Talk:Iranian peoples/Archive 3

—Khoikhoi 02:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Iranian peoples are NOT merely a linguistic group

I have been pointing this out for quite a long time, many sources were mentioned for it, and nobody actually gave any real counter-evidence. Iranian peoples are not a linguistic group. They are an ethnic+linguistic+cultural group of people, with the degree of each of these three elements varying for each of them. The way the article starts now is simply wrong, and should not stay like this. Shervink 15:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

Iranian people are an ethno-lingustic group. The article even points to racial similarities. Why is this not stated clearly at the start? I sense the work of the same editors that spread anti-Iranian propaganda is at work here. 69.196.139.250 04:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If this article groups based on cultural aspects of Iranian people, then where is the mention of Turkish speaking Iranians? Didn't they contribute to culture of Iran? If it is pure languistic issue here, then why do we call this article "Iranian Peoples". We need to be more specific about the term and call it Indo-Iranian Speaking peoples. Otherwise it will be quite misleading..

Definition of Aryan According to Dictionaries and Encyclopedias

Here is one the definitons of the word Aryan by Oxford dictionary, “The restricted use rests on the ground that only the ancient Indian and Iranian members of the family are known on historical evidence to have called themselves Aria, Arya or Ariya; the wider application rests partly on the inference that the name probably belonged in pre-historic times to the whole family, while this still constituted an ethnic and linguistic unity; and partly on the ground that even if it did not, it is now the most convenient and least misleading name for the primitive type of speech from which all the languages above-mentioned have sprung, inasmuch as Indo-Germanic is too narrow, and Indo-European too wide, for the facts, while Japhetic introduces speculations of which science has no cognizance”.Zmmz 03:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster dictionary says, “1 : INDO-EUROPEAN 2 a : of or relating to a hypothetical ethnic type illustrated by or descended from early speakers of Indo-European languages b : NORDIC c -- used in Nazism to designate a supposed master race of non-Jewish Caucasians having especially Nordic features 3 : of or relating to Indo-Iranian or its speakers”[1].Zmmz 03:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Columbia Encyclopedia says,“Early History to the Zand Dynasty Iran has a long and rich history. For a detailed description of the Persian Empire, see Persia. Some of the world’s most ancient settlements have been excavated in the Caspian region and on the Iranian plateau; village life began there c.4000 B.C. The Aryans came about 2000 B.C. and split into two main groups, the Medes and the Persians. The Persian Empire founded (c.550 B.C.) by Cyrus the Great was succeeded, after a period of Greek and Parthian rule, by the Sassanid in the early 3d cent. A.D”[2]. Zmmz 03:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Macedonian genetic study

This is the study [3] that I had mentioned earlier, either here or over at Talk:Persian people. SouthernComfort 10:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Leaving out many Iranian Peoples from "Iranian Peoples" Article

"Iranian Peoples" as described in the Wikipedia's article of Iran includes many ethnic groups like Azeris 24% etc. I think the title "Iranian Peoples" is quite misleading. It strikes me how on earth we can leave out so many Iranian Peoples in this article which is about "Iranian Peoples". I am not sure how to do it best. Maybe a sentence that we are talking linguistics here. Unless someone tells me that we are redefining the term "Iranian Peoples"! —This unsigned comment is by 203.48.45.194 (talk • contribs) .

Yeah this is about linguistic group, but some editors seem to be confused about this and somehow think Iranian is a "race". The article about people of Iran is Demographics of Iran. There Azeris are included. Does this help? Aucaman^Talk 03:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, shouldn't we use a term that does not confuse people or a statement that says this article is completely a linguistic article. Then agian, what is the difference between this article and "Iranian Languages" then? —This unsigned comment is by 203.48.45.194 (talk • contribs) .

I've added a note saying this has very little to do with the country of Iran. See this for an alternative explanation of why this is happening. Is there anything specific that you don't like? Aucaman^Talk 04:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It is completely absurd to see Kharzai pictured as a member of Iranian peoples while the some of prominent past and contemporary Iranians can not be included in the term defined here. I think the title is quite misleading and confusing and should be changed. —This unsigned comment is by 203.48.45.194 (talk • contribs) .

