Talk:Persians/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Merge

Why don't we merge Iranian and Persian people together or not have Famous Persians because there are no Persians today. We all call our selfs Iranian now. So have famous Iranians. People who call themselfs Persians today are just ashamed about being Iranian.

A request

I write it in persian since I can express myself better in persian:

Doostan, khaheshan gir nadin. Man nemikham inja estedlal biyaram ke oun jomleyi ke tooye maghale hast ghalate ya doroosteh. Balkeh mikham azatoon bekham ke yek joori oun roo avazesh konin ke hame razi bashan. Bebinin man khodam mote'aleghe be hich aghaliyate mazhabi tooye iran nistam. Valy bebinin, dar morede yahoodiya vaziyat yek khordeh fargh mikoneh. Yahoodiyat ta unjayi ke man midoonam (ke ageh eshtebah migam lotfan yeki manoo tashih koneh) ba islam ya masihiyat yek tafavooti bozoorg dareh. Ounam ineh ke bishtar az inkeh yek mazhab basheh yek melliyat ast. Yahoodiya khodeshoon rou pesarane hazrate ebrahim az tarighe eshagh midoonan. Yek chizi shabihe hamin "seyed" khodemoon. Valy tafavootesh ineh ke yahoodiyat melliyateshoon ham hast na faghat mazhabeshoon. khoob, ageh begim ke "iraniha" = "pesarane ghoume ariya"; manish ineh ke "yahoodiyaye iran" ~= "irani". khaheshan in jomle rou yek joore digeh benevisin. man sa'ay mikonam ke emtehanam tamoom shod in ghaziyeh rou bishtar bahs konam. Valy khaheshan inoo yek joori avazesh konin ke hamvataniyaye yahoodimoon ham razi bashan. mokhlese hame, Amin. --Aminz 23:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Amin jaan, I think its best to write your answer in English so others know too. One's religion comes after one's ethnicity. It is true about Jews that you can have Jews who are not actually Jewish (religiously) however that is different to Persian Jews. In any case I really hope you realise what headache this individual who you want to back up has given us, if you only knew that for two months we have had arguments over this, it has truely made us tired. In the article it does not say "Iranians are Aryans, nokhteh sareh khat", I do invite you to actually read that sentence especially in its context and understand that we have tried all our efforts to make it as neutral as we possibly can, however IRAN is a synonym of ARYAN and our language Persian we call an Aryan language, we can't censor information just because it might be offensive to someone, and it should NOT be. Never lose your pride on this matter as it was Cyrus and Darius who created the first empire that gave everyone including Jews freedom to practice their religion and infact paid them to rebuild their temples of worship. Aryanism is NOT associated with racism when it comes to Iranians and Persians and I am personally sick and tired of this endless argument, and I am not alone, I hope you understand. Ba sepaas, -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 00:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh! For two months!!

Well, I don't want to be skeptical; I am unaware of the discussion here and just felt I can understand why Aucuman is trying to break the phrase "descendents of the Aryan". And of course I can see your argument Khashayar. I just want to help everyone feel happy. Here is how I want to proceed: I'll try to suggest a couple of other sentences but will not argue on them; I'll ask anybody for a yes/no answer and a brief explanation. I will not argue with those who oppose the suggestion; instead will try to come up with new suggestions. I hope this works .

And I definitely agree with you on Cyrus and Darius. BTW, It is very sad to see that the government doesn't take care and repair of the tomb of Cyrus the great! (I hope I have not confused this with another tomb) I am really confused why? Ba sepaas, --Aminz 00:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Aminz jaan, there are no disputes here, do you really want to start one? why?!

