User talk:Babakexorramdin

Sallam gorban, do you remember when i suggested the below about ethnicities? Well User:Parishan just won't listen to my requsts and keeps trying to make Iranain Azeris sound like Azerbaijani Republics. Could you help me in keeping an eye on his/her edits on Iranian Azeris so we can clamp down on the issue together? mercy, khodahafez User:Megastrike14

Hey, ive made a new infobox on Iranian Azeris page, i hope you like it:)[[User:Megastrike14]

Look, i am an Iranian Azeri myself and I am very proud of being an Azeri. However, I am also very, very proud of being Iranian, propbably similar to yourself:) but when things like "an Iranian of Azeri descent" is put down. This indicates that he is an Iranian who originates from The Republic of Azerbaijan as it does not mention the Iranian and Azeri together. Therefore, i try to make my edits of Iranian Azeris more accurate by putting things like "he/she is an Iranian Azerbaijani or Iranian Azeri to make it sound as if he/she is not from the republic, but from Iranian Azerbaijan:)

Otherwise, i dont mean to cause any trouble. thankyou User:Megastrike14

thats it, im glad you understand me buddy. User:Megastrike14

Hi, Babakexorramdin, Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay. Before getting too in-depth, you may want to read about the Five pillars of Wikipedia and simplified ruleset. If you need help on how to title new articles check out the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and the FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my user talk page or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will be by to help you shortly. Additional tips[edit] Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia! If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you. You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Five will get you the datestamp only. You may want to add yourself to the new user log. If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted. If you're still entirely confused, or would like to get a better grasp of your wikipedia skills, and you have an IRC client (or don't mind getting one), check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills. If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal. Happy Wiki-ing. —Kf4bdy talk contribs PS: This is not a bot and you did nothing to prompt this message. This is just a friendly welcome by a fellow Wikipedian. Click here to respond to this message!

At [1] Brittanica says: "In 625 BC Cyaxares united the area's tribes into a kingdom" in reference to Media. It calls it a kingdom and the article is titled 'Media' not 'Median Empire' because you logically need a nation before it can form an empire. The Median Empire came later. You may have been mislead by this passage "Traditionally, the creator of the Median kingdom was one Deioces, who, according to Herodotus, reigned from 728 to 675 BC and founded the Median capital Ecbatana (modern Hamadan)." (emphasis mine) at [2]. The important word here is traditionally. You could protest that something 'traditional' does not have to be factually incorrect but I have found a quote from Brittanica showing it states that that tradition is historically inaccurate at [3] "petty Median chieftain subject to the kingdom of Mannai in modern Iranian Azerbaijan; later tradition made him the founder of the Median empire".

So I have established that Brittanica states that Media started in 625 BC. The irony is is that the person who put that date there originally was me. The date there previously was sometime in the 600s BC, perhaps 625, perhaps not. I drawing from the part on the 'Median Empire' on Wikipedia article '[Medes]' and from that Brittanica article, perhaps falling into the same misconception as you, changed it to 728 BC, only changing it back much later after I realized my mistake!--Supertask (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Media

dear super task your I cannot open the link http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9371723 but the other one states "petty Median chieftain subject to the kingdom of Mannai in modern Iranian Azerbaijan; later tradition made him the founder of the Median empire. " It says that he was first a subject of Mannai but then managed to establish (his own) Median empire. Also in the Irnian books is he recognized as the establisher of the Median empire. The confusion comes [put simply] because it is assumed that after a period Median throne got conquered( by the Scythians probably), but the Median royal clan again defeated them. See Diakonov on the History of Media.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iran"--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)"

Inside the link you cannot open it says:

"Media

Ancient country, Middle East.

It was situated in present-day northwestern Iran and was home to the Medes, an Iranian people. In 625 BC Cyaxares united the area's tribes into a kingdom. In 614 BC he captured Ashur and later defeated the Assyrian empire and seized territory in Iran, northern Assyria, and Armenia. In 550 BC it became part of the new Persian Achaemenian dynasty under Cyrus II. Alexander the Great occupied it in 330 BC. In the partition of his empire, southern Media was given to the Macedonians and then to the Seleucids; northern Media became the kingdom of Atropatene, which passed to Parthia, Armenia, and Rome. In 226 BC the whole of Media passed to the Sasanians, another Persian dynasty."

You see it says it was united into a kingdom in 625 BC. You may be confused and think that Britannica has contradicted itself because you take this line "petty Median chieftain subject to the kingdom of Mannai in modern Iranian Azerbaijan; later tradition made him the founder of the Median empire" to mean that Britannica states he established the Median empire. This is a confusion of language, firstly, it simply desribes him as "petty Median chieftain", if he then became ruler of the Media it would state he "started out as a petty Median chieftain" or something like that.

In addition it claims "later tradition made him founder of the Median empire" whereas you say it states he established the Median empire. Tradition doesn't do things new (like establish a new empire) it is an established way of doing things. This Oxford University online dictionary definition agrees (this is the Tradition definition: "[• noun 1 the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation. 2 a long-established custom or belief passed on in this way. 3 an artistic or literary method or style established by an artist, writer, or movement, and subsequently followed by others.|http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/tradition?view=uk]" so when Britannica says "later tradition made him founder of the Median empire" it means that when the empire was already established later tradition (emphasis mine, later tradition, not the tradition of Deioces time) stated he was the founder of the Median Empire. As you can see the very reliable source of Britannica states that it was actually united in 625 BC.

"See Diakonov on the History of Media"

You would have to state exactly what Diakonov on the History of Media is and it would have to be recognized by Wikipedia as a more reliable source than Britannica if you want to use it to support the claim that the Median empire was founded in 728 BC.

"Also in the Irnian books is he recognized as the establisher of the Median empire"

Again, you would have to state exactly what books these are and they would have to be recognized by Wikipedia as a more reliable source than Britannica if you want to use them to support the claim that the Median empire was founded in 728 BC.

In any case what i see is that the source in Britanica gives a wrong date for the end of the Median empire (not 550 BC).

All other sources say 559 BC. By Diakonov I meant Igor Mikhailovich Diakonov (December 30, 1914 (January 12, 1915), Petrograd – May 2, 1999, St Petersburg) was a Russian/Soviet historian, linguist, and translator who should be ranked among the greatest authorities on Ancient Near East and its languages. Diakonov, both of whose brothers were distinguished historians, was brought up in Norway and graduated from the Leningrad University in 1938, joining the staff of the Hermitage Museum the same year.

His work:

1 used & new from $34.95

---

Get it for less! Have one to sell?

See larger image

Share your own customer images

Publisher: learn how customers can search inside this book. Are You an Author or Publisher? Find out how to publish your own Kindle Books

Tarikh-i Mad (Paperback) by Igor Mikhailovich Diakonov (Author), Karim Kishavarz (Author)

No customer reviews yet. Be the first.

---

Availability: Available from these sellers.

1 used & new available from $34.95

---

Editorial Reviews

Product Description A history of the Medes, translated into Persian by Karim Kishavarz from the original Russian. The Medes were a group who settled in what is present-day Iran in the second millennium BCE. They created the first recognized empire until Cyrus the Great united the Medes and Persians into a single nation, which heralded the Achaemenid Persian Empire.

---

Product Details

Paperback: 664 pages Publisher: Elme va Farhangi (2004) Language: Farsi ISBN-10: 9644451066 Average Customer Review: No customer reviews yet. Be the first.

Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? (We'll ask you to sign in so we can get back to you)

---

Suggested Tags from Similar Products (What's this?) Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product) Check a coresponding box or enter your own tags the field below religion (15) history (14) herodotus (12) philosophy (12) gnosticism (11) biblical archaeology (10) classics (10) gospel of judas (10) mongols (10) stephen turnbull

[4] 

Also in the Iranian history school books Deioces (Diaeko)is mentioned as the establisher of the Median empire. Maybe it is OK to say he established first a median kingdom which later was evovled into the Median empire? Is this a good formulation?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Tarikh-i Mad (Paperback) by Igor Mikhailovich Diakonov (Author), Karim Kishavarz (Author)"

You still haven't said specifically what this book says to support your case. In addition Brittanica would be recognized by Wikipedia as a more reliable source than an obscure book anyway.

"Also in the Iranian history school books Deioces (Diaeko)is mentioned as the establisher of the Median empire"

This means nothing until you have identified these school books, where they state this and quoted the parts you think support this. Anyway, Brittanica would still be recognized as more reliable than obscure Iranian school books. Brittanica is a well known encyclopædia written by experts.

"Maybe it is OK to say he established first a median kingdom which later was evovled into the Median empire? Is this a good formulation?"

Only if you can cite proof for this version of events.--Supertask (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How on the earth can you call Diakonov's work as an obscure book??????? He is an authority on the ancient near Eastern history.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously in its specialty of a history of the Medes it is not obscure. However, it is obscure in general as opposed to Brittanica. Please stop prevaricating and specifically cite a source that is more reliable than Brittanica.--Supertask (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I announced I have left Wikipedia because of much irritation. Do not take it personal. But I am tired of some peoples'behaviour especially with regards to the Iranian articles. As your answer: I may hurt your British feelings but allow me to diagree with you, Diakonov is an authority in the near Eastern history and in general Soviet/Russian sources have a higher quality than the British ones. In addition even encycl;opedia Britanica says that 728 BC Deioces united the Median tribes and became their king. It is the establishment of the Median Kingdom. Nevertheless for some reason you want to diagree. But again as I said I have left wikipedia and will not do much efforts here. You can go on with your pinion. It is now up to other Iranian editors to discuss with you. Good Luck.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 17:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to see that I who has always signed (maybe only in one case not), gets a warning and the vandalizer and political activists wo enjoy supports from some administrators usually to not sig. I ask why? The answer is clear. Babakexorramdin 13:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muliani, S. (2001) Jaygah-e Gorjiha dar Tarikh va Farhang va Tammadon-e Iran. Esfahan: Yekta [ The Georgians’ position in the Iranian history and civilization]

Rahimi, M.M. (2001) Gorjiha-ye Iran; Fereydunshahr. Esfahan: Yekta [The Georgians of Iran; Fereydunshahr]

Sepiani, M. (1979) Iranian-e Gorji. Esfahan: Arash [Georgian Iranians]

Esfahan's tourist exhibition, mentiones the Georgians from Fereydunshahr and Fereydan.The report of this exhibition is available in the web site of the Iranian Cultural Heritage News agency at: http://www.chn.ir/news/?Section=1&id=12497

Saakashvili's visited Fereydunshahr and put flowers on the graves of the Iranian Georgian martyrs' graves, showing respect towards this community http://www.iran-newspaper.com/1383/830420/html/internal.htm

see also http://www.iranica.org Babakexorramdin 23:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. َAbout Esfahan the overwhelming language is of course Persian speaking but as you mentioned there are Georgian, Armenian, Qashqai and Bakhtiari. I think in such articles we should mention the overwhelming language and then put also Georgian, Armenian, Qashqai, Bakhtiari.. به ویکیپیدا خوش آمدید.

--alidoostzadeh 01:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC) that would be a good idea, burt I think vandals like Pejman=Mohammed= Azxerbaijani would keep going on vandalizing anyway. Babakexorramdin 01:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ali jan I have seen your newest solution. That is very innovative. Please apply the same formula to the other ostans too. I will definetly support it. Babakexorramdin 01:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I created a new article for Iran-Georgain historical relations because that section was getting way too big. You can find it here: Persia-Georgia relations.Hajji Piruz 18:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that. Thanks. Encyclopedia Iranica has a good section on that, but it makes some mistakes at some points. I have put some names in other fashion in that article in wikipedia. I will be editing it if needed using Persian sources such as Falsafi and Monshi.