Yes it is. But in Wikipedia it takes some time and effort for wrong things to be corrected. If you make a comment and leave no one's going to listen to you. Aucaman^Talk 04:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Guess you proved yourself wrong here. You did something about it, didn't you? :) Thanks :)

Dispute

As I said before the infobox does not belong here. It is wrong and is special to ethnic groups such as Armenians. not linguistic groups. Diyako Talk + 15:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Iranian people are not just a linguistic group, as mentioned by almost everybody before, so the info box is appropriate. Shervink 16:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

The article clearing starts with saying its about an "ethno-linguistic" group. --Kash 22:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Update

The whole article makes lots of claims that are not well-sourced. Where's the claim that Iranian is an ethno-linguistic group coming from? Also (this is embarrassing to even bring up), Indo-European and Indo-Iranian are NOT ethnic groups for sure. Some people here don't seem to understand the difference between an ethnic group and a linguistic group. Aucaman^Talk 12:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

First source

Thanks for adding in a source. The first source you've provided is this. Nice try. Your source says that Kurds are an ethno-linguistic group. Google searches are good, but if you actually read them after your search hits. It's also good for people to review the definition of what an ethno-liguistic group is: it's an ethnic group that shares one common language. All Iranian peoples share a common language? Aucaman^Talk 20:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, yes exactly dear Aucaman, in adition the source is NOT related to this article as it is on KURDS; it says Kurds are an ethno-linguistic group and does not say Iranians are an ethno-linguistic group. I wondered how dear SouthernComfort added this while his english is vey good. Diyako Talk + 20:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop removing sources diyako, the source is clear????

Excuse me, What is clear? what that link claims? Diyako Talk + 20:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The Kurds, an Iranian ethno-linguistic group--like Persians, Lurs, Baluch and Bakhtiari,--inhabit the mostly mountainous area where the borders of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria converge. That's what the source says. Any other problems? SouthernComfort 20:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

And BTW Aucaman, your sarcasm and condescending attitude are not appreciated. SouthernComfort 20:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It says Kurds are an Iranian ethno-linguistic group. Is that what you're saying in the article? You're claiming that Iranian peoples is an ethno-linguistic group. Where's the evidence for that? Aucaman^Talk 20:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The source I've provided is pretty clear in defining "Iranian ethno-linguistic group" - "Iranian peoples," as this article defines it, matches the source. Furthermore, it states that the Kurds are an Iranian ethnolinguistic group "like the Persians, Lurs, Baluch, etc." - in other words, the other Iranian peoples. If you want more precise clarifications, you should visit the library. SouthernComfort 21:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The source is an excellent read, thanks for finding it SouthernComfort. I was not sure that Kurds are ethno-linguistically Iranian people like Persians, but now I am sure that Kurds are pretty much as Iranian as Persians and other Iranian people are. --Kash 22:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

First the source is nor for defination of Iranian peoples as it defines Kurds. Also for matter of Kurds there are enough Authorative sources to discuss it when required. But You link does not describe Iranian people. Diyako Talk + 22:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

But it still says that there is an ethno linguistic group called Iranians and kurds and balouch and Persians are members of it. Do you have a source that says otherwise?

Gol 01:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Some grammar help. The subject of the sentence is "Kurds". The sentence is talking about Kurds. I already know that Kurds are an ethno-linguistic group. Aucaman^Talk 04:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me Aucaman, but you're being rude again and it's not appreciated. As I've stated before, the article identifies the Kurds and the other Iranian peoples (Persians, Lurs, Baluch, etc) as all being an "Iranian ethno-linguistic" group, and yet you continue to ignore this. You have no cause to dispute. SouthernComfort 05:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

The source says Kurds are an Iranian ethno-linguistic group. The subject of the sentence is Kurds. Where does it say Iranian peoples is an ethno-linguistic group? Aucaman^Talk 05:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The Kurds, an Iranian ethno-linguistic group--like Persians, Lurs, Baluch and Bakhtiari SouthernComfort 05:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's saying Kurds, like Persians, Lurs, etc., are an Iranian ethno-linguistic group. How does this justify the statement "Iranian peoples are an ethno-linguistic group"? Aucaman^Talk 06:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the logical conlusion is that if "The Kurds, an Iranian ethno-linguistic group--like Persians, Lurs, Baluch and Bakhtiari" then Iranian peoples which consist of Kurds, Persians, Lurs, Baluch and Bakhtiari are an ethno-linguistic group. --ManiF 06:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

