 250 years old vs. 2500 years of Persian heritage (although, being an ethnic American does exist). And, finally, in regards to your “Persians are only the descendents of the Aryans” statement; yes, it is a universally accepted fact. Anyone introduced to this racial/ethnical/cultural mosaic that is Persia/Iran, by birth or blood, can automatically, ultimately trace his or her lineage back to the Aryan/Indo-European tribes who settled in the Iranian plateau. Zmmz 04:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really radical as the Catalans and Valencians share the same language pretty much and yet the Valencians resent being called Catalans. Or the case with Yugoslavia illustrates how ethnicity can simply be a matter of religion (Catholic & Muslim vs. Orthodox). Ther Persians are a combination of those Aryans who merged with local peoples. Most academics actually do discuss how the Persians arrived and mingled with local peoples, same as in India. It's highly doubtful that if we went back in time to the Iranian tribes in Russia that we'd identify them modern Persians to a tee. Also, as we are finding out with genetic studies, many peoples may simply be descended from very early neolithic peoples who changed due to conquest by ruling elites who then spread their language and culture. Regardless, it's a fair compromise to note that the Persians are fusion of Aryan invaders and the natives of the region. Tombseye 04:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what the first paragraph in the history section says.Gol 07:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It [is] stated in the article, that modern Iranians are descendants of Parsis, Scythians, Elamites, and of course the Medes. The Indo-European tribes tag, applies to all of them (with the exception of Elamites), and the Aryan tribes (Parsis/Persians and the Medes) in particular were the actual founding fathers of the country to be, so everyone else mixed and mingled with them, because they had the army to form a country, and it is only fair to mention that they are the founding tribes.Zmmz 04:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Protected

The revert war is over.

Now is the time to discuss.

So, discuss. --Golbez 01:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

lets discuss!

Wikipedia needs to be accurate and not propergandish. This "United States of America: 913,000 [3]" [is totally propergandish. According to last U.S. census, there are only 338,000 "Iranians"

[26] So how in the world can you get 900,000+ Persians? Please, someone correct this. Chaldean 03:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This was dealt with before - see discussion further above Talk:Persian_people#Number_of_Persian-americans. SouthernComfort 13:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, why didn't you guys fix it yet? All of the other pages like English people, use facts from the census of the U.S...There are probably as much as 40 million English ancestry in U.S., but you don't see that being stated there do you? Why do people refuse to make wikipedia consistant. Chaldean 16:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you fix your attitude and tone? As you can see, there are a number of disputes going on, and the census numbers were also disputed. I am not involved in that, and will not involve myself with that issue as I also disagree with the census figures. Anyone with a brain knows that the Persian community in the U.S. numbers far more than 300,000. SouthernComfort 23:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above, Persian communities in L.A for example are so huge that L.A is known as "Tehran jeles" by many Iranians [27] [28] -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 16:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection & Problems

"The Persians of Iran are descendents of the Aryan (Indo-Iranian) tribes that began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the 2nd millennium BC."

The above sentence is not properly sourced. The source provided does not even contain the word "descendants" anywhere. Aucaman^Talk 19:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

do you really not remember? this has been mentione 10 billion times already just read the talk page. Britannica says: "Persians, Kurds, and speakers of other Indo-European languages in Iran are descendants of the Aryan tribes that began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the 2nd millennium BC." Gol 20:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As I've said the statement is not accurate. So you're telling me that Armenian-Iranians are "descendants of Aryans" because they speak and Indo-European language? Aucaman^Talk 22:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but if you don’t like something in Britannica and say it is not accurate, that’s too bad since 99.99% of people of the world are going to agree with Britannica not you. I am not going to answer this questino of yours anymore since since you obviously like to ask it every once in a while and then dismiss the source provided. It has been mentioned billion times before. Keep saying it is not accurate. Too bad the most famous encyclopedia disagrees with you.Gol 05:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You did not answer the question. Aucaman^Talk 20:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