Babakexorramdin 00:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Babakexorramdin. A thread about your way of editing has just been opened here at the ANI. You are invited to participate there or else reading the verifiability policy and the burden of evidence and WP:CITE would be sufficient i believe. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone sees my sources to which I refer not as sources then he has serious problems in understanding scientific discourse.Babakexorramdin 15:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please be aware that you've been named as a party to an arbcom case here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. Regards, Grandmaster 12:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me mr. Novruzov, where and if only where I have been discussing something about Armenia- Azerbaijan? This makes no sense at all. --Babakexorramdin 20:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Babakexorramdin. I noticed that you frequently edit Iranian-Georgian articles. Do you happen to have any additional info about the purported Georgian dynasty of medieval Ahar? Many thanks in advance, --Kober^Talk 09:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, unfortunately I have no information ready on this. But tell me please do you mean the north Iranian territory under the Georgian suzerainty in the Georgian Golden period? What is the exact date? --Babakexorramdin 17:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as I know Ahar was ruled in the 12th-13th centuries by the Besheqenids, a Muslim branch of the Orbeli (?) family which had been expelled from Georgia. The Iranica article on Ahar contains very vague information about this dynasty. Vladimir Minorsky's "The Georgian Maliks of Ahar." BSOAS vol. 13/4, 1951, pp. 868-77 would be of great help, but, unfortunately, I have no access to the article. Best regards, --Kober^Talk 17:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the Kasravi´s book Shahriaran-e Gomnam provides the solution. it is the book which delas with the lesser known dynsisties and royal clans during this lesser known islamic period. I try to find the book and see what it says.--Babakexorramdin 20:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above named arbitration case in which you were named as a party has closed. The remedy is as follows: The remedies of revert limitations (formerly revert parole), including the limitation of 1 revert per week, civility supervision (formerly civility parole) and supervised editing (formerly probation) that were put in place at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan shall apply to any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. Before any penalty is applied, a warning placed on the editor's user talk page by an administrator shall serve as notice to the user that these remedies apply to them.

You may view the full case decisions here.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you. Now you have seen that I was not at all involved with Armenian/ Azerbaijan issue. It seems that Grandmaster (and his group) see everything which opposes their POV as something Armenia/Azerbaijan related. They also want to extend their issue into the Turkish and Iranian pages, which has nothing to do with them. --Babakexorramdin 09:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You keep adding some factual accuracy tag to the classification on Turkic languages page yet you have no provided any further discussion on Talk:Turkic languages. All you have mentioned in your edit notes is "The classification is not accurate and seems very odd". Please provide further details on what is not accurate and what is odd on Talk:Turkic languages instead of continually adding a tag that doesn't seem supported. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 22:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I had answered you already and I suggetsed that you had not read my entry on the discussion page.--Babakexorramdin 17:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I had not read your entry because I did not see it buried in the comments for Talk:Turkic_languages#Alternative_representation_of_the_family_tree. I suggest that when you add tags for disputing something on an article you need to be more overt and start a new topic directly related to the tag on the talk page. That will make it easier for everyone to find. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 18:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I understand what you mean. I better begin a new topic. What I did I wrote directly under the classifier's text in the talk page. A new Topic at the end of the page was better. --Babakexorramdin 07:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Babakexorramdin. Thanks for your message. I agree that history writing is frequently dominated by nationalist scholars, but there are many credible historians in Georgia, Iran, Azerbaijan, and elswhere who never resort to the fabrication of history. I would like to cooperate with you on Iranian-Georgian topics when we both have enough time. I presume you belong to that community and your contributions would be of great value. Didi madloba again.--Kober^Talk 07:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope one day I can meet a neutral Historian from the rep. Azerbaijan!!!!! --Babakexorramdin 15:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be my pleasure! Unforunately i rarely access Y! IM, But you can email me, If i found enough time, I also have plan for Georgian-Related Articles, Specially cities and towns in Georgia, Keep on contact. --Ali 05:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to meet an Iranian Georgian. Is the Georgian community from the Safavid era or is it from the USSR era? I Would like to learn more as recently I was doing research on the impact of Shahnameh on Georgian culture and literature. If you can enable your e-mail that would be great since I would like to know more. --alidoostzadeh 05:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ther Georgian settlement of Iran has been from the Safavid era onwards. It has had huge impacts on the genetic make up of Iranians. Unfortunately there are some forces in Iran who want to keep silent on this. The Panturkists are the most active one in it by removing all Georgian impact on the Iranian history and attributing it to the Turks. The Safavid empire was driven by the Georgians, now the panturks say they were Turks. They have no answeres why then they fought in the name of Iran against the Ottoman Turks.--Babakexorramdin 10:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC) by the way send an email to me to the same ID at yahoo. Then I will respond to you by another email. --Babakexorramdin 10:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georgians formed the most important component of the new army of Shah Abbas and without that army, without Allah verdi Khan, Iran would not have defeated the Uzbeks and Ottomons Turks. It can be safe to even go further that without this Georgian army, Iran might not have existed today. I'll write more about my opinion on pan-Turkism in an Email since I usually do not participate in modern political articles in Wiki. I am against all sorts of ethnic politics (any sort of pan) since they usually lead to bitterness of the heart and the soul. Here is a good article I recently read [5] (big article in Persian). But from a historical point of view, there are tens if not hundreds of descriptions of the features of Turks in Persian literature by Iranian authors (take Sanai or Nezami or Hafez for example) and all of these feature unanimously describe non-Caucasian looking people (that is our dear Turkomens, Kazakhs, Qirqiz and etc.) (Cheshm Tang, Soort-e-Pahn hamcho sepehr and etc.. or look at the statues of Seljuqs). So I think pan-Turkists have a dilemma if they want to describe the Turkic speaking people of Iran as primarily descendants of Turks of Central Asia and deny their connection with the rest of Iranians and ancient Iran. Khoda Hafez Shoma. --alidoostzadeh 00:53, 6

November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about panturks in Iran but historians and academicians does have very good answers why Turkish Safavids fought with Ottomans. First of all it was matter of religion and politics. Safavids fought not in the name of Iran, but in the name of Shiism against Sunni Ottomans. Also they fought with each other for political dominanation and consolidation of western turks. Shah Ismail send agents to destabilize Anatolia in order to claim it afterwards for himself and Ottomans fought to assert their assert their souveregnity over their eastern holdings. After Chaldiran Ottomans gained initiative and Safavids were more on defensive. There are many poems of Shah Ismail written in Turkish under pseudonym Hatayi

About Allahverdi Khan. His name is in Turkish (means Allah have given) and his title is a Turkish title (khan). He may be ethnic Georgian, but he conducted his activities in socio-political framework dominated by Turkish influences. 89.189.137.5 (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are very right my friend. --Babakexorramdin 07:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ای میل زدم. پیروز باشید —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali doostzadeh (talk • contribs) 02:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion here [6]--07fan 22:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gamarjoba Babakexorramdin. How are you? Unfortunately, I don't have that list at hands right now, but I'll try to find some info on that. Most of Safavid-era architecture was destroyed in the Qajar attack on Tbilisi in 1795. Of those which survived into the 20th century, the so-called Shah Abbas Mosque (seen on a picture, the one with a green dome and just opposite to the Metechi fortress), was demolished by the Soviets in the early 1930s. Another notable one, Rostom Khan's Palace is now ruined, but the government has recently launched a reconstuction project. I'll contact you as soon as I obtain more info. Cheers, --Kober^Talk 18:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dzalian didi madloba. I also assume that much is destroyed in tsarist times. A painful but kept-in-silence page of history also tells that after Tsarist conquest of georgia many Georgian notable families of Shia faith fled to/ were depeorted to Iran. They usually bear the family name Gorji or it simply appears in their last name. Russians have kept this silent for a long time and the Iranian historians only wrote in general stressing more the royal history rather than people's history. I hope in the coming years we can shed more lights also on these issues--Babakexorramdin (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure... that's a very interesting episode of which we don't know much. Several Georgian nobles relied on Iran in the struggle against Russia early in the 19th century. Prince Alexander (Eskander Mirza), although Christian, spearheaded this movement. He was one of the closest associates of Abbas Mirza. His name was intentionally obscured throughout the Soviet period and resurfaced again in the 1990s. There was a general tendency to downplay the Georgian cultural and political ties with Iranian civilization, not only with the Islamic one, but also with pre-Islamic empires. Nakhvamdis, --Kober^Talk 19:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Babek. You seems to make quite a lot of very valuable contributions as well as provide a good expertise in a number of topics. Wikipedia needs it. On the other hand, I cannot help but notice that you often behave in confrontational and uncivil manner (e.g. [7], [8], etc.). Wikipedia is a cooperative project that include a large number of editors of all backgrounds and political persuasions. The downside of this that behavior igniting conflicts considered to be very harmful and can lead to bans even for very valuable editors (that is always pity). In order to avoid this please read and follow WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:DICK, WP:V and other wonderful wiki-acronyms. Try to comment on the edits rather than on the editors, assume good faith, forgive past stupidities, etc. Believe me it pays off in the long run Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dear Alex I assume that 1- Wikipedia as a sourse of knowledge should not be political at all. 2- It should not be a racist forum. 3- It should not be biased. Unfortunately wikipedia´s main adminitrators were too tolerant to anti-Iranianism. Just remember the comments " what the fuck is Iran" of the guy who could be Enumber/ Baristarim. Why double standards?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Brenda Shaffer controversial? Further reading section is important for other users who may find it useful. By the way Nationalities Papers are a peer-reviewed academic journal of Routledge and academic journals are valuable sources per se. I suggest leaving reference to her article there, no matter how controversial she is. Cheers. - Darwinek (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Shaffer (an Israeli army officer) has misquoted many sources, and misinterpreted everything. The fact that she is published in the nationalities papers says nothing. While Iranians do not get easily published in such journals, the anti-Iranianists get free hand. In general [Anti-Iranianism]] is promoted these days in the USA and American publications. See the discussion on her article. I agree with you that further reading is a good thing, but why not excellent authors from the community itself? If the anti-Iranianists do not like Kaveh Farrokh or Ahmad Kasravi tabrziz why not Atabaki e.g.??? --Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just add from time to time futher reading sections to various articles, mainly ethnic, historical and political. Well, if Shaffer is really from Israeli army, it is a problem. Should we then omit reference to her article from WP? - Darwinek (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I thgink she deserves her article and book get mentioned in her own article on WP. It seems that she likes this negative attention, because she has been invited time by time by the Iranian students in the USA to have a fair dialogue but she has declined time by time.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gamarjoba Babakexorramdin

I find in Hebrew that jews of Zagrum (or Zagrom or Zagram) from Georgia (I dont know where it is) migrate to Persia, with the leadership of Eliezer, in 1613, and they bild Farakh-abad and he helps abas to fight the ottomans. I dont know if they are same Georgians. I find it also her. it will be very interesting to check it. Geagea (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

gagimarjos geagea see the Kober0s page. I said I know about this but as I said I think they were Tat speaking jews rather than Georgian speaking ones.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persian jews[edit]

Gamarjoba Babakexorramdin

There are many research about Persian jews in Israel. I belive you can find it also in English. As I told you I never herd that thiere are Georgian jews among the Persian jews, but I am not expert about it. I'll try to help my best.

firs article: (form her in Hebrew)

"chapters in the ancient legacy of Persian jews" by Shaul Shaked 1985

The article discribes the literature of the Persian jews until the Mongol invasion. He came to conclusion that the literature exist befor 14th century, and it is very different from the literature after 14th century. one of the source that mentioned is Cairo Geniza. From thiere Shaked learns a lot of things, for example that in the 10th century, beween the famous people among Persian jews, was T'ust'rim family and thiere origin was Bahuaz in H'ozastan and befor that from tuster in Iran. part of the Persian jews that imigrate from Persia to Egypte and Israel were Karaite Judaism.