logically it says they are several ethnolinguistic groups! or at least Kurds are an ethnolinguistic group!. It can be true when we say these peoples are ethnolinguistic groups but it does not answer this simple question that the 'Iranian peoples' by itself is an ethnolinguistic group or no. Sure it is simply a linguistic group and even if you still claim Iranian peoples is an ethnolinguist group so how much is the ethnical and cultural traits among these peoples. Are Persians and Afghans and Hazaras all ethnically one people. Clearly your answer is no and you may say: 'well, these people all are related', but then question is 'how much???' clearly their relationship in these cases is in varying degrees and is not enough to make a classification based on their culture and ethnic relations. It is only their language which is classified and has several branches western eastern... Diyako Talk + 16:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, which rule of logic are you using? The definition of an ethno-linguistic group is pretty straight-forward: it's an ethnic group sharing a common language. Aucaman^Talk 06:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The last edit by dear Shervink seems to me to be more correct. We should be more carefull in taggings. but here since I've not taged the article, just I can only reduce the disputing degree till dear Aucaman says his last oponion. Diyako Talk + 17:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not conclude that "Iranian peoples are members of several ethno-linguistic groups of people".!

That doesn't even make sense to me. I think the wording was better before. "The Iranian people are an ethno-linguistic group" then we can clarify it further later.

The article says The Kurds, an Iranian ethno-linguistic group--like Persians, Lurs, Baluch and Bakhtiari" then Iranian peoples which consist of Kurds, Persians, Lurs, Baluch and Bakhtiari

From this, I conclude that:

• 1- There is an ethno-linguistic group called "Iranian(s)"
• 2- This ethno-linguistic group contains people such as Persians, Lurs, Kurds, etc. --Kash 00:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Mashaallah! habibi once again: This is your personal assumption, the link clearly does not claim that. I wonder how you claim your knowledge of english is professional while cannot understand that simple English sentence correctly! If you know English grammar, It says Kurds are an ethnolinguistic group not Iranians.Diyako Talk + 00:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I don't speak Arabic. Although English is my third language, I try very hard and don't appreciate your rudeness.

It is also not my personal assumption. Both ManiF and SouthernComfort have also agreed with me a few paragraphs above.

Please stop using Wikipedia to prove a point. See WP:POINT --Kash 01:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Since I did not say a bad word I see no reason to apology. I said it as a good word. but you made it an insult. If ManiF, and SouthernComfort think that link claims so it does not mean they are right. Ask any admin what your links claim. It describes Kurds as an Ethnolinguistic group not Iranians. Diyako Talk + 01:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Also user Shervink who is familiar with the debate of this article clearly did not think like you. He corrected the link so that I accepted it. you reveted it again to the wrong version. Diyako Talk + 01:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

As well as user Aucaman. Diyako Talk + 01:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I should explain my edit of a few days ago to avoid confusion. I'm not very much up to date on this discussion right now because I was on a short trip and couldn't follow the debate lately.

Basically, my edit followed the discussions regarding the issue whether Iranian people are an ethno-linguistic group or not. On one point, I must agree with Diyako and Aucaman, the source provided does not clearly say that Iranian people are one ethno-linguistic group. It says so about the Kurds, and basically the same thing can be said about Pashtuns, Bakhtiari, etc. I don't think that we can say - with the same definition - that Iranian people are one ethno-linguistic group. You might use another, broader, definition of the term ethno-linguistic (comprising several related groups) and then say Iranian people are one ethno-linguistic group. But then again, with that broad definition, you couldn't use the same term to refer to Kurds. What I'm saying basically is that you cannot use this same term in one sentence to refer to both Kurds and Iranians, because Iranian people is a much larger group, with relationships of a much more general character, and cannot be classified in exactly the same manner as Kurds or Pashtuns are. Therefore, I would suggest saying that Iranian people are comprised of a number of ethno-linguistic groups living in the specified areas, all of whom speak Iranian languages. Also, it would be good to mention that most of them, with varying degrees, are related culturally, religiously, and share a lot of their ancient traditions and mythology, albeit each having their distinct cultural aspects as well. Such a thing seems to be the most neutral and accurate to me, and would be fair towards everyone. I suggest, therefore, the first paragraph as I had already put it on my last edit here, plus one short sentence to mention other (non-linguistic) similarities which many of these people have. Shervink 21:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

One more thing: If your point is that the term ethno-linguistic can be used to refer to both, although I think it would be somewhat clumsy, I would in principle agree if you could provide a source clearly saying that. Fair is fair, and despite my many previous disagreements with them, Aucaman and Diyako are right on the point that this particular source does not say this. Shervink 22:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