If you are "unaware of it" then look above, look in the archives, do you not realise that too many people have wasted their lives on this, it is not matter of a joke! -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 00:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No Khashayar jaan, I don't have any dispute with what is written there in the article. It is well-sourced and is a fact. I will not change it if the page gets unblocked. I will just try to propose other sentences that are well referenced as a compromise. If it doesn't work, then that's fine. I will not push it. As I said, if someone opposes to any of the suggestion, I'll simply change it rather than defending it. Just a "no. " response from any editor will be enough. I don't want to be a headache here. Ba Sepaas --Aminz 00:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

And what is your reason for this? -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 00:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because I feel the Persian Jews will feel better when reading this article. Though what is written is factually correct but I hope I can find another well-sourced sentence that everybody feels good with it. --Aminz 01:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, Wikipedia is not a place to make people feel good. There are many things that many of us don't want to see, but in this case it's something backed up by numerous sources, and something that Wikipedia editors have a consensus on. I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of editors here just want this dispute to end, there was an ArbCom over it! And the fact that a small minority dispute the History section isn't good enough of a reason to change it. Let's just leave it as that, please. —Khoikhoi 00:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected!

Yee-haw, let the battles begin again! Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war! Or simply, chill --please... --Bobak 18:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected? Yesssssssssssssss! ;) —Khoikhoi 21:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I simply can't believe this!! =) --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 21:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The Term Persian And Irans Other Ethnic Groups

i added that passage in so as to end the confusion and debating going on both on wikipedia and other places. if anyone has any objections or additions to make, feel free to express your opinions or take any action deemed necessary. thanks.Iranian Patriot 05:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Indian Persians?

Being a Pakistani and a frequent visitor to the country, I know of persian-speakers and some Iranians living there, indeed. But India? Considering the number is 60,000, are you referring to Parsis when you say Persians? Because it's kind of misleading. Parsis are not recent diasporic Iranians but a millenia old Indian ethnic group of ancient Persian origin. They are, by lineage, South Asian Persians, like Tajiks are Central Asian Persians. If you want Iranian diaspora from India, count the Iranis. They are more recent (about 100 + years old) and actually speak modern Zoroastrian Dari. -User: Afghan Historian

Picture

Alright so who else should we add to the picture? How about some modern Iranians? Don't have to be leaders of the country, how about Niki Karimi for example? --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 16:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, sweet heavens don't use Ahmadinejad as a model of what Persians look like, lest you want George W. Bush as the basis for what Americans look like. They both look like chimpanzees for crying out loud (should that worry the international community?) ;-) --Bobak 18:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This whole idea of calling the Fars ethnic group of Iran Persian is a bit strange for the term Persian does not exist in Farsi. Persian is just the foreign version of Iranian, the rulers of the Empire in the Asia were from the province of Pars(Pers for Greeks) and the Greeks mixed these two terms together to form Persia.

Terminology

The terminology section needs sources that define "Who is a Persian" and the same is true for the Kurdish people - "Who is a Kurd" since there are non-Kurdish tribes who speak Kurdish language. Kouroush 13:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Persians in other Countries

This list needs to be updated. There are 7 million Tajiks (persians) in Tajikistan, and about 22,000 Tats (also Persians) in Azerbaijan republic.Iranian Patriot 23:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Tats and Tajiks should be included, I see no reason why they should be taken out.Iranian Patriot 18:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This page is about the persian people, not only of hte persians of iran. tajiks are persians, and tati's are persians. lets talk about this if you all do not agree!Iranian Patriot 18:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of Tajiks

If the consensus is to include Tajiks, then this line should be either removed or modified: This article is about the ethnic Persians of Iran. Heja Helweda 01:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

i agree, it should be either changed or removed, because the persians of iran are not the only persian people. this page should be about all the persian people.Iranian Patriot 02:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

ok, i think i fixed it. now the article truly fits its title, it is about the persian people as a whole.Iranian Patriot 16:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Canada

It is impossible that there is only 75,000 Persians in Canada. In Toronto alone there must be over that amount and besides that let's not forget other parts of Ontario, Montreal and Vancouver

Afghanistan+Uzbekistan

The population of Persians is miscounted. The user who added persians in Afghanistan as 8 million and Persians in Uzbekistan as 1-4 million is wrong. His citation does not even say that there are this much persians in those countries. You have to know that there is not 8 million persians in Afghanistan. I will remove that part and I will try to get the real figures. Thank you! If you know the right figures please fix the populations, after all this is WIkipedia. Wikilo12 21:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

the afghanistan figures are from the CIA world factbook, if anything, they are under-counted. the uzbekistan ones have two sources, one which claims there are more (US department) and one which claims less (the official figures by the uzbek government -- cia world factbook)Iranian Patriot 21:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but I have looked at both pages and dont see where it says There are 8 million Persians in Afghanistan or 4 million in Uzbekistan. I look for the figures on these pages and there was nothing. Please tell where it gives the figures on those pages and also THE USA DOESNT KNOW EVERYTHING. Thank you. Wikilo12 03:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