Anothere interesting thing that mentioned is the Archaeological finding in the town Jm (Firuzabad) in Afganistan about big jewish community Persian language that disappear (from 1012-1218). Geagea (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Karaite among Persian jews is a plausible fact. They appeared after the fall of Khazar empire. The percentage of jews in the Islamic caliphate rose sharply and many were settled in Iran. It is intresting fact the finding of a pre-mongolian jewish comunity in Afghanistan. Maybe Mongols killed them or they fled to other places. But why is not the same happen in Bukhara where there still live Persian jews? God knows. Also the Pashtuns are said to be of Islamized jewish origins.

The study of Persian jews should be done carefully and fact and fiction should be separated. Usually in all studies we deal with certain amount of speculations but in this case due to the strong anti-Iranianist lobby much nonsense is fabricated. of course there might have been those who hate the jews but it was never to the amounts as in Europe and it was certainly not normal to beat up the jews in the rain! --Babakexorramdin (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the second article: (her in Hebrew)

"The history of the compelled jews of Mashhad according to Jacob Dilmanian" by Amnon Netser

He tell us that in the 19th century there was compelled jews in Tibriz, Mraga, Mianduav, Siahkhl, Shiraz, Blar and others. they were calld "jadid al-Islam" (new in Islam). Part of them stay Muslems and part of them convert back to Judaism. until today thiere are jews in Mazendran in the city of k'iak'ala that cald jadid al-Islamis.

there are only 2 people, except Jacob Dilmanian, that were compelled jews that tell us about temselfs: "Babi Iben Lutaf" (17th) and "Babi Iben Farahd" (18th). Dilmanian wrote in Persian language. he divided the period to 6. and the first one starts in the midlle of 18th durind Nadir Shah (or 1160 to hijra).

about the period before nadr shah thiiere is not inaf information. but the travler Aben-Batota visit Mashhad in 1333 that was big city that the Sufis said that it is holy city that other religios can not live there. but in the city Kom that holy to the shia were jewish community. also he mention that shah Abas tels to traveler name Antuan, in 1602, that he will give free trade to all religios.

I am Israeli jew origin from Georgia and I am not anti-Iranian as most the of the Israelis. I can understand that you fill anti-Iranian feelings from the around, but in my point of view it is better to ignore them. otherwise you will find yourself dealin only in talk pages. all the best. 03:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes Gia I know. The anti-Iranianist jews are usualy Ashkenazi and and mostly have double nationality of American- israeli. Not seen so many with other profiles, and I have never seen anti-Iranianist among Georgian jews and honestly also not among Iraqi jews. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry Babakexorramdin you are wrong about the Ashkenazi. the distinguish and other jews is only religious. There is not distinguish among the Israelis.

About the articles.

The research about the jews of Persia can tell much about the history of Persia and the origin of the people in Iran or cames from Persia. Geagea (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean there is no difference? Middle eastern jews are less racist towards Iranians, but the Ashkenazis especially those from the USA are. This gets its manifestations in trade, politics and public media. I might be wrong because it can also be because the non-Ashkenazi jews have less access to these instruments. But My personal experience also tells me the same story. I have had much encounters with Israeli jews of Iraqi, Turkish and Moroccan origins, however Israeli they were not racist towards me or used abusive language. But whenever in Europe or the USA there are always SOME jews who say the worst things to me and threat me like peace of dirt.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can not argue with your expiriance, but I also meet Israelis of many kind evry day and belive me non of them is racist towards Iranians. And there is no difference between Ashkenazi or Sefaradi in Israel, the only difference is the origin. Geagea (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes maybe instead of Ashkenazi - Sephardi dichotomy I should have said origins. While there are of course many exceptions, the culture and the social political context of place of origins has great impacts on an individual.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote here "It was sourced. DO NOT REMOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!". HERE is the so-called source. Please tell me WHERE do you see the true Name; I didn't see anything. --Raamin (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The version you edited was linked to a Persian newspaper.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You see I'm from Iran, and I can read persian texts. Where exactly is the true name of Sami Yusuf written? I can't see anything, just plain area. Here is the archive, the source should be exactly given. --Raamin (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you should check around the date of entry. see also here: http://www.bia2.com/pourya/?p=320. It is claimed that it is also mentioned in Hamshahri newspaper. type his name in Persian and do a search thre. I have also heard the news on the Iranian TV. So a search in IRIB.ir is useful too. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it's not my duty to find reliable sources for an article; the person, who adds new informations should do it ;-) Raamin (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ask the person to do it, or if it suit you better not to mention his rel name. It is Ok to me both.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Babak. I did some research on the problem. According to the Royal Ark website, Abbas Mirza indeed had a son called Iskander Mirza (see (y) in the list of Abbas Mirza's children on that page). It seems improbable, however, that this is the confusion with the Georgian Eskander Mirza because he was 16 years older than Abbas Mirza. Perhaps we should create a Disambiguation page to settle the issue. Best regards, --Kober^Talk 11:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. Also I would appreciate if you could afford me with info about Abbas Mirza and his children. I know from the first hand that some of their offspring say we have Russian Roots. I assume that they have Caucasian roots (maybe were called Kniaz by the Russians?), This problem has intrigued me and the Persian books untill now could not give me any answers.If You come to Iran I will bring you to the (ruins) of their palaces with their pictures on their walls. Also you can meet the princely offsprings: Blondish, mostly with green eyes. They could be Georgian but regarding their appearance could be more proabbly Ossetian or Circassian. Do you know if he had any wives from these regions, or his children married nobles of that region? --Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to your question, I’ve discovered the things in which I have long been inetersted in. According to the same Royal Ark website, Abbas Mirza had eight wives, most of them of Qajar or Turkic origin: none of them seems to be Georgian. Of all these marriages, he fathered twenty-six sons and twenty-two daughters. One of Abbas Mirza’s sons, namely Bahman Mirza (1811-1886), was exiled to Russian-held Georgia in 1848. None of his seven wives seems to be Georgian. Bahman’s children were indeed granted the title of Knyaz Persidsky (with the style of His or Her Illustrious Highness) by the Russian tsar in 1886. His male descendats mostly engaged in Imperial Russian military service and intermarried with some Muslim noble houses of Russia; some of them died during the Russian Revolution and Bolshevik terror, while others returned to Iran with their families or emigrated to Europe and the U.S., where they are reported to live to this day (e.g., Susu Farmanfarmaian, Professor at Colorado University). Some of them seem to reside also in the Republic of Azerbaijan; for example, Suraya Khanum Qajar (grand-grandaughter of Abbas Mirza) who is an opera singer and National Artist of Azerbaijan.

Being of a relatively remote (around 1860s) Iranian (perhaps Persian) ancestry on my mother’s side, I’ve long been inetersted in Iranian-Georgian geneaological links. Unfortunately, the published material is extremely scarce, and I’ve not yet found time to look into archives while the family memory has already faded.--Kober^Talk 12:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know one of these "Russian" princes who is born in 1930 and whose parents were born in Iran too. please send me an email at the same Id at yahoo. I cannot reveal personal names here. BTW member of Qajar family doesnot necessarily means Turkic. This is a lie which panturkists spread. Qajars were a dynsatic family and they married with nobles of whatever ethncity rather than keep themselves purely Turkic (that they werent any way). --Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that Qajar does not mean Turkic. By saying "most of them of Qajar or Turkic origin", I mean that some of Abbas Mirza's wives were of the same Qajar clan and others came from the families which were Turkic but not directly related to the Qajar dynasty. I'll soon email you. --Kober^Talk 13:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see forward to read your email. You will see which Iranians have these Caucasian roots. Untill now my findings say that the Caucasian root was most probably of Ossetian of Kartli! They look more fairskinned and blondish than georgians and they can go either with Georgian, Russian and even Circassian. This explains the ambiguity about their ethnic origins. unfortunately not much written but more fieldwork/ investigation, talk talk and finding evidences. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Babakexorramdin. I have not yet received any email, unfortunately. Best regards, --Kober^Talk 13:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

check it again, I sent it again.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"1. To oppose in battle; fight against."[9]

I suggest you read the article and fully understand it before making further controversial (and wrong) claims. John Nevard (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see your own dictionary. It shows that the USA was a combatant in Iran-Iraq war exactly because of your own definbition. USA invaded Iranian territory and bombed Iranian territory. In addition brought down a civilian airliner by military instruments. USA was a warring party indeed.

combat

SYLLABICATION: com·bat PRONUNCIATION: km-bt, kmbt VERB: Inflected forms: com·bat·ed or com·bat·ted, com·bat·ing or com·bat·ting, com·bats or com·bats

TRANSITIVE VERB: 1. To oppose in battle; fight against. 2. To oppose vigorously; struggle against. See synonyms at oppose. INTRANSITIVE VERB: To engage in fighting; contend or struggle. NOUN: (kmbt) Fighting, especially armed battle; strife. See synonyms at conflict. ADJECTIVE: (kmbt)1. Of or relating to combat: flew 50 combat missions. 2. Intended for use or deployment in combat: combat boots; combat troops. ETYMOLOGY: French combattre, from Old French, from Late Latin combattere : Latin com-, com- + Latin battere, to beat (alteration of battuere).

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by the Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

CONTENTS · INDEX · ILLUSTRATIONS · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD

--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this debate on the Iran-Iraq War talk page guys, you're both violating WP:CIVIL at the moment. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bad eh? when an admin violtes the rules :)))--Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

providing that John Nevard is indeed an admin of course, he could be a good one but shouldn't intermingle with subjects he does not know sufficiently--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should stop making personal attacks on User:John Nevard, it tarnishes you and therefore the edits you make i.e. When you make an edit other people will check your edit history & talk page, and when they see the arguments you've been involved in they'll assume you're a troll and treat you accordingly. Which would be a real shame as you've got a lot of potential and we need more good editors on the Iran-Iraq war article.

If someone else makes an attack on you, try to ignore it or even better quote the policy; "Comment on content, not on the contributor" ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically you are right but his attitude is truely insulting. Usually I comment on the content but some arrogant people keep repeating themselves disregarding all arguments in the factual debate --Babakexorramdin (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then you've got to ask yourself "did you come here to improve the quality of articles involving Iran on the English Wikipedia?" or "did you come here to argue with other editors and tarnish your name, before your editing career has even got started?" Ryan4314 (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am here for facts and reasons and oppose people who lie and spread nonsense for their agenda--Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a picture of an Esfahani carpet trader to the Persian people page. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hello10242 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its Ok however the waterpipes are now forbidden in Iran since last year!--Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, please, I'm asking you nicely, please don't put the USA as a combatant whilst the RFC is still going on. I know how you feel about it, but think about it like this, there's no rush to put it up there, it'll "still be there tomorrow" so to speak. If the consensus decides it should go up there, then it will do eventually and no one will be able to say it shouldn't. I know you're concerned about how an RFC works, it works by a consensus and not by votes, so you don't have to worry.

I honestly am try to sound friendly, it'd be nice if you could message me back please to say you understand me. I see you're from Iran, I speak Farsi too, although I can't write much :) Ryan4314 (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rysan I appreciate your efforts in this regard and do understand what you say, but I think when facts are there there is no need for deliberate consensus. What it looks like is that those people there neglect each single fact. It is like "oh we all know that milk is white but we say in this case that it is black. " For an outsider it seems only strange but knowing their affiliation it makes it understandable why they act like this.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you wrote back :) on Wikipedia, a consensus begins when there is what Wikipedia calls a "dispute", even if only 1 person disagrees with everyone else. It's wikipedia's way too ensure everyone's opinion is heard.

Believe me I am definately not a friend of the U.S.A, but I'm afraid it doesn't come down to "facts" as you say. It comes down to Wikipedia's policy, specifically this one, where it says;

"combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – optional – the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding."

When I say "it doesn't come down to facts" I mean, we all know what the USA did during the war (there's even a whole article about it!) and no one can deny it. Whether the USA is listed as a combatant is of little consequence, "combatant" is just a name. I mean, people read the facts we write down and decide for themselves how bad the U.S is anyway.