Again Infobox

It seems that some users support existence of a infobox in the article. Ok I'm not against that. But actually parts of infobox at least its last section is wrong: See: Related ethnic groups: Indo-European, Indo-Iranian, Nuristani, Dardic and Indo-Aryans. None of these groups are ethnic group. Ethnic group is: Persians, Armenians, Goergians not Indo-Iranian etc.. The suggestion is that whether correct that term or remove that. Diyako Talk + 17:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Since when these groups have become an ethnic group?! It looks like a miracle! Diyako Talk + 00:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Diyako, the source clearly says "Iranian ethno-linguistic group". Just the fact that it acknowledges the Iranian peoples as an ethno-linguistic group is enough. What are you disputing? --Khoikhoi 02:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The source says Kurds are an Iranian ethno-linguistic group. The subject of the sentence is the word "Kurd". The statement does not say anything about Iranian peoples as a whole except that it says Kurds (and Persians, etc.) are an Iranian group. This article claims that the linguistic group "Iranian" is an ethno-linguistic group, which is totally false. Aucaman^Talk 02:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That's your POV that it's false. You asked for a source that claims there is an Iranian ethno-linguistic group and SouthernComfort provided one. I'm not sure what else you want. --Khoikhoi 02:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm having this conversation. The claim in the article is that Iranian is an ethno-linguitic group. The source says that Kurds are an ethno-linguistic group. Do you understand the difference? Aucaman^Talk 02:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The source says the Kurds are an Iranian ethno-linguistic group. As I said above, the fact that they said "Iranian ethno-linguistic group" is enough! The article says that the term exists, and shows that it is a valid one. --Khoikhoi 02:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the last time I'm going to repeat this. The subject of the sentence is "Kurds" and the statement says nothing about Iranian peoples as a whole. Aucaman^Talk 02:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi! :::Are you a native speaker of English???.??! Diyako Talk + 11:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I second Khoikhoi. He seems to be correct as always. --Kash 20:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that Iranian peoples has its own academic definition and it simply is 'peoples who speak Iranian languages'. If some people among them f. ex. Persians, Tajiks and Afgans or Hazaras and Xs have some ethnic ties then it should be discussed in a respective section in the article not generalize it to whole of group an put it just in the intro section! and all of this was already discussed and agreed on. Iranian peoples are linguistic group because all of them are classified as members of a language group. but they are not members of a ethnic group or ethnic family, There is nothing like that. Tajiks and Hazaras may have ethnolinguistc ties (and may not) but Kurds in Mahababd or Mariwan have no ethnic ties with Hazaras in Afghanistan or others in China rather than linguistic.Diyako Talk + 22:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputed section

Souces have to be provided for this sentence:

"Having descended from the Aryans (Proto-Indo-Iranians), the ancient Iranian peoples were separated from the Indo-Aryans in the early 2nd millennium BC"

All Iranian peoples are descendants of one group? I've never heard such a thing. Aucaman^Talk 04:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman, it does not matter what you have personally heard of or not. You can't just dispute an article because of what you don't know about in the world, see Wikipedia:Verifiability This particular information has a link that is posted after that sentence, that is the reference. --Kash 19:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That source is only about the country of Iran and in particular Persians. It's not talking about this "Iranian peoples" of yours. Aucaman^Talk 20:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman, I have warned you about rudeness before. Rudeness is indeed against a valuable Wikipedia policy WP:CIVIL.

'It's not talking about this "Iranian peoples" of yours.'

I thought you said you are Iranian? then why is "Iranian people" - of mine exactly?

Also I am not sure what exactly you are after here? The source is on the topic of Iran and not "only about the country of Iran", it clearly talks about the people of Iran as well as the Early History of the people and their origin also. --Kash 23:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm Iranian because I was born in the country of Iran, not because I'm a member of a nonexistant ethnic group. Aucaman^Talk 12:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "non-existant" ethnic group? --Kash 17:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Indo-europeans are not an ethnic group. you claim it in the article. Xebat Talk + 17:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

Ok, You have not been able to provide a source for several months. Everytime you were asked for citiation rejected or provided a link wich is totally irrelevant to the topic. When I provide encyclopedic sources you delete it. and push your PERSONAL POV. I hope in deletion article we can reach a compromise. Xebat Talk + 17:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• This nomination is incorrect. You are disputing a small part of an article, you can't delete the whole article because of this --Kash 17:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you are riight that nomination is wrong. but you clearly clearly are using a irrelevant source. Why when I insert the Encyclopedia of Ukraine you delete it???? ) Also Swedish Nationalencyklopedin stats the same. Xebat Talk + 18:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The east Aryan group of peoples of the Indo-European family that today inhabit Iran, Soviet Central Asia and Transcaucasia, Afghanistan, and parts of Pakistan, Turkey, and Iraq http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/pages/I/R/Iranianpeoples.htm This link defines the Iranian peoples or your link that says Kurds are an ethniolinguistic group.?? Xebat Talk + 18:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