CIA world factbook:

afghanistan's population: 31,056,997

tajiks are 27% of afghanistans population, 27% of 31,056,997 comes out to that 8 million figure.

uzbekistans population: 27,307,134

Tajiks are 5%, 5% of 27,307,134 is a that 1 million figure.

US department of state report, you will just have to read through that to find it, i dont have the time now. and there are even other sources that claim that there are 11 million tajiks in uzbekistan.Iranian Patriot 03:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all what you say is right. But Tajiks are not Persians. They are a type of the Iranian Peoples. We are talking about Persians here. Thats why Tajiks have their own page on wikipedia. They are a type of Iranian people but not PERSIANS. Thank you. Wikilo12 04:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually Tajiks are Persians, the division is artificual as is the classification of Moldavians as a seperate ethnic group and language from Romanians in the past and today. Take a look at the consensus of Moldava [[1]].69.196.164.190

tajiks are persian. tajik is what the turks used to call central asian persians, and the name is still used today. tajiks call themselves persians. Iranian Patriot 05:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Tajiks are a type of Iranian peoples. They are called central persians but that is not correct. Please see the Iranian peoples page on Wikipedia. Tajiks are a different ethnic group. Wikilo12 17:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Also if you want it the way of the Moldova census, that would mean that Afghans are Persians too. But let me clarify this again. Afghans,Tajiks,etc. are Iranian peoples. Wikilo12 17:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Tajiks are persians. afghans are NOT persians, they are mostly pashtuns. the turks called central asian persians Tat jiks (tajiks) and they called caucasian persians Tatis (Tats). tajiks are persian today in every way shape and form.Iranian Patriot 18:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic Afghans are Pashtuns indeed, but Afghans include Tajiks as well. Overall, the problem is that Tajiks have unique qualities that make them different. They have interacted with their neighbors and are largely Sunni Muslims and generally identify with their countries (Afghanistan and Tajikistan) rather than being 'Persians'. They are in fact Central Asian Persians and speak the same language, albeit different dialect-wise (Dari). Most references do differentiate between Persians in Iran and Tajiks because of their separate evolution.[2][3] Subsuming Tajiks into the Persians will in effect make any mention of the Tajiks problematic. For example, in the Afghanistan article do we call them Tajiks at all or just Persians then? Including them in this article creates a ripple effect of problems. Then there is the Tajiks article as well that is then made superfluous. The Tajiks are a distinct type of Persians in Central Asia as well as an Iranian people in their own right. They can be and are both. As a result, their inclusion in this article is highly problematic. Not to mention the logistics of writing what amounts to two articles in one article in Persians. Wikilo's Moldova analogy is very accurate as well. There are numerous similar examples including the Croats and Serbs, Bulgarians and Pomaks, and even Turkish people and Azeris. Though we are on a slippery slope here, the point is that language alone isn't always enough to simply subsume smaller groups. We're better off keeping the two as distinct given the common practice in references and academia. Otherwise, we are delving into subjective interpretation and original research. Tombseye 18:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

So, now I think that we should take the Tajik census out. It is too hard too call Tajiks totally persian because their are many ohter related ethnic groups that are Related to Persians. Mr.Iranian Patriot I think you know we should.70.68.175.243 18:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I should take the following census out as this will confuse many people soon. Tajiks are Central asian Persians but I think that should stay in the Tajik article rather than the Persians. Tombseye has given a very good explanation. Thank you all, we shall hopefully come to final agreement. I will wait a a day and think about what we shall do. I do think the Tajiks should be mentioned but not be a part of the census.Wikilo12 20:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