One point though, the Aryans who invaded and really settled in Iran would be better classified as of the Iranian branch as the Indo-Aryans clearly branched off and largely did not remain on the IRanian plateau (with the Mitanni being the sole exception that drifted west) as none of their languages can be found. Our primary indicator of the Aryans is their language and the branch is not Indo-Iranian. Tombseye 19:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Britannica says descendant of Aryan, why cant we say it here? Gol 20:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying we can't, I'm merely saying that we need to specify that these people were of the Proto-Iranian branch of the Aryans as the split between Iranian and Indo-Aryan had already taken place by the time earliest Iranian languages were being spoken. Tombseye 20:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point, but I fail to see how it's in any way relevant to my specific concerns about the incorrect sourcing of the article. It's good to put different concerns in different section (or at least, different subsections) so that all of them would be addressed. Aucaman^Talk 20:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe Gol addressed the source issue. I think the article should start with the Persians are the descendents of Aryans of the Proto-Iranian branch who merged with local indigenous peoples of the Iranian plateau. That's basically what is found in Encyclopedia Americana, but I paraphrased. Tombseye 20:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"merged with local indigenous people" is not necessary, rest is already worded well on the article - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 18:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No, as I explained above, that quote doesn't make any sense. This is exactly why I complained to you for changing the focus of my argument. Aucaman^Talk 04:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What part of it does not make sense? Those Iranians who are indo European speakers are descendent of Aryans. Gol 05:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Indo-Iranian definitely needs to be changed though as clearly there are no Indo-Aryan languages spoken in Iran or in lands populated by Persians and thus the wording should be Proto-Iranian. The Indo-Aryans branched off as did the Nuristanis and possible the Dards. The languages emerged after the Proto-Iranians spread out and then various languages emerged such as Persian. That is specifically the branch of Aryans in question here. Tombseye 20:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I personally think we need to copy the exact phrase from Britannica, which also does not mention indo Iranian and only says Aryan, and do not paraphrase it. If it is exactly the same phrase, no one can come here and claim that we are misquoting or changing what Britannica meant. All the other details can be mentioned in later sections. Gol 20:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Response

This can't keep coming up, it became ridiculous when it was discussed all the last month, to bring it up again is just hideous. How much time are we supposed to spend just to convince ONE person to stop pushing his POV? If there are any other problems beside the source put it under new headlines - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 18:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% as I mentioned above. One person is the reason this page is locked and he loves to ask the same question, which has been answered god knows how many times, and keep dismissing it or saying unrelated stuff and then coming back after a while, perhaps hoping that everybody has forgotten, and ask the same question again. I am not longer going to answer any of his repeated questions. Any new concern I will try to answer but not the stuff that is already answered. Gol 19:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. Are Armenian-Iranians descendants of Aryans? Aucaman^Talk 20:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about Iranian Americans it is about Persians of Iran. Not all Iranians who migrated to America are Persians more importantly you should clarify what you mean by Iranian American. Someone who is half Iranian, half American or an Iranian who migrated to America and became a citizen? If you clarify your question I will answer but I will probably do it in your talk page since it is completely irrelevant to our discussion about Persian people. Thank you.Gol 20:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Iranian American????? You don't seem to be reading my questions correctly. I said Iranian-Armenians! Aucaman^Talk 20:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The Armenians are a separate branch of Indo-European speaking peoples and are not Iranic in the language sense. Let's keep that in mind as that's mainly what we're talking about since obviously the Armenians also share bloodlines with most of their neighbors which is inevitable. The Proto-Iranians and Proto-Armenians obviously would have split much sooner than the Indo-Iranian split. In fact, old Proto-Iranian and Proto-Armenian along with Proto-Greek are sometimes classed as closer branchs of the Indo-European family, but this is not universally accepted. Tombseye 20:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. The source says all Indo-European speakers in Iran are descendants of Aryans. This doesn't seem correct because Iranian-Armenians certainly speak an Indo-European language and they're certainly not descendants of Aryans. Aucaman^Talk 20:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I guess as an Iranian American myself I am kind of attracted to the term!! In case of Armenians it is again irrelevant to Persian people since they are not Persian so your question is again unrelated but since I said I will answer it then see your talk page. Thank you. Gol 20:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No the point is that the statement is inaccurate. Not all Indo-Europeans speakers in Iran are "descendants of Aryans". Aucaman^Talk 21:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Armenians immigrated to Iran in recent times. They are not Iranian. Not any Indo European who sets foot in Iran is going to be an Aryan and I think it is more than obvious and common sense. Also it does specifically mentions Persians and what other groups are is irrelevant to this page. If you claim that the statement by Britannica is wrong, chances are majority of the people (myself included) are going to trust Britannica not you. Their scholars would not mention this fact if it was wrong. I am almost sure the reason they did say indo European speaker was that they know anyone with common sense would not think of Armenians who are not Iranians but immigrants to Iran. Gol 21:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Basically what you're saying is that Armenian-Iranians are not Iranians even though they have a very close historical relationship with most Iranian groups. If I was one of them I would be rather offended - but I'm not. Aucaman^Talk 22:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Iranian are Iranian citizen and among the greatest and most loyal. I am almost sure you know that by Iranian, I did not mean Iranian citizen but Iranian/Iranic people. They would be offended if you called them ethnic Iranian/Iranic. Why you want to talk about issues irrelevant to the topic, I don’t know. Gol 04:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Armenians and others are not related to this article. This article is about the Persians from Iran. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 22:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Armenians might be an exception, they are not referred to individually on the source so you have no real claim here - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 22:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It is common sense that it is not about Armenians who later immigrated to iran. Gol 22:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