Do you understand what I mean? I hope you know I do agree with you, but I am must try and follow Wikipedia's policy first. :) Ryan4314 (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the thing s that those anti-Iranianist Americans are trying to intimidate us by their power of numbers. For them is wikipedia policy another war which they can win by force and disrespecting all established rules. Even they can change the rules in a way which serves their interets better.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You worry too much my friend ;) If it was true that there was some American conspiracy on Wikipedia, the "U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war" would be deleted and we would be blocked. Of course there are anti-Irani Americans on Wikipedia, but none of them run it! You see in order to become an "admin" you have to undergo a RFA where other admins check your edit history and see if you are neutral, before letting you become an admin. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is that in the USA those who have their mouth full of discrimination and anti-isms discriminate more. A lot of anti-Iranianists are not among the rednecks but among the socaled liberal New Yorkers--Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I know, the West is full of hypocritical "political correctness". Ryan4314 (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please give me example of similarity georgians and sangesari languages. baa sepaas--Ashkan h (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is exactly my point. I needed references. Though it is certainly possible that georgians were settled in Sangesar in the 17th century, I still need references which say this. TGeorgians were settled in mazandaran and there was a settlement of heir in Abbas Abad near Shahrud. So it is plausible that they were settled in Sangesar too. The Sangesari member of ours probably refers to the sangesari oral history which is OK to me, but wikipedia here works with more rigid sources, thats why we need either a written source or formulate the sentence better. I should also add that there is not necessary that languages be similar in order t can speak of ethnic intermingling. Language were passed by the female line, and in this case Georgians migrants were predominantly male, as they were soldiers and military. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am astonished of your statement! Please see [10]. KInd regards, --BF 00:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Yes this is what I say, while there was a contract diving 50- 50 % after the collapse they do notagree on this. Then Iran came with a formula of each 5 litoral get 20% but they want t give Iran only 11-13 % which is unacceptable. The best thing is 50% for Iran and 50% to Russia as an heir of the USSR, if Russia wants o give the litoral states their share, each get 12,5 % , but then I ask why nt divinding on 15 republics? Because the whole USSR and not only the litoral states got 50%.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Babakexorramdin :-) I notice that you have reverted my edits to Abadan, Khorramshahr & Persian Gulf, replacing the Arabic form Shatt al-Arab (which happens to be the standard English usage) with the Farsi one Arvand Rud (much less used in the English language).

In your edit summary you give three reasons for the reverts, namely that "Arvandrud is pretty common. If yoiu use it becomes more common. moreover abafan is an Iranian city" (sic). However, none of these reasons is a valid one for making the editorial decision of using the Farsi name in the English Wikipedia:

• Arvandrud is pretty common. First, it is not that common. Although the Farsi form is indeed used sometimes, Shatt al-Arab undoubtedly is the standard English usage (see examples of usage in English and on usage in major reliable English-language sources).

Second, our editorial practices call for using the standard English form, the most common, the widely used one, and not any "pretty common name".

Our naming convention on using English guideline clearly states that "[i]f you are talking about a [waterway] use the most commonly used English version of the name [...], as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works."

Our naming convention on geographic names also mentions that "[w]hen a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it."

There are two main reasons for having this editorial approach: it enhances consistency within the English Wikipedia, and its helps our readers by using the names and forms with which they're more familiar, the ones they're used to find when reading books, newspapers, magazines or watching TV. It's the principle of least astonishment :-)

Additionaly, as the naming convention on geographic names also mentions, "[b]y following English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called. If English usually calls a place by a given name, [we] use it."

Since the English language usually calls this waterway by the name Shat al-Arab, so do we :-)

• If you use it becomes more common. This call to promote the use of a certain name or form is the exact opposite of our editorial approach. Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive: we restrict ourselves to passively reflect the names or forms commonly used in the English language, instead of actively promote the names or forms we believe should be used.

If anybody wants to promote the adoption of the Farsi name Arvand Rud by the English language, they're free to do so in a vast array of ways :-) But not on the English Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a venue for advocacy.

• Moreover, X is an Iranian city/river/province/theme/etc. This factor is simply not contemplated by our current editorial practices: we write following common English usages, in accordance to the policies & guidelines mentioned above, irrespective of the "nationality" to which the article is related. We aim to write neutral, fair, unbiased articles about Iran; but we also aim to write them in English.

These agreed editorial practices, described in policies and guidelines, should be followed. If you disagree with any of them, the proper course of action certainly isn't to simply ignore it, but to propose the desired modifications instead.

So, in accordance to the policies & guidelines mentioned above and the result of discussion in the Shatt al-Arab talk page, and having explained at lenght my reasons, I have reverted your edits to the three articles.

If you still think that the Farsi form Arvand Rud should be used in those articles, I ask you not to revert back, and to discuss the issue with me instead: I'm sure we can solve the issue by dialogue :-) Feel free to ask me any question you may have about this issue, or any other.

To keep discussions coherent, I would appreciate if you could answer here, in your talk page, please. I will see your post :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kamran, Thanks for your note. My reasons are clear. 'Persia' is Western name of Iran and in various occasions because of historical and cultural reasons it's better that we use that and keep it alive (in my opinion). Please take a look to this piece; http://www.payvand.com/news/05/sep/1166.html 'Persia' is still valid and legal.

BTW we live in a same country! Hope to meet you.

Yours Pejman--Pejman (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

>>> Oh, I thought you were living in the USA (especially California), because there a lot of of Iranians go crazy for Persia and are ashamed of being Iranian. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to our earlier, less-than-pleasant, exchanges ([11]), just wish to let you know that I have just noticed that they have now deleted the main photograph of Majlis of Iran. For completeness, I am not going to do anything about it, as I believe that I have already done what I could have done. Perhaps you wish to raise the issue with the people who might care. Kind regards, --BF 22:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo delete Iranian majles. They have the polciy of deleting pocitures so those with links to the main media will have a monopoly on provinding pictures. I know no Iranians who care. Unfortunately--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the saddest thing of all to know that there are people who call themselves Iranians (as should be evident, it is not obligatory to call oneself Iranian) but do not care about their Parliament. This applies to all people, not only to "Iranians", who do not value their democratic institutions. I suppose Sattar Khan, Baqer Khan, Mirza Jahangir Khan Sur-e Esrafil, Malek al-Motakallemin, Sayyed Jamal od-Din Esfahani and a host of other people who fought (and some died) for the Majles will be turning in their graves by hearing your statement. --BF 12:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is true. A few intellectuals in Iran fight/fought for democracy. Iranian masses like elswehere are just passive consumers--Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the case may be, if you know some of those "intellectuals", please let them know that they should upload an image of Majles to Wikipedia. --BF 13:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:User GEAL requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:User Iranlove requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Babakexorramdin. I just wondered if the next time you go to Amsterdam could you visit the Allard Pierson Museum and take a picture of this[12] object for wikipedia. I will be very grateful. There may also be other Iran-related objects. I hope that people are allowed to take pictures of their exhibits. Anyway, it will be a big help and a contribution to Wikipedia.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will see if one is allowed to take pictures, but honsetly I don't think so.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for considering it. If you need anything that I can help you with just leave a message on my talk page.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will try again, perhaps another person there would let me do it.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Babak Jan, thanks for all your works in improving Iran related topics. Also I greatly admire your knowledge of the region and Wikipedia is definitely better with your presence. Nawruz Shomaa Khwajasta Baada. Khodaavand Bozorg Yar o Yaavaretaan. alidoostzadeh (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Babak. Sorry for a late reply. Encyclopaedia Iranica mentions both Undiladzes as beglarbeg. I'll also check their title in Georgian sources. Best, --Kober^Talk 10:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parthava is reverting anything he does not agree with. I have a serious problem with describing Mazandarani Persian and Standard Persian as "mutually unintelligible." "Unintelligible," to an English speaker, connotes a complete disconnect and differentiation between the languages. For example, Arabic and Chinese are mutually unintelligible. English and Greek are mutually unintelligible.

However, Mazandarani Persian and Standard Persian, while considerably different, are not completely "unintelligible." For example, a person who only speaks Mazandarani Persian can still communicate with a person who only speaks Standard Persian using mutually shared vocabulary, as well as close terms like "berar" and "baradar" or "te dast dard nakane" and "dastet dard nakone." In contrast, in mutually unintelligible languages, such as Arabic and Chinese, the persons who spoke Arabic only and Chinese only could not communicate at all with each other using their own languages.

Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.250.146 (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know about Amir Taheri. Parthava is a bit rude but his take on Mazandarani language is closer to reality than that of 68.... With all due respect I also do not see anything positive in the envovlement by a Nigerian in such matters as regional lnaguges of Iran. Subjects which requires expertise to the native level. I also do not uderstand why he is so anti-Georgian when he himself (in chat) states that he is a Georgian Mazandarani. But: Mazandarani is not a persian dialect. Though stating that it is unintelligible with standard persian is also a big statement. Intelligibility is a word which has gradual and relative meaning. It should be said mazandarani is a Northwestern Iranian language while standard Persian is a South Western one. I think you should use this phrase as I said. About Gilaki instead of Mazandarani. I have heard this also from another native Mazandarani that they called their language Gilaki before, though it was different than the language of Gilan. I will ask another Mazandarani though. Finanlly I should add that I am not someone who comes to edit on demand. I have my own intellectual integrity. I am not the paid kind of pesudeo-scholar who writes anything for a certain agenda. I only write the truth. I am not much into propaganda. If I can help with editing and clarifying the truth I will, but I wont undo edits by people, only because they are rude or so...--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify. I do not want to debate whether Mazandarani Persian is a dialect of Standard Persian or not. The definition of a "dialect" is not just an "accent." Dialects can be significantly different from each other. But they are still extremely similar dialects of a common language (Persian). But let's leave that aside. My main problem is using the totally incorrect and unacceptable word "unintelligible" to describe the linguistic relationship between Mazandarani Persian and Standard Persian. The langauges are extremely closely related and are in many ways mutually intelligible, which does not mean they are the same.

As for reverters..... There are two people reverting: 1 = Parthava, an Iranian who is not fluent in English, who is deleting sources and references which contradict his claim that Mazandarani Persian is "unintelligible" to a speaker of Standard Persian. 2 = Ankimai is a Nigerian who stalks my IP address all over Wikipedia and undo's my edits on all issues, no matter what they are. He/She does not know anything about Iran or Mazandaran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.250.146 (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For sources showing Mazandarani (and other regional variations of the Persian langauge) as dialects of Standard Persian, please see:

^ Le Coq, P., 1989, “Les dialects Caspiens et les dialects du nord- ouest de l, Iran,” in Schmitt, R. (ed), Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, pp.296- 312, Wiesbadan. ^ Melgounof, G., 1868, “ Essai sur les dialects du Masenderan et du Guilanla pronunciation locale”, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Geselaschaft, vol.xxII, pp. 195-224. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.250.146 (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mazandarani is not a persian dialect, it is an Iranian language belonging to other sub-branch of Western Iranian languages. There is no such a thing as Mazandarani Persian. Nor do I see the sources saying this. May I ask you whether you live in the USA? because that might clarify the confusion here. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that 68.5.250.146 (talk) has never seen these sources, let alone read them. He simply copied and pasted them (because they contain the word 'dialects', probably) from this list - without realizing that he copied and pasted the typos, too ("Wiesbadan", "Geselaschaft"). This guy is a troll (have a look at the edit history of Amir Taheri, please). Regards, Ankimai (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Ankimai is the troll. S/he is a defender of Amir Taheri, a neo-con backed anti-Iranian propaganda writer who says Iran should be bombed. She's not even an Iranian, so I have no idea how she could possibly make credible judgments on Amir Taheri, let alone the intricacies of classifying the language of Mazandaran!