tajiks call themselves persians. if you want, i can get some tajiks to come in here and voice their own opinions.Iranian Patriot 21:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No need. Already talked to Tajik and he agrees that although the Tajiks are Persians of Central Asia, they should have their own article (and thus the census figures that include them) given their unique qualities. Their inclusion in this article, something I wrote in by the way, is worth mentioning but complete inclusion in this article is not feasible given the preponderance of references that do support Tajiks as Persians, but also designate them as a unique type of Persians, a sub-type if you will, with its own separate history and interaction with their neighbors etc. Tombseye 21:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, there seems to be some confusion here. I'm not debating removing mention of the Tajiks as a sub-group, in fact I originally wrote that subsection myself. I'm opposed to including Tajiks in the population infobox section as they are counted in the Tajiks article. That's all. Mention of them in the article and defining them as a related Persian group I have no problem with. Tombseye 21:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If this debate is about the census or the number of Persians, I think that Tajiks should not be included - with a small note that they are not included. However, it should be mentioned that OVERALL, the "Persians" (a people who are almost exclusively defined by the use of the Persian language - which automatically qualifies Tajiks for "being Persians") - including Tajiks, Tats, and maybe Hazaras, Mazandaranis, Gilakis, and Lurs - are this much. We did the same with "Turkish language" ... while Azeri and Turkmen are not included in the Turkish language article, we added a small note here, that OVERALL, the "Oghuz language" has this or that many native-speakers, pointing out the fact that Turkmen, Azeri, and Anatolian Turkish are different dialects of the same language. In case of Persians and Tajiks, this is even more important, because - unlike Turks, Azeris, and Turkmens - Persians and Tajiks even have the same ethnic background. Tājik 21:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm okay with the compromise of noting that they are not included in the population stats. Hopefully, this will end the 'debate' if there ever was one! Tombseye 21:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is, that some of you don't want to understand, that Tajiks are not equal to the Persians of Iran. That are not 100% the same people. The Kurds of Iran have more in common with the people of Shiraz and Esfahan, than the Tajiks of Central Asia. Sure Tajiks speak Persian, Kurds speak Kurdish, but Kurds are Western Iranians as the Persians of southern Iran, instead the Tajiks are Eastern Iranians who adopted the Persian language. The remains of the true Eastern Iranians are the Pamiris and Yagnobis. What happens with the Bactrians and Sogdians? Do you really think they disappear? But sure there is a great connection between the Persian speaking people.

--ShapurAriani 21:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't what we were currently debating actually. The problem was including Tajik population figures in the infobox. As for the Tajiks as Persians, well it's a hazy issue. The Persians of Iran are themselves a mixed group which assimilated first native peoples such as the Elamites and adopted Persian after the conquests of the Persians from Fars who spread the language throughout, including what is today northern Afghanistan and Central Asia. I do agree that there are variations between the two and thus we have two different articles. However, mention of their relationship is not out of line given their similarities. See Germans for discussion of the Swiss for example who also have some differences with the Germans of Germany that is similar to this issue. Tombseye 21:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Tajiks are persians today, you can even ask them, they will tell you they are persians. we are talking about the persian people, and today, that includes tajiks. no one is pure in this day and age, but we have to set the bar somewhere.Iranian Patriot 22:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Show Me the persians !

i dont know why u guys Persist to call urself Persian we are Iranain Not persian yes that is true that 4000 yrs ago the people who come here were Persian but it was for past and history all of those people has died till now Dont say what u were Before say what u are Right now and all of you are Iranains NO persian if we call ourself persian the Afghanestan and tagikestan , Gorjestan , Iraq , Turkey and north of Sudi Arabia and Even some part of Eygept Should call them self Persians.

Please Live at the Moment not at 4000 yrs ago

We are Iranain and Our language is Farsi

calm down, persian is an ethnic group just like kurds, balouchi's, azari's, etc... if they have the right to call themselves by their ethnicity, then so do we. we are all iranian first, but we arent necessarily all of the same ethnic group.Khosrow II 19:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am highly confused by this article, as a non-Iranian (my background is Kashmiri Pakistani American, if you must know). Persian is an ethnicity??? This article does a poor job of explaining it.