In any case how's the sentence "Persian are descendants of Aryans" related to the history of Persian people? What kind of information is that supposed to give to the reader? Aucaman^Talk 22:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The information that tells the reader about the history of a group of a civilized people which created the worlds' first world empire and gave minorities such as Jews freedom -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 22:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Oh and freedom is never "given". Aucaman^Talk 22:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Origins of a group of people is essential to the history of the people. Oh and playing with the words doesn't matter. Freedom was not something they had before or if they did, it was taken away by Assyrians and others and it was given back to them by the Persians. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please fix this link when the page is un-frozen:

There is a link to Persian a ways down the page. Persian is a disambiguation page. Please choose one of the options on that page and link to it instead. Thanks. --Iggle 08:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, it would be useful to change the link to the disambiguation page Indo-European to the more specific Indo-European languages, probably with a pipe. Dpv 14:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Mohammad Mossadeq

Is he a Persian? Aucaman^Talk 20:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Why does this matter? he is not mentioned in the article is he? - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 22:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No I just want to know which group of people we're talking about and why you insist on calling them "descendants of Aryans". Am I in any way surprised that you're not answering my question? Aucaman^Talk 22:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Since when has anyone called Mossadegh an Aryan? Why are you disrupting Wikipedia to prove a WP:Point? -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 22:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disrupting anything. I'm asking a question and you're dancing around it. It's a really simple question. I just want to know what people think. Aucaman^Talk 22:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont think we should answer anymore unrelated question.this is not Mossadeq's page. it is about persian people. i dont know if mossadeq was persian or not but I am sure it is mentioned in his page. Gol 22:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not mentioned in his page. And if you don't want to answer the question just don't answer it. Aucaman^Talk 22:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Response

Aucaman has many questions as contributers to the Persians article(s) might have realised by now! I just wanted to remind everyone that we are infact not teachers, and wikipedia is certainly not the best place to get a survey to 'find what people think' about different things such as proposed by Aucaman above. Article's talk pages are to discuss the article and whether there are any problems with it.

Also, if anyone has any questions I would suggest put it under new headline so we know what has been dealt with, when, and how many times.

Thanks, - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean "response"?

You don't have to keep repeating this if you don't want to answer my questions. I don't really think you have much to "teach" anyway. It's "response", not "responce". Where you just copy-pasting your last "responce"? Aucaman^Talk 00:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL, So I made a spelling mistake at 1 AM in my third language, big deal. Perhaps you would like to ask a question instead?

The point was that we are not here to teach or answer your questions or let you know of our opinions on the matters close and personal to you, but we are here to discuss the article. If anyone is "repeating" here, it is you with "answer my questions". - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 00:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Mohammad Mossadeq

Was he Persian? Aucaman^Talk 01:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not repeat yourself. Read above. - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 13:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Mossadeq was not a Persian, he was a Turkoman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.211.234.50 (talk • contribs)