Well I do not know him/her, but I see that she/he has always reverting your edits, no matter what. my advice: do not do the same, do it only when you have a point to make.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a fictional name doesnt matter why you deleted the Persian name? Why in heaven's name? --Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sinbad's name is not the main point of the article - and for that reason should not be the subject of contentious POV edits. Edits should also, incidentally, be in clear standard English. The current form is better, with both Arabic and Persian names. This doesn't try to make chauvinistic points that have no part in an encyclopedia. The thesis that all Middle Eastern culture is basically Persian, which some "pro-Irani" editors seem to espouse may well be a legitimate point of view (POV) but it is certainly not a neutral one (NPOV) - nor does it belong in an encyclopedia. Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the Persian name if you are not a chauvinist yourself?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read what you had to say carefully, and tried to respond sensibly - if you are not prepared to offer the same courtesy there is no point in any one discussing anything with you. The edit you object to removed chauvinistic matter - it does not follow that the editor is chauvinistic (look it up in a dictionary). Incidentally - read the article as it now stands - what do you still object to? Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dear soundofmusicals I try to be nice to you, but it seems that whatever obne says you are here to oppose anything Iranian. 1- You neglect Cambridge history and even manipulate the information extracted from it 2- you deleted the Persian name. I asked you why, and all what you are doing is namescalling. Alas....--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're being nice here I'd hate to be on your bad side! I repeat - have a look at the article now!!Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see below.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend if you were fingerpointing at me for being chauvinist, I can say the same about you. Your insistence in reverting anything Iranian is truely disturbing. You even manipulate the information from the re;liable scholarly sources. Why are you doing this? --Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You state that I "insist on reverting anything Iranian" which is palpable nonsense, and that I manipulate scholarly information, which is plain stupid. This is a totally uncalled for personal attack and I think I should have an immediate unreserved apology.Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what you are doing is a big SIN in the Academic world. You are not the one who manipulates the information from cited sources. That is not done. And I do not see why you always attack and insult people whith whom you do not agree?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK perhaps we have been talking at cross purposes a bit.

I think the edit of mine you actually objected to was my edit to "Sinbad is a Persian word^[1] hinting at the stories Iranian origin."

Now I did not intenionally "manipulate anything here - and I certainly did not "delete the Persian name".

Its just that this does not actually make sense in English. Not criticising you for not having perfect Engish - it is certain much better than my (non-existant) Farsi. But this IS an English language encyclopedia.

One posible edit would be : Sinbad is a Persian word^[2] hinting at the story's Iranian origin.

The snag is that it is NOT a story, but a story cycle - and as the rest of the article has been discussing up to this point the different stories have origins from a good number of sources.

Another edit might be Sinbad is a Persian word^[3] hinting at the stories' Iranian origin.

But again - the article as a whole says the different stories originate from all over - the Persian origin of some of them is already discussed.

My edit was Sinbad is a Persian word^[4] hinting at an Iranian origin for at least some of the stories.

This is good English, makes sense, and is consistent with the rest of the article. It is certainly NOT a chauvinistic attack on Iranians or any of the other things you have been saying!

Ok let me be clear. Those statements in the text were not mine. You are welcome to edit their grammar as long as you think it is appropriate. The problem was that you delteed the name Sindbad in persian and manipulated the citation from the Camridge history. And then it is me who should be blamed? Thats not fair. PS: It is Persian and not Farsi, the dicussion is a way too long for here.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sinbad_the_Sailor&diff=198571072&oldid=198228053

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sinbad_the_Sailor&diff=198768570&oldid=198594549

--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I naturally defer to your calling your own language "Persian" rather than "Farsi" - you obviously know which is preferable far better than I. I have seen both - and suspected they were probably different transliterations of the same (Persian) word, and that "Farsi" may have been a more accurate transliteration. But as you say - not something worth quibbling about - especially since I'm sure you know much more about it than me!

I was not (intentionally anyway) "blaming" or attacking you or any of your fellow Iranian editors, although I would point out that you need (at times, anyway) to temper your (very proper and commendable) love of your country, and your desire to see its (undeniably glorious) cultural heritage receive its fair due in Wikipedia with a modicum of good manners, restraint, and scholarliness. I have no idea on what grounds you base statements like I do not see why you always attack and insult people whith whom you do not agree? - have a look at my record on Wiki if you must - how many times have I lost my cool and how many times NOT. Then have a look at your own (including the message below, left for you by someone else.)

Anyway - so far as this most unedifying exchange is down to me I apologise, and in so far as it is down to you I forgive you. Can't say fairer than that. May we work together in a rational, friendly way on any other article where our interests coincide (especially if we happen to disagree - out of the clash differing opinions comes the spark of truth). If not, I hope it won't be because of me.

By the way - read the introduction to the article as it now stands!! Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS!! Someone else has deleted the Persian AND the Arabic names - and totally reverted my attempted compromise! Oh well, it happens!! Just so long as you have a look at the history and don't blame me!!! Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LOL now you see how much opposition the Iranians have to endure, and you see that the assertivieness of Iranians is nothing compared to the amount of hatred to which they are exposed to--Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily hatred as such, Kamran - try not to dwell on the unpleasant things of life and you may be less liable to see hateful motives behind everything everyone does or says. People who fail to agree with everything you say, and who have their own loyalties and predispositions that differ from yours - do not ALWAYS do so solely because they hate Iran, really! When they DO, then of course you can't argue with them and they are best left well alone. Life is nicer if you attribute good motives at least for other's actions, even if you disagree with them - right up to the stage where they make this impossible. This is also Wiki policy (assume good faith), and quite rightly. Anyway the intro got reverted back again and seems to be closer to what you would like now. Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The years I lived outside Iran I have only encountered hostility because of My Iranianness. Not personally to me, but more contextual. It was not me who was bad, but in fact I was good enough, considering that I am from a Bad culture, background, country etc... That was the reality of the day. First it was Iran-Iraq war. Saddam was the hero for the west and the western TVs did not really cared about his usage of chemical bombs. OK. Then when he invaded Kuwait, it was for the rich Kuwaits that the West condemned Saddam. It was as if they always have condemned Saddam. But that was not the only thing. The movies not without my daugter, The many insultive documentaries, nowadays the movie 300. Funnily those who are loud that Iranians are antisemitic (sic!) do not want to undestand that Cyrus and Xerxes (who is ridiculed in the 300) were champions of rescuing and protecting the Jewissh citizens. Ok. And now Iranian people should suffer from economic embargo. Why? Because Ahmadinejad GOT elected, but what aboyut the US people who FREELY and democratically ACTIVELY elected Bush? Being Iranian means that you are not able to travel, you are not able to visit your family easily in the west. means that everyone is allowed to insult you. That you should stand up against the pseudo-scholars who are trying to change your history, whowrite false history, and who are funded in the west. But it is not welcome, nor easily possible, if you as an Iranian want to attend a conference or publish something. Anti-Iranianism is a painful fact and the Iranians should learn from their history that it was due to their tolerance of enemies that the enemis permitted themselves anything. I really think that Iranians should be more assertive.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sad to see you so bitter - but (forgive me, I am old enough to be your grandfather) you will be happier, and able to achieve more in your life, if you learn to imitate people whose actions you admire, instead of becoming so obsessed with the actions of those who do things that cause you pain, that you end up copying them. I know there is (alas) a great deal of truth in some of what you say (personally, I like Mr. Bush about as much as you do!) - but the answer to rudeness is not to be just as rude back, but to return courtesy for discourtesy, thoughtfullness for lack of consideration, and be patient about persuading others of the truth (and careful and open-minded about what that truth actually is - that is, be ready to admit you were wrong when you are). So-called "assertiveness" can easily end up just confirming the "baddies" that they were right - and (much worse) persuading people who were quite ready to listen to you that they would be wasting their time. As you well know, nobody likes someone they see as a rude little know-it-all with a spiteful chip on his shoulder - whatever his nationality. If you don't want people to think badly of you the first step is to look at yourself - not at what you think about them! Blow them! If they are do dreadful, why dignify them by having an opinion about them at all? You can't change them, but you can, hopefully, change yourself, who knows, perhaps even into someone who will make others love Iran because even they can see a country that could produce such a wonderful young man must be a paradise. Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sound of musical. Thank you for ypur asdvise. I do not have personal problems with the "baddies. It is a collective problem. They are trying to falsify and violate the truth about the Iranian civilization. They want to instigate ethnic hatred and dismember Iran as they did to former Yugoslavia, USSR , and in proceeding Iraq. See bernard Lewis plan and the maps nowadays the American neo-cons are making. I can distinguish collective actions from personal grudge. I mean I do not hate anyone necessarily, but I think that Iranians should defend their history and culture as a collective task. Say it simply: I can have a chat or drink with one of the b"baddies"without getting into punch, but at the same time I will advocate among the Iranians to be watchful against anti-Iranianism. It is an exzistential problem, and much of the wars and conflicts around the world began when one dealt too late with normalizing- defeating the existeantial threats. When a people is posed to existential threat, it can be easily mobilized along irrational grounds. In fact by being on time, we will prevent much bloodshed later.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salam Babak Jan, Happy Nawruz. I think we can expand Persian-Georgia relations and even make it to a featured article. The article is here: [[13]]. Definitely can use your expertise. Also try to stay cool in Wikipedia ;) and I understand your POV, but sometimes in Wikipedia you have to cool it. I usually take it out by lifting weights or something. Take care --alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I try my best but it takes too much time and energy to counter those people who have made a fun at chasing me and reverting everything I do. It is sad that some of these people are making WP policies too. Not a good example to follow. Also we should contact Kober. He knows a lot about Iran- Georgia relations--Babakexorramdin (talk) 05:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Babak I think the problem is your misunderstanding of the definition of the word "dialect." I noticed in most Persian-English dictionaries they translate "dialect" as "lahje" which is an incorrect translation of the word, and perhaps the reason for your misunderstanding. "Lahje" means "accent" in English and Mazandarani Persian is not a "lahje" or "accent" of Standard Persian.

However, Mazandarani Persian is a "dialect" of Standard Persian. Please see the definition of the English word "dialect" from dictionary.com below. I am sure if you are neutral and objective you will agree that the relationship between Mazandarani and Persian is best described as a "dialect" after you read the below definition.

di·a·lect –noun

1. Linguistics. a variety of a language that is distinguished from other varieties of the same language by features of phonology, grammar, and vocabulary, and by its use by a group of speakers who are set off from others geographically or socially.

2. a provincial, rural, or socially distinct variety of a language that differs from the standard language, esp. when considered as substandard.

3. a special variety of a language: The literary dialect is usually taken as the standard language.

4. a language considered as one of a group that have a common ancestor: Persian, Latin, and English are Indo-European dialects. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dialect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.250.146 (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a dialect of Persian. It belongs to another branch of Iranian languages.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Please do not be hostile. Do you even know what "dialect" means in English? Please do not create conflicts unnecessarily. I am assuming your English is less than fluent. Hence, your misunderstanding of the definition of the world "dialect" in English.