1. WE ARE THE PERSIANS AND WE EXIST, we are the remaining of the ruling core of Persian empire who someday ruled all lands from Egypt to India. loosing those lands doesn’t diminish our culture and existence.

2. there is no ethnic group with the name of Persian, Persia(recently called Iran!) is a nation that involves people who speak Persian, Kurdish, Azeri, ... even Persian live in Khuzestan and speak both Arabic and Persian it doesn’t mean that they are Arab. Please note that there is no one exist in iran who mention him/herself as a part of a "persian" ethnic group.80.242.10.17 08:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Not trying to pick a fight, but you don't seem to know much about the history of Iran/Persia, so don't make these kinds of comments. We were called persian until 1935 and also since 1959 we could be called both. So get your facts right. --(Aytakin) | Talk 20:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

So since you don't agree with the name change in 1935, you think you should still be called Persian? Isn't Persian an English / European word?? What were you called in Farsi before 1935? Persian??? This whole argument is just a reactionary zeal to the current regime in Iran. Let's admit that and move on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.172.80.214 (talk • contribs)

Heratis: Persians of Central Asia (Tajiks)? or Persians of Iran??

I think we should discuss the Heratis of western Afghanistan. Obviously that region is not in Central Asia. So then how can we call them Central Asian Persians (Tajiks)? Also, Heratis speak the same way as the Persians of Iran do, with the exact same accent. So then what are Heratis? Central Asian Persians (Tajiks) OR Persians of Iran?

Map showing Herat province in Afghanistan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herat

note: I am not sure if I am talking about the city of Herat, or the province.

Heratis are not Tajiks (in the modern sense of the word), but so-called Farsiwans. Their dialect is not the general "Irani dialect" (=Tehrani dialect), but very close to the dialects of Khorasan-province (for example the dialect of Tus or Nishapur), as well as to the dialects of Farrah and Ghor in Afghanistan. However, since all Persian-speakers in Afghanistan who are not Hazaras are generally called "Tajiks", I guess we have to call them "Tajiks" in here, too. Tājik 08:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

But shouldnt we include the Heratis (Parsiwans) in the number of Persians? Since they are practically identical to them, and although they are referred to as Tajiks, they are not Tajiks. Many other sources on Persians that I've seen on the internet do include the Heratis with the Persians of Iran. And according to another Wiki articel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farsiwan, they are identical. Not including them here would be a contradiction.

I really do not care. Heratis could be either in the Tajiks article or in this one ... their number is some 200.000 and would not change the statistics significantly. Tājik 10:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think they should be in both.

Can more people please join this discussion?

Persians

Is there an anthropologist out there with any real information? What is a Persian? I submit that thre are as many Persians left as there are ancient Egyptians, Romans, Sumerians, Assyrians etc. I would appreciate someone explaining to me how I am wrong. No "Persian" alive today is remotely related to Darius, is he? The only thing Persian about Iranians is the land they live on which was a small part of the Persian Empire. I submit that todays Macedonians under an Alexander would defeat Iranians. How many ancient Persians were Moslem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alf1052 (talk • contribs)

Thats like asking "How many Arabs are out there who are Not muslims?", or "How many Europeans are out there that are not Pagan?" 2000 years ago, everyone had different religions to what they have today. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 11:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think whoever this moron is that is aguing about persia vs. farsi is a moron. Our language is been know as farsi and parsi for thousands of years and the people woh we are mostley descent of were called the parsa tribe who selttled in the pars province aka fars. This is like trying to argue that Greeks aren't greeks because they call themselves hellinithas back in hellinika aka greece. Get a life. We are know as Iranians and Persians as a nationality depending on the context. It was annonced in 1960 that both country names were ok. To use back home we can call it Iran or Pars. As far as ethnicity Persians make up the majority before and after that name addition. Keep in mind that our country has been know as both since before the sassanid dynasty.

what the hell are the pictures?

i saw the image of kourosh. i see why HE should be there. but please for the sake of god or else i kill myself, tell me why there should be the picture of Gabrielle Anwar and Nazanin Afshin-Jam on this page. they are of zero importance. if not tell me: 1. what they did as a persian? they even can not speak proper persian. 2. if you just want some pictures as SAMPLES (what the hell?), why not a usal picture of an unknown woman or man exhibiting some sort of persian tradition, like cloths or something. 3. it seems the whole problem comes from a simple thing: no self-confidency. the picture of a mixed iranian-english girl is there because her persian father was considered as HUMAN (i.e. good enough to marry to!)???? if not so tell me why. the other picture of Nazanin Afshin-Jam is also damn silly to include: are you trying to say that "look a persian girl is elected as miss canada" so what?