How can a source be irrelevant when it talks about the topic? I don't have a problem with your source, but you have repeatedly said that you have a problem with the term "Aryan", so you are contradicting yourself here. --Kash 18:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Your link says KURDS are an ethnolinguistic group. The person who inserted the term ethnolinguistic was User:Tombseye who later removed it by himself and said it is not an academic definition. You destroyed the definition by that link which referes to KURDS. Kurds are an ethnilinguis group because both their language and ethnicity is Kurdish. BUT while Iranian peoples speak languages of a linguistic group they all have different ethnicities. Are Afhgans and Persians one ethnic group? YES or NO? Xebat Talk + 18:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Link is not 'mine', I have not claimed ownership over it. It was not even introduced by me. So please keep it WP:CIVIL and don't be rude. I don't know who introduced the term originally, but since it is being used by academic sources, it seems correct.

The article by the way, mentions that Kurds are an Iranian ethnolinguistic group. Keep that in mind. Also, there is no dispute over that different ethnicities have different ethnicities! but the article correctly states that they are all branches of one ethno-linguistic family of Iranians. --Kash 18:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. It seems that the dispute tag should stay forever until you will accpet that your link does not claim that. Xebat Talk + 18:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Linguists used to think that changes in language meant ethnic changes. If Indo-European languages spread, that meant the people speaking Indo-European languages had proliferated, conquered other peoples, and erased their language. There are still many sources that take this view of history. This view should be be given, however ... the current view is that languages can spread with innovations in material culture, and that actual people movements need not be involved. Consider, for a minute, the spread of English. Many upper-class South Asians speak English as a first language. Does that mean that they're of British descent? No. Evidence from genetic studies also shows that the language = genetics equation does not hold. Hence the whole basis for this article is an outmoded theory that has been proven wrong. Not to mention the fact that it's sheer, unabashed irredentism. Zora 18:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your point Zora, however you should keep in mind that your hypothesis is just a theory in this case and not really relevant to this case as far as I can see, as well as not being a generally accepted theory on this case and you can't generalise from one certain class of people to whole of Iranian peoples anyway. --Kash 18:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Kash, that's shuffling and jiving. Of course it's relevant to this case. And something doesn't have to be "generally accepted" to rate mention in WP. NPOV is about giving alternate theories, not picking one and shutting out the others. A theory just has to be "notable" and the current theories of IE language spread are widespread in academia and indeed notable. Zora 18:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

In that case I would like to see sources about your ideas then, --Kash 18:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Update

This is not an ethnic group - it includes at least 15 other ethnic groups within it!!! Where are all the definitions in this article coming from? Where are your sources for the article as a whole? You seem to be trying to justify the article one sentence at a time (by finding ad hoc sources for each sentence). But when you put things together it doesn't really add up.

You also might want to read this article a little more closely. Pay specila attention to this map (the codes are provided here). As you can see from the map, Persians are genetically (hence "racially") closer to Turkish Turks and Caucasians than they are to Pathans or Baluchis (who are almost half South Asian). (This is why some Iranians like Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi look more like Caucasian or Turkish people (compare Vigen, the Armenian singer) than Afghans, Pakistanis, or Tajiks.) So, again, linguistic similarity does not automatically lead to genetic/racial similarity.

I'm going to be looking at some of the sources provided in the reference section to see if I can find a consistent definition of "Iranian peoples", but this is going to take some time. Until then people should explain their reasoning as to why this article was formed in the first place.

I will also ask User:Xebat to exercise some patience until we get to the bottom of this. Aucaman^Talk 18:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, no one claims Iranian peoples to be of one ethnicity. I am not sure where you are getting this idea from. --Kash 18:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

They why are you saying it's an ethnolinguistic group? Aucaman^Talk 19:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

OK I think you guys have mistaken the term used here, to clarify what "ethno-linguistic" means:

A "people group" is an ethnolinguistic group with a common self-identity that is shared by the various members. There are two parts to that word: ethno and linguistic. Language is a primary and dominant identifying factor of a people group. But there are other factors that determine or are associated with ethnicity.