Why don't you look up the definition of "dialect" for yourself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.250.146 (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may but in here - language as perceived by its speakers often has a very strong emotional (I hestitate to say chauvinistic??) content. For example. objectively Scots is a dialect of English - in fact Scots and English speakers have in practice very little difficulty understanding each other - but tell that to a Scotsman and he will adamantly assure you that Scots is an entirely unrelated language! None the less, in an encyclopedia we should really stick to the strictly objective, where possible. Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see that I have been hostile. I only said Mazandarani is a separate language. Dialects and languages have a blurred borderline, but it only applies when they are very close languages/dialects. This is why Luri and Standard persian could be counted as the same language. But mazandarani belongs to another branch of Iranian languages. Persian is a Southwestern Iranian language, while Mazandarani is a Northwestern Iranian language. One cannot be a dialect of the other. I presume that 68..... either lacks linguistic knowledge, or he is an Iranian who lives in an English-sepaking country (especially USA) because in such countries, the words Persian and Iranian are often confused. Mazandarani is an Iranian language, and Persian is an Iranain language, but this does not mean that Persian and Iranian are linguistically the same concepts.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Actually, sir, I think this is another case of you not being aware of the meaning of words in English. For example, you believe there is a difference between "Iranian" and "Persian" in the English language. However, this is not so. The term "Persian" and "Persia" have been used interchangeably with "Iranian" and "Iran" to describe the Persian/Iranian people/culture in Western languages for centuries. For example, a Persian cat or a Persian rug is the same as an Iranian cat and an Iranian rug. Recently, Western propaganda intended to create ethnic division and misunderstanding in Iran has attempted to create an "ethnic group" in Iran called "Persians" and define them as simply one group of many "Iranians." In reality, there is no discernable ethnic group called "Persians." "Persians" means "Irani" or all Iranians.

You are the type who creates ethnic hatred. Yet another Iranian American who thinks to know everything. If you have no intention to read a linguistic book, at least read articles in this wikipedia, to know something about the classification of Iranian languages. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'll be needing to update several links because the article U.S. support for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war‎ was first renamed to U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war‎ then U.S. support for Iraq and Iran during the Iran-Iraq war‎. The front two now serve as redirects. If you have any objection with the new title, please discuss it on the talk page here. Ta. smb (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please do not change the titles. What you do is against all facts and there were a lot of discussions. It is not done to change things for personal taste or other goals.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. The main page has already been renamed to U.S. support for Iraq and Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. I'm merely updating the links that point to it smb (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, and I can imagine who did that. I renamed the title again.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place here. Please join. smb (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baba jaan Engilisi dorost balad nisti takhsir-e-mah nist. Boro Wikipedia ye Farsi edit bokon agar nemikhai manaye loghathaye Engilisi az mardoome Engilisi-zaban ghabool bokoni. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.250.146 (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No comments. If you go on with this rude behavior you will be reported to the admins and you will be banned.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I said is that you do not speak fluent English and hence that is the reason for your misunderstanding of the definition of English words. I hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.250.146 (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC) All is said that I am not going to communicate with you again unless you change your behavior. On Mazandrani talkpage I wrote a classification of Iranian languages, but you could read that on the article Iranian languages too. It is very arrogant what you say and that you try to push your POV disregarding all linguistic material, only because some Persians in the USA, without proper liguistic knowledge, say so. Adieu--Babakexorramdin (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir - I have provided several references for my statements. This is not simply POV. Please take the time to read the many references I have provided in the article before you make accusations against your fellow Persian people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.250.146 (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources call Iranian languages as persian languages. Persian is one Iranian language, and there are more. I do not care if a clown in Los Angeles's Cabaret tehran calls Iranian_ Persian. In Linguistic fi8elds, we speak about the Iranian languages.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is also in my user talk page, but I would suggest that a serious proposal could be useful on the main Iran-Iraq War talk page, where we can have continuity and other people commenting. If you approve, you can move it there, or give me permission to do so; it would be discourteous for me to do that without your agreement.

I'm not sure what you mean by "image of USA", in that I was talking about the war period, not 1997-2001. In that period, I have not yet seen evidence of large-scale military cooperation between the US and Iraq, although I agree there was intelligence sharing by a relatively small DIA detachment.

Can we agree that the "Tanker War" was effectively a war between Iran and the US, and the motivations on both sides were for things about which each side was angry, as opposed to (at least on the US side), a principal goal of supporting Iraq? There are things the US did that, I am sure, ranged from infuriating to, in the case of the Airbus, criminal. At the same time, there were things that Iran did that caused a great deal of anger and high-level government reaction in the U.S. Perhaps the war could have been prevented or stopped early with a mutually trusted mediator, but that didn't happen.

Please believe me when I say that I have a long list of reasons, policy and personal, why I would like the relationship between the US and Iran to improve. I have great respect for Persian history and tradition. Realistically, you are a major power in the region and should be treated as such. A couple of years ago, I consulted on a study of radio broadcasting to Afghanistan, and was impressed with the positive, nonconfrontational material that Radio Iran transmitted. If I may make a personal observation, your rice dishes are the best in the world, which I've tried to reproduce with cookbooks that aren't detailed enough.

I am interested in serious discussion of steps to improve the relationship, and, indeed, documenting cases where overtures by either side were rejected. These range, certainly, from increased trade opportunities to earthquake relief to antidrug activity. It is not my intent to deal with cosmetic-only aspects of better relations, although I recognize that the table tennis team from the PRC had a surprisingly significant effect on improving dialogue, leading to high-level and serious government cooperation.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I was talking about another article. (detente) not that about the Iran-Iraq war (I said there that both parties had their persepctives on the Tanker war, and these persepctives could be mentioned in the article). That period of history is now gone. After the war with Saddam, Irano-American relations improved, with its peak in the 1997-2001 period. however when Bush assumed power the relations worsened again. You are talking as if I am the represenatative of the Iranian government. In fact I am only a member of Iranian diaspora. Actually the ordinary Iranians, and especially the diapora is exposed to the Iranophobia, and not the Iranian government. Movies like 300 or not without my daughter target the Iranian pcitizens, and espcially those in diapora are exposed to discrimnation and hrassment. During the period I call detente the relations between the two nations, at least the Iranian side was cordial. American athletes came regularly to Iran. American wrestelers were applauded etc... However the Bush administration again fell in a state of Iranophobia, that angered Iranians. For example arresting Iranian scholars who were attending a conference and beating them up was unexcusable. Also instigating ethnic and religious hatred in Iran by some American neoconservative groups , adds to the controversy. As M. Albright recently said in her interview with the VOA Persian, Iran and the USA are large countries with similar global interests and this only adds to the prospects of better relations. But this only can happen based on mutual respects. However I am open to any suggestions how to improve this relationship. I would suggest let's begin with those "cosmetic" articles in wikipedia. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the article (and moving the left margin back)[edit]

I certainly believe an article that documents, objectively, recent steps -- and failures -- in improving relations. Believe me, I, as well as many Americans, are counting the days until Bush and Cheney leave office. The hate groups, on either side, need to be identified. I understand the difference between the Iranian Supreme Leader and President, but many Americans do not. Some years ago, Khruschev made a comment that apparently was translated poorly as "We will bury you", which sounds threatening to the average American. My Russian linguist friends have told me he was using an idiom that better translated as "Our society is better will live longer than yours, and we will watch you being buried". Not speaking Farsi, I can't judge some statements made by Ahmadinejad, but some US specialists say that a number of his statements were translated poorly, and were used to spread fear about an essentially nonexistent Iranian nuclear threat.

My only concern is that any article that only covers cosmetics at first should mention that explicitly in the introduction, and indicate the article will cover more substantive relations as they occur.

You mentioned 300 as directed at citizens. I haven't seen the movie, but am familiar with the Battle of Thermopylae. Are you suggesting that this was consciously anti-Iranian propaganda? I'm honestly interested to know if something about events so long ago are seriously considered derogatory. Your culture is older than ours, but, for example, a movie about the actions of one side of the American Civil War is not considered to be an attack on the North or South (as relevant). Is this not the case in Iraq?? I would also be very interested in knowing the Iranian perspective on assistance after earthquakes. My impression was that it was rejected, but the situation may have been more complex than reported here. It's been my observation that help in disasters tends to be remembered positively. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware that Ahmadinejad has ever done deregatory comments about the american nation. Some stupids in Iran may do, but their numbers are far less than those Americans with weired ideas about Iranians. About the 300 see the review written by Kaveh farrokh, available at wikipedia. If you serach youtube you can find commentaries also made by greeks, who hate this movie. Of course the (objective or false) history of that recent past doe not matter much, but the Iranians are misreprsented. I saw even in youtube one commentary which showed that the face of persian musican was made like goat, a symbol for devil, baalzebub, Lucifer! Also the persian soldiers were made like Barbarians. It was funny that the makers rather used black people than Iranians. Why? Well I guess it says something about the hidden racism in the movie director. If you aske. Yes the movie was a conscious attempt to make Iranians angry. About the article: begin with a suggestion, you can use an intro from the main Iran-USA relations, then we write the article about detente and add it to the main article--Babakexorramdin (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Ahmadinejad's statements, I don't know of direct threats to the US, but he has been perceived, by some, to have made threats against Israel, which is significant in American politics. It's not as significant as always believed outside by the US, but there is a strong lobby. His statement that has variously been translated "Israel will vanish" and "Israel will vanish from the pages of history", as I understand, was much like Khruschev's idiom -- he didn't imply a direct threat, but more that Israel will eventually change through the political process. The point is that a number of people in the Administration, and outside supporters of this, have turned the translation into a direct threat to Israel that may justify an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. I have written an analysis on a blog why I think there is no practical threat, but it is a reality in American political discussion.

My serious question is who, beside the director, was trying to make Iranians angry, as a conscious part of of filming it, and why? Has this movie become a serious issue in Iran, or just an annoyance? In the US, it's rare, but there have been demonstrations in front of a few theaters. I can think of historical movies that triggered a lot of emotion, good and bad, from Birth of a Nation to Gone with the Wind to Saving Private Ryan to Schindler's List to Full Metal Jacket, but nothing that triggered, for example, reactions like the reaction to cartoons of the Prophet (PBUH). Are you talking of the latter level of response?

I'm not sure "detente" is the right word, unless there is clear intergovernmental cooperations. Perhaps the headings might be "successful and unsuccessful private attempts to improve relations", and "succesful and unsucessful official attempts..." As long as there are politicians, or their supporters, suggesting attacking Iranian nuclear facilities is a good idea, I don't see the relationship as detente. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well the movie was made in Hollywood, it is not difficult to know who did the funding. As I know there are many groups who are lobbying and funding anti-Iranianism. It is a long story. I think detente is a good word, because apparently the government (without direct diplomatic relaions) were facilitating these things. In an interview Khatami spoke of his intentions in expanding sportive, scientific, tourist etc... relationship with the USA.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to anser: First there were large anger among the Iranian diaspora, and then it went also in Iran. the government joint the people and there were demonstrations as I know.(Im not sure) but it was a large issue and occupied the broadcasting and press inside Iran and among diapoa. there was also a petition against the movie.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that a fair number of Hollywood studios are owned either by large US conglomerates or Japanese firms, no, it's not easy to guess who made the movie. It's also hard for many other cultures to understand that there is very little control over things called "art". Now, I personally do not believe the government should be in the business of subsidizing the arts, but that isn't meant as a means of censorship. Some years ago, there was anger that a particular artist, partially supported by National Endowment for the Arts funding, created something he called "Piss Christ", a crucifix in a jar of his urine. Yes, there were protests, but, in a country that is largely Christian, no particular violence. Routinely, there are movies, books, etc., that are offensive to one group or another, and I believe it a strength of our society that, overall, there is plenty of opportunity to protest peacefully, and, when it is a commercial effort such as a movie, send an economic message. The government, however, cannot and should not ban a movie because it offends some group; that attitude reflects a widely held national appreciation for freedom of expression -- and freedom to protest against other peoples' expression. The movie may have been a large issue in Iran, but both cultures, to live together, have to recognize that they do have different values that fit their societies, and they are not going to make fundamental changes in each other.

With all due respect, there are Americans that know and respect your culture going back to antiquity. There are Americans that are aware of things such as the overthrow of Mossadegh, consider it a terrible idea, but also understand the US context that led to it happening. One of the reasons Bush is so unpopular is that he is regularly doing things that other Administrations considered, to different extents, unwise. At the same time, Iranians need to understand that there are things that caused very deep popular resentment to Iran. Whether Iranians felt justified or not by the US admitting the Shah for medical treatment, rather than returning him for trial, the Embassy seizure remains a source of anger. I recognize that all of Iran didn't decide to do that, nor did the average Iranian take part in mining the Gulf. Nevertheless, I hear a certain sensitivity on some Iranians' part that the fault for bad relations is totally on the US side, and that doesn't contribute to solving the problems.