This discussion is not relevant to this article, but feel free to use Talk:Mohammed Mossadegh instead - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 13:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's put it this way. Are those of Turkman descent who speak Persian considered Persian or not? Aucaman^Talk 20:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The word Persian has had different and multiple meanings at different times. The word Persian has had the same meaning as Iranian for a long time and still many Iranians refer to themselves as 'Persian', and they are using this probably much more than ever now. This doesn't necessarily mean that they are of Persian ethnicity nor that they speak the Persian language. Therefore since there are so many conditions in which someone may be regarded as a Persian (Ethnicity, nationality, language, etc), I can not see why Mossadegh could not be classified as one, however his association would probably be more on the nationality and language side than ethnicity wise. But this is just one example, and this is just my opinion. If you are bringing this up, you have to realise that its all playing with words to me. - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 21:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, your question is bizarre because you're asking if an ethnic Turkmen can be considered an ethnic Persian. Isn't it obvious? It's like asking whether or not a German who speaks Russian can be considered a Slav. Ridiculous. Secondly, Mossadegh's father was Bakhtiari. Thirdly, while his mother was a Qajar, the Qajars cannot be considered Turkmen. The dynasty was only of Turkmen origin, back in the 1700s. They intermarried with Persians, they spoke Persian, their culture was Persian and in time the Turkmen aspect was no longer even an issue. Thusly, the Qajars, like the Safavids, did not begin as Persians, but became Persian later. Have you heard of something called ethnic and cultural assimilation? Fourthly, this has absolutely nothing to do with this article. If you want to discuss Mossadegh, take it to that article. SouthernComfort 21:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong?

I dont get it why is this page protected. Many people want to edit new things on Persians. So I request this page to be unprotected immediately.!!!! KingKongIran 04:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

As I explained above the first sentence in the history section is missourced. We need to either replace with a more accurate statement or fix the source. Aucaman^Talk 07:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The sentence is properly sourced. Stop claiming otherwise. SouthernComfort 16:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Aucaman. This is your war not ours. Please stop this dispute. The first sentence is properly sourced. Other editers are trying to do edits. SO PLEASE UNPROTECT! Wikilo12 20:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Aucaman but you are going against one of the most legitimate sources in the world claiming that it is inaccurate. Britannica is not going to be discredited by one editor in wikipedia. More than likely it will be the other way around. Gol 04:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The source in the article is not Britannica. See my comment above. Aucaman^Talk 09:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. You continue to ignore Gol and other editors' comments and this is the last time I going to bother responding to you. See [29] for Britannica. You also ignore the reference from Columbia [30]. SouthernComfort 16:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman, it's over, majority wins. Thats the rule all over the world! This is wikipedia and you have to respect us just like we have waited so long as this page is still protected. I have waited enough, I have read this article and other artcles about persians on other encyclopedias! They are getting to the same point as this article. THE DISPUTE HAS TO COME TO AN END. Wikipedia is not a war zone and it looks like you are starting the war. Wikilo12 19:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above, this can't go on forever -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Acuaman... the source in the article IS a direct quote from Britannica. I quote: "The Persians, Kurds, and speakers of other Indo-European languages in Iran are descendants of the Aryan tribes that began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the 2nd millennium BC." It's right there on the Britannica page. Bear in mind there are a whole OTHER set of problems that stem from directly utilizing another encyclopedia's text in Wiki, but for the sake of this argument we'll just focus on the fact that the Britannica itself disagrees with Acuaman. Acuaman, it is time to let this one go. Never Cry Wolf 08:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Well if you look a little closely here, the refs [7] and [8] do not point to any Britannica article.
2. Also note that the view that Persians are "descendants of Aryans" is outdated and controversial. It's based on the misconception that people speaking the same language must be of the same race. Before the arrival of Iranian tribes, the land was occupied by other indiginous peoples - the Elamites and the Manneans for example. Following the Iranians there were other conquerers, most notably the Mongols, Turks, and Arabs. To somehow suggest that Persians are only descendants of the Aryan-speaking tribes doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's like saying Americans are descendants of the English. Aucaman^Talk 05:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If it “outdated” and “controversial” then why does Britannica says the exact same thing? I repeat, the exact same thing? Also the article does not say Persian are only descendant of Aryan and nothing else it does say they mixed with the Elamites. Gol 04:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't know Britannica Online doesn't source its information. It's also not clear who's writing the articles there. But if you insist on using it as a source, I suggest you take a look at this statement: "But the people who are generally known as Persians are of mixed ancestry." Aucaman^Talk 04:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Aucaman but Britannica is much more credible than you even the online version! Between you and Britannica almost everyone will trust Britannic not you. Also, the article does not say that Persians are pure Aryan and nothing else. Descendant does not mean pure descendant. We are just using the same phrase that Britannica does and if it is acceptable in the most famous encyclopedia in the world then it is OK for here.Gol 04:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It also says "Persians are of mixed ancestry". You agree with that? Aucaman^Talk 05:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If you mean genetically (racially) then yes 100% and this article does mention Aryans mixing with other groups. Anyone with brain knows that persians, similar to all the other groups in the world, could not have stayed pure over 3000 years! Gol 05:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense. You say they have "intermarried" with Elamites and you still want to say they're descendants of Aryan tribes??? This is plain contradictory. Aucaman^Talk 07:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