I do understand the fact that some nice pictures are good to put there, and I (as a man) also agree that a picture of a beautiful woman is appreciated anyway, but why these two people. kalaash 28sep2006.

for the uneducated blind fan of Gabrielle Anwar and Nazanin Afshin-Jam. these two women (whoever they are, with full respect) are by no means representing persian women. before editing the page write down here your argument on why we should put those two pictures in an article with such a general theme as "persian women". i repeat again i don't see why we should put the picture of two women who even can not speak persian. i just dont get it. explain this to me. and stop editting before explaining in a line or two the reason for having the pictures there. if having pictures are prefered, then check image search engine and use some with appropriate message, and according to rules of wikipedia we can not include pictures from non public domains, nor pictures of particular stars in an article on general theme. klash 28sep2006.

Major editing needed.

I have recently become interested in this article. But in my opinion a major revision is needed. for example under the section of persian music it is stated that "...Googoosh who was the most famous pre-revoloutionary singer was ..." this statement is strong and needs clarification. moreover this sounds to be violating the basic wikipedia principle NPV.

An article about war with Iran

Take a look

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061001&articleId=3361

Move to Persian-speaking people

I think to avoid the ambiguity, this page should move to Persian-speaking people. Persian people has several meanings. In most texts, it simply means people of Iran (either modern-day Iran or ancient Persia). In some other texts it means Persian-speaking People and in some of them (such as CIA factbook), only Persian-speaking People of the modern-day Iran. This article is about all Persian-speaking People and the title Persian-speaking people is more appropriate. Jahangard 16:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

We also need an article for Persian-speaking people of Iran. Jahangard 16:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Against. Persians are an ethno-linguistic group, "Persian people" is more appropriate per wiki style. --ManiF 02:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not against using the word "Persians" as an ethno-linguistic group. However, in most English texts, "Persian people" refers to "people of Iran (Persia). To avoid the ambiguity, it's better to have titles which are less ambiguous. Persian people should be a disambiguation page. Jahangard 18:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Against as per Mani.Khosrow II 04:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This isn't really supposed to be a vote, but I'm going to have to disagree with this suggestion as well. The most common meaning of "Persian people" or "Persians" in English is the ethnic group. For example, the CIA factbook says that the "Persian" (not "Persian-speaking") ethnic group accounts 51% of Iran's population. For a comparison, note that the term "Hungarian" used to refer to any inhabitant of the Kingdom of Hungary. Back then, the term "Magyar" was used for ethnic Hungarians. However, today Romanians are called Romanians, Slovaks are called Slovaks, etc. That's why we have the page at Hungarian people, which is about the Hungarian ethnic group. This article is about the ethinc group in Iran that account about half of the country's total population. —Khoikhoi 04:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned CIA factbook before. The fact that CIA uses "persian" as "Persian speaking" and many other sources use "Persian" as "Iranian" (or "from Iran") shows the ambiguity and Persian people should be disambiguation page. You say The most common meaning of "Persian people" or "Persians" in English is the ethnic group. I disagree with you. In English texts (or texts in other western languages), the most common meaning of "Persians" is "people of Iran (Persia)". To check that, see the first 20-30 results for "Persian peoples" in the Google search (over books) [4]. Jahangard 18:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a disambiguition page will resolve this, like the one Jahangard attempted.Khosrow II 18:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