Usually there is a common self-name and a sense of common identity of individuals identified with the group. A common history, customs, family and clan identities, as well as marriage rules and practices, age-grades and other obligation covenants, and inheritance patterns and rules are some of the common ethnic factors defining or distinguishing a people. What they call themselves may vary at different levels of identity, or among various sub-groups. [4]

Iranian peoples share the same language. Thats one thing. About the ethno part, "common identity", which is shared by Iranian peoples by their history clearly, as well as customs e.g. Norouz which has been celebrated by most if not all Iranian peoples worldwide, and "What they call themselves may vary at different levels of identity, or among various sub-groups." So I think that should explain to you about this term, before you mistake what the article is talking about --Kash 19:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Iranian peoples share the same language? What language is that? Maybe I should learn it. All these people speak the same language? Aucaman^Talk 19:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

They speak Iranian languages, and I bet you already know one or two! :) --Kash 19:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Iranian languages are not a same language! but several independant languages! Are Pashtun and Persian and Kurdish the same spoken language?!!

-): According to your link even only part of Iranian peoples are a multi-ethnic language group but still those part not an ethnolinguistic one! Hazaras, Persians, and Tajiks who speak one language can be called a multi-ethnic language group but others are even more remote because they have several language: At the same time there may be different peoples who speak the same language but distinguish themselves because of different histories, other factors causing enmity, an endogamous marriage pattern, differing political alliances, or separate self-name or loyalty to a different common ancestor or leader of a common source people group in history. !!! All Iranic peoples be an ethnolinguistc group is a big claim.Xebat Talk + 19:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Diyako! nope they are not but that page has put things in a simple language I thought you might understand. Iranian languages are not very different eachother, infact Persians, Lurs, Baluches, Afghans, Tajiks, etc can usually understand eachother's languages. I even have an Uzbek friend who reads Persian poetry!

Anyway thats beside the point. They all speak Iranian languages, and they share similar culture, history and identity, etc. --Kash 19:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources?

None of these stuff really matter. The definition of the term "Iranian peoples" should come from a source that clearly says what the term means and which groups are included. Instead of arguing about the specific wordings lets first find sources that say what the term means and which groups are included. Aucaman^Talk 19:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is well sourced Aucaman, which part exactly are you disputing? --Kash 19:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is not well-sourced. The first source talks about Kurds, not Iranian peoples. The second one talks about the citizens of Iran - again not the same as the people we're talking about here. You have to provide sources that talk about Iranian peoples, not other people. Otherwise I'm starting to think that the term is not even in use. I'll try to look for some sources myself. Aucaman^Talk 19:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources do not have to necessary talk only and only about a certain topic to be used as a reference on wikipedia, if a source talks about the matter, it can be used. You have compared this to Germanic people and you wonder why there are not as many sources on the matter, but you have to remember that the idea of Germanic people has been talked about much more in west, as it was one of the most important ideologies of the 20th century, used in one of the biggest wars in history of man kind. In contrast the idea of Iranian peoples has been an eastern topic and has not had the same effect on the west. As far as I know much of the research has been carried out in Persian language and Russian. There is no question I don't think that Iranian people speak Iranian languages and their culture is Iranian culture, and I know it might sound POV to someone who doesn't know much about the topic, but its true. --Kash 22:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