Iran, I believe, has done some positive things for Afghanistan, which are subtle enough that they were not recognized by nonspecialists. That's unfortunate. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC) [I happen to like doogh as well. Maybe I should use the infobox].[reply]

Dear Berkowitz, no one claims that there are no people in Iran who are guilty. there are certainly people who work hard in order to isolate Iran from within. Traditionally Iranian anger was directed towards the Arabs and the British who supported them. the USA however joint the list after the coup against Mosadegh. But as I said things happened in the history and can be settled peacefully. These are not necessarily barriers towards improving relations. there are a lot of irresponsible polticians in Iran but Bush is ceratainly not better if not worse. There are certain sensetivities in each country, which shouldbe dealt carefully in he international relationships. For example calling the Persian Gulf as Arabian Gulf or simply as Gulf will anger Iranians. Messing with the Iranian history does the same. This sensetivity is present in all historic nations, e.g. Egypt, Greece, China etc...

Another thing is insulting. Making 300 has nothing to do with different values within the American and the Iranian societies and cultures. Honestly I think that Iranian and American values and cultures have much more in common than Iranian with the North European or Asian ones. But I do not think that insulting Iranians in these movies is part of the American culture. On the other hand racist or anti-semitic movies are taken measures at in the USA. The anti-Iranianism however, comparable in nature and extent with the European Anti-semitism in and before the WOII, is left free, in fact many Media and press are fueling it. For example Khatami (Im not a big fan of him either) said that he doesnt want to hear death to America or burning the American flags, in Iran also were large commomemorations and sympathy with the victims of 9/11 (even Ahmadinejad wanted to visit the site but was prevented by allegedly zionist lobby groups in the USA) , such gestures are not made by American politicians and certainly not by Bush.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This dialogue may be interesting and worthwhile, as I think arguments over articles may be less tense if editors know one another a little better, both as individuals, citizens of a country, and members of a culture. Some acts by Americans, which seem insensitive, may be more of ignorance of a culture and a national history. Now, I was in high school over forty years ago, but I think my school was typical in that "world history" was a single course, taught to 14-year olds. There was brief mention of ancient cultures, but, even in my honors section, no in-depth study unless you picked the topic as your research paper of the year. Mine happened to be on the first Russian Revolution under Kerensky. In the course, there was very little discussion of Persia, although a bit on the Greek city-states' side of the battles of Marathon, Thermopylae, and Salamis.

My point here is that unless they have done further study, it's unlikely that an average American knows much about ancient cultures. They probably know the most about Greek and Roman civilizations, and about other countries of the time simply as opponents. "Messing with the history" happens for two reasons, the prime one being lack of knowledge. In some cases, it's that something isn't regarded as serious disrespect, but as humor. Mel Brooks is considered a comic genius, because movies like Blazing Saddles equally insult almost every culture in America of the time, yet the climax involves the affected people setting aside their hatreds and working together.

In modern history, average Americans will know there was an Iran-Iraq War, the seizure of the Embassy, and little more than there were people named Reza Pahlavi and Ruhollah Khomeini. Like it or not, the way to get more work together is for both sides to reduce the heat of disagreements. Now, I have technical knowledge of the antiaircraft system of U.S. Navy warships. In reading the declassified part of the report of the Airbus incident investigation by Admiral Fogarty, which, by all accounts, is very fair but has never been completely released, I kept muttering with disbelief, they did what? There were numerous mistakes in interpreting and using information system, principally by the captain but by others as well.

Bluntly, in the popular American culture, when someone thinks of Iran, they immediately think of hostages. Unfortunately, that led to things such as not hearing the very real sympathy on 9/11.

The political role of Zionism in U.S. politics is extremely complex. There's no question that the Zionist lobby is a powerful one and has an effect on politics, and that is a disproportionate one. On the other hand, that influence is principally political. There is no vast Jewish conspiracy running the United States, and there is no control, from any lobby or ethnic group, that decides what movies are acceptable. A German officer once said "War is chaos. The reasons the Americans are so good at it is that they practice chaos every day." Anyone trying to understand America has to realize that relatively few Americans have or use a deep historical culture. They react to recent events and look to the future. Recently, there has been a political party, partially rejected in the 2006 Congressional elections, that has had an aggressive stance toward Southwest Asia and the Middle East. I suspect that the rejection of some of their policies will open up an opportunity for rapprochement with Iran, but both sides are going to have to disregard the extreme statements of their extremists, and focus on the core issue.

From my perspective, the focus on core issues is the main reason for difficulty in the Iran-Iraq articles. As you know, I started inserting articles on support by many countries for Iraq and Iran, and, as you suggested, gave brief introductions to the link. Last night, I reverted an edit to the introduction to the link to U.S. support for Iraq, because that editor wanted to insert more charges against the U.S. I believe the place for that is in the sub-article, where they can be discussed at length. There is an unfortunate tendency for some editors to insert anti-American comments whenever there is a reference to the U.S., and the actual subject of the Iran-Iraq War is being lost over arguments over the U.S.

It may be hard, but all sides need to turn down the rhetoric, and also not focus on trivia. The infobox is a major example of conflict that is not helping explain what actually happened among the nations involved. As I commented on the talk page, the actual numbers of tanks and aircraft is far less important than the way the sides used them.

I hope we can work together constructively, not making either side good or evil -- Bush's "Axis of Evil" is something that goes against every rule of effetive international relations -- and focusing on understanding what happened and why. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just see who give the Americans a bad name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.89.104.154 , one of the many. He evenly calls Kazakhstan an Arabic country. btw talking about the film industry Borat is mentioned. Can you imagine what would have happened if the Borat case was the other way around? yes.... --Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Iranians can't get over a movie, regarded as in poor taste by many Americans, as Borat, how do you think chants of "Death to America" go over, or are remembered?

When you suggest there is a "lobby" in Hollywood that, presumably, America must suppress before there can be good relations with Iran, it does sound as if you are suggesting us vs. them, because there is no way, in the US system, to suppress movies because they offend someone. Mel Gibson's radical Christian, and thoroughly anti-Semitic, movie deeply offended many Americans, but suppression wasn't a possibility. It was anti-Semitic, and it wasn't suppressed, nor should it have been.

You are incorrect that anti-Semitism or racial discrimination are prohibited in all ways. They certainly are not prohibited in terms of the arts or literature. They are prohibited in terms of employment, housing, and similar financial transactions.

Many Americans, including myself, strongly oppose the level of support Israel gets from the U.S., but I'm hearing, perhaps incorrectly, an argument that the Jews really run the US, and are responsible for Iranophobia. If so, you are dealing in stereotypes, and certainly not in the very real political and popular opinion about Iran in the US. I am not trying to get into a game of mutual blame, but you haven't mentioned the embassy seizure, which drives a great many Americans into utter fury with Iran, just as the Airbus shootdown, I'm sure, drives many Iranians into fury.

Are you seriously suggesting that the US has to conform to Iranian ideas of appropriateness in movies before relations can improve? In like manner, it will be a long wait -- as in probably never -- that the American people believe that they were principally responsible for the Iran-Iraq War, as opposed to Saddam. Are you willing to suspend these mutual accusations about who was mean to whom, and deal with the actual dynamics of two wars, the Iran-Iraq and US-Iraq? The theory that the US conducted the Tanker War purely to support Iraq is not going to go very far with American opinion or politics. If both sides recognize that some American politicians, at a certain time, tapped into some very deep anger at Iran, just as some Iranian leaders tapped into some very deep anger at the US, it won't change what happened, but it can make the discussion much more historically accurate.

No cooperation is going to occur as long as the discussion is on American or Iranian attitudes,as opposed to actions. Movies did not cause the Airbus passengers to be killed or the Embassy to be held hostage.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 11:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear berkowitz, again you are talking as if I am a politician. I just said that there are lobbies, which endanger Irano-American relationship. There is no counter movement in America. I did not say that all American Jews are Iranophobic, but there is certainly a Zionist lobby of them which works towards deteriration of Irano-American relationship. I am aware of how Americans think about Iran. I travel a lot to the USA. I should say that authorities are disrespectful at the airports, wventhough I have a European citizenship. NBut many people are quite nice, especially in the interirr states some people are exteremely ignorant. But not much so in new York, California, Chicago and Florida. About the embassy issue I should say: That happened long ago and had its own rationale. Many were angry at what USA had done before in Iran and the country was in Chaos and did not posses an stable government or police forces. How sad it was, it resulted to no deaths.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

gamarjoba dear brother. I'm Christian Georgian and for me all Muslim Georgians are equals, brothers and same blood runs through mine and their veins. Yes i deny that Christian Georgians treat Muslim Georgians as unequals. I lived in Georgia for many years and never witnessed that somebody in Georgia was treated unequal because of religion, on contrary. You and I are the same, no difference. And religions has nothing to do with it. Please don't belive in that, nobody in Georgia (well, nobody normal) treats our Muslim brothers as unequal. Thas why I didnt like that comment. It was not true. All the best brother! Khodakhofis! Iberieli (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been to Georgia. Bulk of people were very nice, but I saw many who said a true Georgian is a Christian one. Though I should say that even they were nice. I also have to add that interethnic and inter-religious tolerance was much higher in Georgia compared to Azerbaijan and Armenia.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem brother, we have nothing to argue about. We stand on the same side :) You have to understand that Georgia has gone through very difficult times and some people might have grudges against anyone (no metter what religion or ethnicity). You are Georgian, if you feel Georgia, religions has nothing to do with it. gagimarjos, say hi to our brothers in Iran! Iberieli (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merendoglu (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hala ke be farsi minevisi be baraeri javabeto vadam. Avvalan chera vanevisi Merend? mage to vakil o vasiye Torkiyeiha bidi? Dovomman to harfe xodeto naghz vakoni, az yektarafi vagui ke man Azarbaijani nabidam, az tarafe dige vagui ke hicki zahmate yadgirie Torkiye Azerio be xodesh navade. Dovommasn shoma eshtep vakonid: dar dowro bare man va dar famil, mamulan farsha o gheyre Azariha vugulandzj ke shoma Torki harf vazanid? In xode Azariha hastand ke bishtare vaghta vuygulandzj zabane ma Azari bid. Miporsand amma mage in Torki nabid, baziha migand na torki ine o une va ba in fargh fokule, baziha vuyguladzj ke chera torki bid amma in torkie azari bid. Be har surat name Azari baraye in zaban bayed hefz vashe chonke dar iran ingune vuygulandzj.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merendoglu (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man miunam ke a (kutah) ro dar jomhuriye Azerbaijan ba e ye baraks minevisand. Anhai ke dar Forumhaye Azari e minvesiand pantorkani hastand ke mixwahand az Torkiye taghlid konand. Kollan dele xoshi az inshan nadaram chonke sarseporde ye Esrail va digar doshmanane Iran hastand va gam be game Farshaye shovenist dar rahe tajziye ye Iran and jange ghowmi nezahdi gam barmidarand. Shoma az koja midunid ke man vaght gozashteam ta Azeri ro yad begiram. Amma inke be zanab che miguyand dar miane gheshrha o klashaye ejtemai fargh dared, Bastegi be kelase ejtemai o tahsilat o gheyre darad, an midam ke Torki ham miguyand amma Azari ham miguyand. Piruz bashi. Kamran.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Babak, don't you think I KNOW that? Again, you are misunderstanding me. All those people you cite are PERSIAN speakers, not ENGLISH speakers. Of course "Iran" is what Persian speakers call the country for centuries, in their own language. But ENGLISH speakers, and the rest of the Western world, called the country "Persia" and the people "Persian" for centuries. So in Persian, it is "Iran" and "Irani." But the same thing in ENGLISH, it was "Persia" and "Persian."