He's saying that they're not direct descendants of the Aryans (not 100%). A descendant of someone does not necessarily be direct. —Khoikhoi 07:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman, the article does not say that Persians are direct descendents of the Aryans, it just says that they are descendents. And FYI, the Aryans were not Nordic. —Khoikhoi 04:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The view that Persians are descendants of Aryans is neither outdated or controversial. It also doesn't have anything to do with the Aryan tongue theory. Persians believed that they are Aryans from the very beginning of the empire - and most probably from before - and if you haven't noticed, they still do. Also, I have no idea why you have said that the conquerers of Persia have anything to do with descendants of Persians! Perhaps you have mistaken the sentence to say "Persians are pure aryan blood" which it certainly does not claim! - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 08:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No I have not mistaken the sentence for anything. "Persians are pure aryan blood"? Where is that coming from anyway? Aryan is a linguistic group of people. It does not make sense to say an ethnic group is a descendant of a linguistic group. The questions of race and heredity are more complicated than just one group being descendants of another one. Aucaman^Talk 09:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No one ever said that Persians are 100% descendents of the Aryans. Britannica says that "The Persians, Kurds, and speakers of other Indo-European languages in Iran are descendants of the Aryan tribes that began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the 2nd millennium BC." How is a tribe the same thing as a linguistic group? —Khoikhoi 04:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I really hope we see the result of the Arbitation soon because after almost two months of discussing the same thing, you still refuse to understand that the word that Aryan has its own article where you can have a good read and understand its meaning regarding Iranians - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 17:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Today was my first visit to this article (funny, since I am Persian), and it took me about 2 1/2 reads to get exactly what was being argued over here. I think the first paragraph in history reads fine as far as all I've read and been told growing up. I guess I'll just throw my 2 cents on the table and hope it helps sort all this love-fest out: I don't call myself Iranian because I've never been there in my life. Honestly, when people ask me what's a Persian vs. Iranian I put it this way: Iranian is a nation that comprises of about 55% Persians, then a smattering of Azeris, Arabs, Kurds, Arabs, Lors, Turkmen and Miscellaneous (an interesting people with a varied history). Persian means "of the Aryan race" (with a quick digression to how that "Aryan" doesn't mean the same as the way the Nazis corrupted it), and that we (like other ethnic groups) are decendents of the Aryans who came from Central Asia. Then I usually make jokes about the LA-Persian scene. Reading all this makes me think two things: (1) this is the first time I've ever heard of a serious dispute regarding the paragraph in question and (2) to quote one of my favorite judicial decisions: "The parties are advised to chill." (citation available). -- Bobak 01:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Rewording

Okay how about the following wording: "Persians trace back they ancestry to the migration of Aryan tribes from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the 2nd millennium BC."? Aucaman^Talk 07:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The wording currently used within the article, as it is, is indeed quite fine and it is sourced and as such, should not be altered. But thank you once again for your interest. SouthernComfort 07:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've previously noted your inability to compromise. Based on WP:NPOV all sides would have to be presented and the same source says that "Persians are of mixed ancestry." I'm giving you a very favorable alternative and you're still rejecting it. Aucaman^Talk 08:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say the most notable thing on this discussion page is your repeated attempts to push your POV - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 21:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Not so long ago were you not denying (as with Diyako/Xebat) the very existence of Persians as an ethnic group? SouthernComfort 05:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect?

Is this article ready to be unprotected? I don't see a lot of talking going on. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well there isn't really much to be "protected" here. If you're worried about edit-warring, it's not going to happen. Aucaman^Talk 10:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm reprotecting the page due to the above user's spam campaign to get other users here into another edit war. If you want discussion about the topic, discuss it, especially here and now. That's what protection is for; to allow for discussion to get consensus on topics of controversy. Unprotection should NOT be requested again until all issues are resolved here (and there is evidence of such agreement). --InShaneee 17:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I asked people to comment on the dispute. I did not intend for them to get into edit wars. I don't know why you'd think such a thing. But I'm definitely not opposed to keeping the page protected until the dispute is resolved. Aucaman^Talk 03:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant laugh of the day:

"The people who are generally known as Persians are of mixed ancestry." LOL, no kidding? By that rationale, literally who on Earth isn't of mixed ancestry? I haven't quite figured out Aucaman's agenda, but this is laughable. -- Bobak 14:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

We should do no more than laugh

[Personal attacks removed]--Darkred 09:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

RETRACTION of any incivility in my above statement

I have been informed and warned that I was uncivil for accusing Aucaman of having an agenda and that my statements were impermissible on Wikipedia. In the interest of good will I retract that statement and have struck-through the offending comment. I however do ask for a level of proof that would refute all commonly known history and knowledge of the Persian peoples, keeping in mind the policy of no original research. If Aucaman can demonstrate this with acadamic citation, then please do. -- Bobak 17:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I'm getting used to these stuff. As for the neutrality problems, see my comments below. Aucaman^Talk 04:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic diversity

What's people's opposition to mentioning that Persians come from a wide variety of backgrounds? If you don't think it's relevant to the history section, then how come it's okay to claim Persians are descendants of "Aryan tribes" in the same section?? Aucaman^Talk 06:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Because of the simple fact that Persians do not come from variety of backgrounds. They may have inter-married with Elamites and people who lived in Iran before and after at different points, but this is not of relevance to their "background" -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 08:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're saying. Are you suggesting Britannica is wrong when it says "Persians are of mixed ancestry, and the country has important Turkic and Arab elements"?? If the statement is correct, then why can't it be mentioned? Also see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. Aucaman^Talk 04:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

problems

Someone (Aucuman) has asked me to stop by and help with this page. I don't know Aucuman, I am not an expert in the history of the Aryans, Persians, or modern Iran, and I am not Iranian nor Persian. (And I have never been to Iran. But I've had very cool students from Iran before. And I think Deep Dish are the coolest DJs. And...) From what I remember from my History of Enlish class, the Aryans came from somewhere in what is now the Steppes in Russiam and went off into many directions, including modern Iran. Other groups from the Steppes headed east (the Tocharians) and south east into India, and also west into Europe. That's all I can say. Oh, and the beat goes on. DDD DDD 08:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It is OK - He has spammed 20-30 users with that message. It is because he is probably getting blocked from editing Iran-related articles because of this arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 08:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Lol, yes i took a look at his contributions too, [personal attack removed]! lol --Darkred 09:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic diversity and NPOV issues

My position has been that there should be no mention of outdated racial theories in a history section. But if there's going to be any discussion of race, it should be comprehensive and present all the different views. The same source that supposedly says Persians are descendants of Aryans also says that "The people who are generally known as Persians are of mixed ancestry, and the country has important Turkic and Arab elements in addition to the Kurds, Balochi, Bakhtyari, Lurs, and other smaller minorities (Armenians, Assyrians, Jews, Brahuis, and others)."[31]

Now I'm not a big fan of Britannica (or any of these statements), but you can't just pick and choose various statements and take them out of context in order to promote a certain POV above all else. Either have a comprehensive discussion of Persians' racial background and diversity, or don't bring it up at all. Please note that according to WP:NPOV, "All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." Aucaman^Talk 04:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not related to the history of Persian people. Sorry -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 05:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A proposed solution

I was asleep last night, and it came to me in a dream... oh wait, that had nothing to do with this... but this does: Why not create a new, separate article, that can address this controversy? It's not an idea without precedent, although it normally occurs outside of articles on ethnicities (example). Obviously there could be a link to it in the relevant section of this article. Right now this dispute is locking up an otherwise useful article. It seems like if the sides here are to ever agree, the resulting collection of theories and counter-theories would be so much material that it would overwhelm what people would traditionally expect on the basic article on "Persian people" (like myself, sexy as we are). Does this make sense? Or is it easier to keep stabbing each other? -- Bobak 14:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt there's enough material to create a subarticle. In any case familiarize yourself with WP:POV fork. You gave this example, but also note that this is also discussed in main article here. If you're going to create a seperate article, it would have be summarized back into this article at some point. But if you think you have enough material to create a new article, by all means go ahead and do so. Until then no one should get away with saying modern Persians are descendants of some Aryan tribes and leaving it at that. Aucaman^Talk 15:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I think there is room for a reasonable compromise --In fact, your citation demonstrates what I am proposing: a small sub-section in the main article touching on this alleged controversy, then a better article prominently linked to at the top where this factual dispute can be adequately explored. I fail to see how this is a irredeemable POV problem. Its about the ethnic origin of Persians and what it means to be a Persian today -- and I say that, instead of bloating this article about what the modern definition of "Persian" is, touch on it here and expand on the academically supported question elsewhere (obviously, if this is a legitimate area of interest, there would be plenty of material to go around on the question) --for a better example, I thought another, more topically relevant article, is the way the article on Jewish people deals with Who is a Jew?. What is your issue with this proposal? Since Wikipedia isn't the place for original research, we need to cite sources. Since this is a rather heated question "Who is a Persian?", I think it ought to be explored properly. -- Bobak 16:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with this as long as it's done properly. Having a section titled "Who is a Persian?" sounds pretty good to me. If you want to create the article, you can just here and start writing. Thanks for helping out. Aucaman^Talk 16:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree, making such original research is not the intension of Wikipedia. Carry it out in your spare time, See WP:NOR -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 18:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not original research if the controversy can be independantly verified. --InShaneee 18:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