A disambiguition page at Persians? But the most common meaning of "Persians" is the ethnic group...perhaps we can have a disambig. note at the top of this article. —Khoikhoi 18:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As I explained earlier, the most common meaning of "Persians" is not the ethno-linguist group. Jahangard 18:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You haven't provided any sources besides Google to back-up this claim. For example, since when are Azeris and Kurds called Persians? (today) —Khoikhoi 18:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? Those search results are books. Google is only a search engine to search over those books. Jahangard 19:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Check the dates on these books, Jahangard. I see one in 1953, another in 1966, and one even in 1911. This was when the country was commonly known in English as "Persia". Today we call it "Iran". —Khoikhoi 19:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Even among the new books, most of them (or at least a large portion of them) use the word "Persians" as people of either modern-day Iran, or Persian empire [5]. There are also many uses of the word as Persian-speakig people (either as Persian-speakig people of Iran or Tajiks). This shows the necessity of disambiguation. One may argue that the word "Persians" should only be used as "People of Iran", or "Persian-speaking people", or only "Persian-speaking people of Iran". But, it's not for us (ro editors of any encyclopedia) to decide what should be the use the word. It's just for us to report the common uses of the word. I think this page should move to a less ambiguous title. Jahangard 04:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The most common term for the ethnolinguistic group in English is "Persians" not "Persian-speaking people". --ManiF 10:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The last search result that I mentioned is about "Persians". Of course, "Persians" is much more common than "Persian people" or "Persian-speaking people", but it is true for the all uses of the word. Indeed, "Persians" is even more ambiguous than "Persian people". Jahangard 17:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Make your mind

I saw the recent changes by User:Tajik-afghan. Before continuing the discussion, something should be made clear. What is the topic of this article? Is it about all persian-speaking people (including Tajiks of Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), or it's just about Persian-speaking people of Iran? If this is supposed to be only about Persian-speaking people of Iran, then the current article should change accordingly, and we will need another article for all Persian speakers. Jahangard 03:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If this is about Persian-speaking people, as opposed to ethnic Persians, then we would have to include Farsiwans and Tajiks into the total population. I think its better that this article is about the ethnic Persians of Iran, rather than Persian-speakers, that would be too confusing. Also, in the Western world a Persian is referred to as people from a certain ethnicty in Iran. If we make this article about all speakers of the language in various countries, then that would confuse them. That is my reasoning.

In the current article, there are several inconsistencies. The article itself talks about all persian-speaking people (including Persian-speakers of Iran and Tajiks of afghanistan and Tajikistan) and the infobox only considers the Persian-speakers of Iran. Looking at the history of the article, it seems that there hase been a gradual change of topic (since 7-8 months ago). Before any further change, we need to resolve this issue. Jahangard 04:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the solution is to move this page to Persian-speaking people, and change the Info-box accordingly. I think Persians (and Persian people) should be disambiguation page. Jahangard 04:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

My position is that this article should be about the Persian Ethnic Group. The problem with Persian-speaking people is that anyone can become a Persian-speaker. This article would define a Persian-speaker as someone of Iranian origin that speaks Persian. That could be a lot of people. Persians are infact a distinct group from other Iranian peoples. And together with their language and culture form a distinct ethnic group. And they have sub-groups such Tajiks and Farsiwan. That is my position. Parsiwan 00:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Persian-speaking people are an ethno-linguistic group. I'm saying that this article talks about the whole group (including Persians of Iran, Tajiks, and Farsiwans), and the beginning sentence should indicate that. Jahangard 03:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

One may argue that Hazaras are from a different ethnic origin and they have become Persian-speaking in the 6-7 centuries ago. This issues can be explained in the article (similar to Iranian people). Jahangard 04:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is either about all Persian-speaking people (including Tajiks and Farsiwans) as an ethno-linguistic group or just the Persians of Iran. Either way, the article should be consistent with itself. Now, the body of the article is about all Persian-speaking people and the population data and the beginning sentence is only about Persians of Iran. Jahangard 03:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