Iran is not the only country which has a different name for itself in its own langauge. In Japan, the Japanese themselves call their country "Nippon" while the rest of the world calls them Japan. In Germany, the Germans themselves call their country "Deutschland" while the rest of the world calls them either Germany or "Allmane."

Do you understand the point? For English speakers to call Persians "Iranian" it is as modern and fake and confusing a term as it would be if the Japanese suddenly demanded everyone in the world call them "Nipponese." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.250.146 (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still in English sources we speak about the IRANIAN languages. This is the accepted English terminology uses in Linguistics. In wikipedia we should use the appropriate name. And honestly this terminology is more appropriate because it distinguishes between the Persian (Farsi) language and other Iranian languages Such as mazandarani, Kurdish, etc... --Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Babak, okay now you are speaking with reason and logic. I understand that recently (mid to late 20th century), many Western sources on many different subjects have converted to substituting the new term "Iranian" for the old term "Persian." However, this distinction is meaningless and is causing great confusion both inside and outside of the linguistics field. For example, is a carpet from Tabriz not a Persian carpet still? Or is it an Iranian carpet? Or is it an "Azeri" carpet? "Persian" is not just Esfahan and Mashad, it is the equal to "Irani"in Persian, which means the total sum of all the culture, history, land, and people of Iran.

Also, the confusion is fuel for foreign-backed seperatists to claim there is no connection between "Persians" and "non-Persians" in Iran. Because to Westerners, the term "Iranian" is not often connected to the term "Persians" even though they mean the same thing in English. This name changing confusion is being abused for political grounds to promote seperation of Iran.

The best way to prevent this is to use, when possible, the original Western and English term "Persian" whenever we speak English and want to say "Irani." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.250.146 (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am an anti-separatist, but the correct terminologies should be used. I believe in the territorial integrity of IRAN, so the correct usage of IRANIAN wont harm my goal. It benefits it. In general Iranians in the usa tend to damage Iranian unity because of their lack of knowledge of Iranian culture, politics etc... One more reason, NOT to accept their terminology.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am an anti-separatist, but the correct terminologies should be used. I believe in the territorial integrity of IRAN, so the correct usage of IRANIAN wont harm my goal. It benefits it. In general Iranians in the usa tend to damage Iranian unity because of their lack of knowledge of Iranian culture, politics etc... One more reason, NOT to accept their terminology.--[[;;;;;

I am an anti-seperatist too. However, use of the term "Iranian" in English is a dangerous and confusion term and is causing damage to English-speaker's perception of Iranian unity because people now think "Persian" is different from "Iranian" even though they are the same thing.

They try to use "Iranian" for the whole country, and "Persian" as only a fake "ethnic group" which supposedly is only "51%" of Iran. This is nonsense. There is no such thing as a seperate "Fars" or "Persian" ethnic group. They are trying to define "Persian" as only Iranians from Esfahan, Shiraz, Tehran, and Mashad, and therefore all other Iranian people from Gilackis, Mazandaranis, Luris, Kurds, Azarbaijanis, Baluchis, etc. as "non-Persians" "minorities." This is nonsense.

That is why we need to use one consistent adjective that has been used for over 2,000 years in the West to describe the people of Iran/Persia - Persian - as an adjective for the WHOLE country, AND the language, and the name of the people of Iran/Persia. The fake new term "Iranian" has a contradictory and confused meaning amoung English speakers and causes political problems ultimately for Iran.

Unfortunately, many Persian speakers do not know enough about Western language and historical understanding of Persia to recognize the problem of using "Iranian" suddenly. And many Westerners do not know enough about Persians and their culture to understand that the term Persians have used the terms "Iran" and "Irani" to describe the Western terms "Persia" and "Persians." It is educated Persian/Iranian-Americans who have knowledge of both sides who can help fix this problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.250.146 (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very short I think you are not bringing up sound arguments. You were at mistake and you are trying to cover up your mistake by fake arguments, in order not to get blamed.: 1- I do not give a damn what kind of wrong terminology was used by the western people at atreets 2- Who are those educated Persian/ Iranian Americans? Sudi jun? Hamid Shabkhiz? Mohammad Khordadian? Luna Shad? Behnood Mokri? Ahmadreza Baharlu? Which clown? There might be a few educated Iranian Americans, but these people are a major problem. 3- Azeris, Gilakis, Mazandaranis are not minorities. Iranian constitution speaks about them as the superior people of Iran. Iranian constitution calls Armenians, Jews, Zoroastrians as minorities. To be minority you should have less rights. Numbers alone do not mean any thing. 4- Ethnic Persians are not fake and they do exist, like any other ethnic group in Iran. Indeed the usage of Persian as their name creates some confusion, therefore it is better to call them ethnic Fars or ethnic Persian speakers. I do know that there is much regionalism among them, a Mashadi and a Shirazi might call themselves as Mashadi and shirazi and not as a Fars, but despite the lack of subjective ethnicity, this ethnicity does exist. 5- I appreciate if you speak more politely and less arrogantly. It is very arrogant and unfortunately very common among the Iranian Americans. To be concrete: I do not appreciate your phrases such as you cannot even speak English well, or you are not listening 6- ZABUNETO GAZ BEGIR. DO NOT EVER AGAIN SAY THAT IRAN IS A FAKE NAME. Similar BUllshit is said by a traitor like Fakhteh Zamani (Iranian American) who supports the terrorists and wants to disintegrate Iran. How can you say that you are an anti-separatist if you say similar things?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chand bar behet begam, "Iran" va "Iranian" dar zabane Farsi dorost hast, vali beh zabanhaye GHARBI esme fake va bi-ehtebari hastesh. Tammam-e-hovait va emtiaz-e-tarikhiye mellat-e-Iran Zamin beh esme "Persia" va "Persian" dar Gharb shenakhteh shodeh.

Let me ask you a question, ey ostad-e-zaban va farhang-e-Engilisi, if "Irani" means "Iranian" to you in English, then what does CIA's "51% Persian" population of Iran mean? Only people in Fars province and Esfahan? Azeris, Gilakis, Mazandaranis are not from Fars Province. The CIA right now does not consider them Persian! Do you agree with that nonsense?? So are they different? According to your vocabulary, they would be considered different. However, I am saying they are NOT different and they are all Persian. It is you who is providing Iran's enemies with excuse to call every group in every province of Iran a "non-Persian" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.250.146 (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dar zemn agar Hamid Shabkhiz raa mikhai bokoni namayandeye Iranihaaye America pass ejazeh beddin Ayatollah Khalkhali ya Ayatollah Jannati namayandeye bachehaye tarbiat-e-shodeh Jomhuriye Islami bokonim. Hanooz fekr mikonam maa ba hamoon Hamid Shabkhiz jeloim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.250.146 (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

again you are very arrogant. I think a clown in Losa Angeles is not in astate to teach experts things. Ok your answres: No, Gilakis, Mazandaranis, Kurds etc... do not speak persian but they are defintely Iranian. In 51% o CIA is their numbers not included. I do not care about what you guys call yourself. It is Iran. Its demonym is Iranian. Even in persian we have different words for Iran (Iran) and Persian (Fars, Pars). The lingua Franca in Iran is Persian because it is originally from ostan-e Fars the ancient Persia. Iranian have never called Iran Persia. Persia is a foreign falsive invention and the educated people know that it is Iran. We are not going to sell our country for the sake of many vatanforush in California, Mohammad Khordadian ahead of them. I am not from Islamic Republic, so..... If you go on wih your rude and arrogant way of conduct I will reply to you in the way you deserve . Can you register your username and sign things you write. At least have the guts and manners --Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to Persians to decide what English-speakers have called Iran for 2,000 years. For example, Persians call Greece "Yunan" and Greeks "Yunani." But the Greeks themselves call their country "Hellas." Is it logical to suddenly force Persian-speakers to call Greece "Hellas" and Greeks "Hellasians"? Don't you think that would cause great confusion among Persian-speakers who have never heard of "Hellasians" before? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.250.146 (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should not have to tell you to discuss your edits. This is Wikipedia. If you disagree with an edit, talk about it. Do not revert it repeatedly. Do not dismiss or disrespect your fellow editors by expecting a simple edit summary to resolve any questions that might remain. We have a very specific process on how editing is supposed to work. It is called WP:BRD, which stands for Bold, Revert Discuss. A person makes a bold edit. If it is reverted, the editor then discusses the edit. Without any reasonable objection (the key phrase here being 'reasonable'), it is reinserted. Please learn this process. You are edit-warring (1, 2), and it is not acceptable. Reverting without seeking discussion will get you blocked and eventually banned. Use the discussion page for making your case against the edit. Simple 'too many' or 'i don't like it' excuses/reasons are not acceptable for dis-inclusion in our encyclopedia. I certainly hope I will not have to revisit this subject with you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may look bold but be fair, You single handedly had deleted everything you did not agree with. Things which were sourced and everyone agreed with. The simplest way to save the article was to revert all changes and then discuss each issue one by one. The discussion will follow. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, do not act as if you know me; it makes you look foolish. It isn't a matter of what I agree or disagree with; it is Wiki policy. If a contentious claim is made, it needs citation. When you see a ^{[citation needed]} or ^{[citation needed]} tag in an article, you ask the person who put it there (or the article discussion) why its there. You do not remove those tags under any circumstances. Ever. If you cannot find a citation, it stays. If you disagree that it needs citation, it stays; u then go to discussion and argue your point there, and not in an edit summary.

And I am going to be blunt with you, as you've reverted me twice, claiming I've removed sourced info that "everyone agrees with"; you are going about this the wrong way, and you are tossing away the good faith that you are given at the start of any discussion. If you think I am wrong, take the time to use the discussion to tel me how I am wrong. I am not, but I am willing to give you the opportunity to tell me where you think I am. Btw, the sourced info you keep saying I am removing the reference to the Washington DC beating of a muslim store owner who happened to Iranian? Not relevant. He was not beaten because he was Iranian - he was beaten because he looked Middle-Eastern. Look at the sources again. Nowhere in the sources does it say that the motivation for the attack was based on his nationality, but his appearance. I would point out that I have already said this in the discussion page post you seem to be unable to read.

So, forgive me if I am harsh, but if you keep reverting my material based on an 'i don't like it' claim, I can guarantee that it is an argument I will win. Discuss, and bring some actual reasons to the argument, and don't ever toss out the 'everyone agrees with it' argument either. Wikipedia is not a democracy; it works on consensus,yet - but a consensus working within the framework of the rules and guidelines.

I am truly hoping that we will not have to revisit this conversation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all you began to insult me, when I was nice to you. NEVER AGAIN SAY YOU LOOK FOOLISH. OK? yes your edist were bad and having reviwed your edits it seemd that you had an agenda to let anti-Iranianism look less bad than it was. Things about the movie 30 should be deleted, the molestation of the Iranian shop keeper should be deleted, and despite the fact that there were so many examples and arguments to sustantiate the arguments you also questioned the truth in the sections on the Netherlands and Turkey. People like me have collected facts here and added to the text. It is indeed still a mess with regards to the text structure, but facts collected should stand. You can ask citation and I say I do not have problems with that, but if you delete the text so fundamentally, it will be very difficult TECHNICALLY to discuss things separately. As for the shop keeper: Iranians have a look. They look middle eastern and in addition Iranian shops have usually flags of Iran aor written as Iranian or Persian shop. It can happen that many rednecks would kill a sikh Indian for an al qaeda Arab, but this was not the case. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, let' start over; I am sorry for calling you foolish; people who assume less than pure motives on my part and call me a vandal tend to make me think they are acting foolish, because I am known for my extremely short temper. If you do not want me to make assumptions about you, do not make them about me. Do not call me a vandal or revert my material twice without discussing the matter in detail with me, because I can guarantee that you will not have a happy, friendly person