We all know that this source is more authorative, reliable and neutral than POV of some users. The east Aryan group of peoples of the Indo-European family and we know that nowadays Aryan is used only in linguistics. [5]. In addition most of these peoples have uncertain or even different ethnic origins [6] [7]. So while even Aryan is a linguistic term not ethnical and speakers of this linguistic group have different ethnic backgrounds why we should ignore all of these facts and push our pov or our friends? Xebat Talk + 03:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Lol we all know this? are you sure? that source does not look very reliable to me, the article we have here is two pages full with references. This "authorative" source of yours is good but does not really define what it is talking about, unless you use other sources to back it up, etc. Even then you don't get a full picture. --Kash 04:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Diyako. This is what your source says: Iranian peoples. The east Aryan group of peoples of the Indo-European family that today inhabit Iran, Soviet Central Asia and Transcaucasia, Afghanistan, and parts of Pakistan, Turkey, and Iraq. In ancient times they also inhabited southeastern Europe. During the 1st millennia BC and AD Ukraine was inhabited consecutively by the Iranian-speaking Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, and Irano-Turkic Khazars. These peoples interacted with the indigenous proto-Slavs and influenced their cultural development. [8] It does not say anything about linguistics. SouthernComfort 04:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, The east Aryan group of peoples of the Indo-European family and we know that Aryan is used only in linguistics. [9]. In addition most of these peoples have uncertain or even different ethnic origins [10] [11]. So while even Aryan is a linguistic term not ethnical and speakers of this linguistic group have different ethnic backgrounds why we should ignore all of these facts? Xebat Talk + 05:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The source added doesn't say anything about linguistics, Diyako. SouthernComfort 05:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Your link does not say anything about Iranians BEING AN RELATED ETHNIC GROUP!!!!!! it defines Kurds. My source does define it as East Aryan group. Xebat Talk + 05:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The source(s) disagree with you, my friend. The second one even explicitly refers to Iranian peoples. And please do not shout. SouthernComfort 05:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It refers to Kurds. Kurds are an ethnolinguistc group. Not Persians and Hazaras and Pashtuns altogether!!Xebat Talk + 05:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Iranian peoples. The east Aryan group of peoples of the Indo-European family that today inhabit Iran, Soviet Central Asia and Transcaucasia, Afghanistan, and parts of Pakistan, Turkey, and Iraq. In ancient times they also inhabited southeastern Europe. During the 1st millennia BC and AD Ukraine was inhabited consecutively by the Iranian-speaking Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, and Irano-Turkic Khazars. These peoples interacted with the indigenous proto-Slavs and influenced their cultural development. That is as clear as any source is going to get. It is just that obvious, my friend. SouthernComfort 05:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I second SouthernComfort. Very clear, indeed. --Kash 05:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok my dear friend where you did get the term Iranian peoples being an ethnolinguist group? Xebat Talk + 05:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Toyota is a Japanese car.
• Here which one is car? Toyota or Japan? Xebat Talk + 05:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? SouthernComfort 05:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurds are an Iranian Ethnolinguitic group.

Which is ethnolinguistic group? Kurds or Iranian?? Xebat Talk + 05:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't you already know from the sources provided? The article is pretty clear in its wording. SouthernComfort 05:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No, unfortunately, I'm so sorry, can you please help us and clarify which one is an ethnolinguistic group? Maybe I'm wrong! As far as i understand the same as in the logic Toyota is a japanese car this is Toyota which is a car, here in this sentence I understand that this is Kurds who are an ethnolinguistic group not Iranians. Xebat Talk + 05:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE CALL IT "Toyota Motor Corporation" NOT JUST TOYOTA! IM QUITE SENSETIVE ABOUT THIS. THANKS.

FAO, ebat, regarding your analogy,

No, unfortunately, I'm so sorry, can you please help us and clarify which one is an ethnolinguistic group? Maybe I'm wrong! As far as i understand the same as in the logic Toyota is a japanese car this is Toyota which is a car, here in this sentence I understand that this is Kurds who are an ethnolinguistic group not Iranians.