My proposal is that similar to the articles Iranian people and Iranians, this article should be about the Persian-speaking people (as an ethno-linguistic group) and Persians should be disambiguation page. The beginning sentences and the popuplation data of this article should change accordingly. Jahangard 03:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Another solution is to create a new article Persian-speaking people (for the ethnolinguistic group, including Persians of Iran, Tajiks and farsiwans) and change the current article (Persian people), so that it only includes Persians of Iran. Jahangard 17:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I oppose creating another article—I think it would be a lot better to have everything here. Khoikhoi 03:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Somethings needs to be done about this issue. Is this going to be an article about linguistics rather than ethnicity like the Turkic people article, or just about ethnicity? We need to think of something. Can we have both in this article? Like a population for ethnic Persians and then a seperate population of all Persian speakers in the world?Khosrow II 04:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It is going to about the ethnic group which includs Persians of Iran, Parsiwans, and Tajiks. Unlike some languages like English and French, there is not much difference between Ethnic Persians and Persian-speaking people (because almost all major Persian-speaking sub-groups have Persian-speaking ancestors). Some may argue that Hazaras are from a different ethnic origin and they have become Persian-speaking in the 6-7 centuries ago. This issue can be addressed in a section of this article. Jahangard 05:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Unlike some languages like English and French, there is not much difference between Ethnic Persians and Persian-speaking people (because almost all major Persian-speaking sub-groups have Persian-speaking ancestors) <- Do you have a source for this claims? Please see Persian language for linguistic issue. This article is about an ethnic group, not a linguistic group. Khorshid 06:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

A source for which claim? that "almost all major Persian-speaking sub-groups (including Tajiks) are from Persian-speaking ancestry? I didn't say that this article is not about ethnic group. Jahangard 03:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the begining sentence is that it excludes Tajiks. This is not consistent with the body of the article. Also, in many of the links to this article, the word "Persian" is used to describe some people from 8-15th centuries such as Al-Beruni, Al-Khujandi, Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi. For that use, the word should be reffered to a page which includes Tajiks. After all, differentiating between "Tajiks" and "Persians of Iran", when we consider the pre-Safavid era, is meaningless. Jahangard 03:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Solution?

How about we modify the Persian language page to include the above proposed chagnes?Khosrow II 03:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean you want to refer "Persian" (in a sentence like "Al-Beruni was a Persian ...") to Persian language? not a good idea. Jahangard 04:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I was talking about the Persian speakers thing. Whether the article should be about Persian speakers or the Persian ethnic group.Khosrow II 04:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In a sentence like "Al-Beruni was a Persian ...", the word "Persian" should be referred to a page which includes both "Tajiks" and "Persians of Iran". When we talk about the pre-safavid era, we shouldn't restrict the term "ethnic Persian" to Persians of the modern-day Iran. It's also meanningless to differentiate between Al-Beruni and Khayyam, just based on the borders which are finalized in 19th century or the religious differences of their hometowns in the post-Safavid era. Jahangard 05:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I guess thats true.Khosrow II 05:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Persians in Turkey

Can anyone quote any relevant sources on this? 800,000 Persians living in Turkey? I cannot find any. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.215.35.161 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Population numbers

By adding up rthe numbers listed in the table, we arrive at 37-43 range.Heja Helweda 02:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually the term "Persian" is not an ethnic term but a linguistic and historical term and if we are discussing just native language speakers than many people now speak Persian as their native language specially in Tehran which is a mix of different regions but all the children speak Persian. The term Kurd is not consistently defined either. If we are equating languages than Laks, Guranis, Zazakis are not "Kurds" as defined by any linguistic who speliazes in Iranian languages (and note their word has more Scholarly weight than other sources). Thus I bring this example that a language and label are not necessarily the same. From a historical point of view modern Persian is one(not the only one) of the descendants of middle Persian and thus the usage of the term Persian is not confined to native Dari-Persian speakers only. Some could argue that it includes all SW Iranian languages. Other might say it is for anyone who feels the legacy of say just the Sassanid dynasty. Thus confining the term to just native speakers of modern Dari-Persian is erroneous and disregards the Sassanid heritage of much of Iran who do not speak the Khorasani dialect of middle Persian which developed into the modern Persian. Thus if the article was about native Dari-Persian speakers of Iran, then there is no issue, but the term Persian is more widely used and not narrowly defined to just speakers of one branch of Pahlavi. For example Parsi (Persians) of India who speak Gujarti..--alidoostzadeh 02:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)