But there is no "controversy"! Just because one contributer on Wikipedia doesn't like to accept reality, it doesn't make it controversial! -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 19:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't make personal attacks. If a user believes there is a controversy, they are free to present evidence to support this theory. --InShaneee 20:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Under that theme, InShaneee, the onus would fall on Aucaman. -- Bobak 21:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

ANd I thought definition of what is Persian is easy, just relax... Personally I don't see any controversy... It is a known fact that Persian Aryan ancestors migrated from their ancestral homelands in SOuthern Russa . As long as you don't mix Turks into it, I am fine.abdulnr 21:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman has cited a source and provided a quote...:

""The people who are generally known as Persians are of mixed ancestry, and the country has important Turkic and Arab elements in addition to the Kurds, Balochi, Bakhtyari, Lurs, and other smaller minorities (Armenians, Assyrians, Jews, Brahuis, and others).""

...so, I think, if someone wants to counter that information, 'the onus' as you put it should fall on them to cite a source for conflicting information. Until they do cite some contradictory source, I'd say the info should be included in the article. Anyone removing information from an article, when that information is supported by a reference citation, would seem to me to be somewhat of a vandal. Pedant 21:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

the country has important Turkic and Arab elements in addition to the Kurds, Balochi, Bakhtyari, Lurs, and other smaller minorities (Armenians, Assyrians, Jews, Brahuis, and others).

This part is certainly irrelevant since it is about the country of Iran not Persian people. The part about being of mixed ancestry can be considered related to this article but not to the history section since what Persians are today is not related to history section but it can be mentioned other places. Gol 23:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If who Persians are is irrelevant to the history section, then why does it say "Persians are descendants of Aryan tribes [...]"?? You not assert anything and say "Aryan tribes began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the 2nd millennium BC." You want to only talk about history, right? Aucaman^Talk 03:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It is irrelevant because Persians are mixed today, not historically. You might argue that them being mixed is important and should be mentioned, although Persians are not any less pure than any other ethnic group, but still if you insist it should be mentioned in other sections since what they are TODAY, is obviously not part of their HISTORY. when we talk about an ethnic group, the original ancestors are mentioned, in this case Aryans, and any one with brain would know that no ethnic group has stayed 100% pure or can claim to be a direct descendant, but I have never seen the fact that people are mixed being specifically mentioned anywhere or stressed upon, it is common sense, so I am not sure why you insist on it but if you do, it should be on other sections. It is what they are today and not what they were historically.Gol 08:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well said -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 16:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The article actually explains following that sentence that the Persians mixed with the Elamites and other indigenous groups. There isn't really any point of contention here anymore. Tombseye 21:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is. Persians did not just intermingled with the Elamites. The Mannaeans were also there, and there were probably some other Aryan tribes (or descendants thereof) already present when the Iranian tribes arrived to the Iranian plateau. Over time there have also been various other invader/migrant groups and all of these have been incorporated into the Persian population. So I don't see how we can say Persians are descendants of Aryan tribes from Central Asia and just leave it at that. Aucaman^Talk 10:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Though this issue is moot since we both will no longer be able to involve ourselves in this article, the burden is upon you to provide sources that Persians are not just descended from the Aryan tribes and indigenous Iranians (Elamites, Kassites, etc.) Genetic studies appear to strongly disagree with your contentions. SouthernComfort 18:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)