This toyota example is not analogous with the kurd example because toyoto is not a subfamily of Japanese, whereas kurdish people are a subfamily of iranian people. I'm not saying that this definately means that the excerpt re kurds implies that Iranian people are an ethno-linguistic group, but it does make it possible that that is what it implies. --Amin123 05:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I have temporarily protected the article, so you could discuss your edit conflict on the talk page, before the edit warring. abakharev 07:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting. I really didn't want to get involved in this dispute, but I kept seeing numerous reverts come up while I was on recent changes patrol and initiated a discussion with Xebat. Frankly, I'd say I tend to agree with the anti-Xebat crowd, yet I nonetheless find it inappropriate to repeatedly delete his dispute tags. I really wish everyone would just follow WP:1RR in these cases: Xebat tags the article, the tag is deleted, the tag is restored--leave the tag in place. He honestly has not been given adequate time to explain his complaint, and none of the editors here have shown him any respect or civility. He, on the other hand, was equally uncivil by adding a ridiculous number of inappropriate tags to the article with the intent of undermining its ethical appeal and making a point. As there clearly is a dispute about the factuality and neutrality of the article, I urge the editors here, after the article is unprotected, to leave Xebot's tag in place until a resolution is reached--either through an overwhelming consensus, his concession, or mediation. It is most definitely inappropriate to repeatedly remove these tags only a couple of hours after they were originally posted. Leave them in place for at least a few days, and if everyone agrees that Xebot has made no valid statement of a dispute, then you can delete them without being rash and cruel. AmiDaniel (Talk) 07:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think User:Xebat deserves more credit than he's been given. Some users here try to push for certain terms and ideas to appear in the article not by concensus or cooperation but by carrying out constant revert wars and repeatedly taking off the dispute tags. This has got to stop. The article is on Iranian peoples but the source justifying its definition here comes from an article on Kurds. No sources have been provided that give a consistent definition of who Iranian peoples are and this is of great concern. Instead of looking for comprehensive sources and presenting them here, they have decided to just define things the way they see it and then look for (incomplete) sources justifying one sentence but at the same time contradicting another. Aucaman^Talk 08:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. There is a consensus and the sources clearly define what is meant by "Iranian peoples". Please see WP:V, and as for your other comments directed towards specific editors, please see WP:CIVIL. SouthernComfort 08:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, users such as Xebat have asked for sources that say that an Iranian ethno-linguistic group exists - we provided it to him and Aucaman but both rejected it saying "it's about the Kurds". Yes the subject of the article is about the Kurds, but it still acknowleges the existance of an Iranian ethno-linguistic group. --Khoikhoi 09:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, just because Kurds are an ethno-linguistic group it doesn't mean you can call Iranians an ethno-linguistic group. An ethno-linguistic group is an ethnic group that shares a common language. Kurds have that. "Iranians" don't. Iranian is a general linguistic group. I can't believe you're bring this same issue back up. Makes me wonder if you're reading the source correctly. Aucaman^Talk 09:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This is what the source says: "The Kurds, an Iranian ethno-linguistic group--like Persians, Lurs, Baluch and Bakhtiari". The source clearly indicates that Iranian peoples (Kurds, Persians, Lurs, Baluch and Bakhtiari) are a related ethnolinguistic group. --ManiF 10:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Xebat a sock puppet for User:Diyako? Just wondering.--Zereshk 09:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Just who uses the term Iranian peoples, and how?

I did some googling on the web, and then with Google Scholar, and then I sifted through the material on Questia and what I found was:

Usage of the term "Iranian peoples" to refer to the various "ethnic" groups that are found in the modern state of Iran. I suspect that the cite from the article re the Kurds is using "Iranian peoples" in that sense.

Usage of the term "Iranian peoples" for tribes/states/peoples in the PAST who spoke various Iranian languages. The term is generally used for groups that were already separate in pre-Achaemenid times -- groups such as the Medes, Persians, Chorasmians, Sogdians, etc. In the Behistun inscription, Darius names them all separately, as groups just like the Assyrians or the Elamites, and identifies himself as a Persian.

The article, however, is using the term "Iranian peoples" for ill-defined contemporary groups who speak a language related to modern Persian. However, no evidence is given that any of them define themselves as "Iranian peoples". So who is applying the label? We don't have any references showing that it is widely used by academics or journalists. All we have is a number of Iranian editors who are applying the label to people who aren't here on WP and can't object.

Furthermore, the article is asserting that people who speak "Iranian" languages (not in the national, but in the linguistic classification sense) are genetically linked. There's some fussing about later mixing, but the article is firmly based on the OLD model of "invading Aryan tribes", which many leading academics have rejected.

If the dang thing is going to be kept, it's going to have to be extensively rewritten, in a much more detached way. Right now it reads like "We are the biggest and the best, huzzah for us!" If vanity articles aren't acceptable for people, I don't think they're acceptable for nations either. Zora 10:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Article might have some problem but it is not what you are making it look like. We are the best we are the greatest!!! Who said that? where is it mentioned or implied?

Gol 19:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Owwh are u sure... Noo, I'm not sure... u know what is ethnolinguistic? see Nenets people they r. Ossetians and persians together not oh no no. why it is so. Ossettians are different. that are not ethnolinguistic. no, no, ............

---

Cogent argument, that :) Ah, a little more googling suggests that the source for all of this is CAIS, Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies, which is apparently a group of Iranian diaspora academics, no longer connected to the University of London, with explicitly nationalist aims. Their home page reads, ""The future belongs to the nation who appreciates her past" and prominently advertises a petition by against Azeri separatism. They are apparently in the process of setting up a section on "Iranian peoples", of which this WP article is a reflection. Tainted source. Zora 19:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen in these books

• The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 1,2,3
• The Seven Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World: The Fifth and Seventh Monarchy: Persia and Sassanids
• Ruzgaran : tarikh-i Iran az aghz ta saqut saltnat Pahlvi
• Dr. David Nicolle "Sassanian Armies : the Iranian empire early 3rd to mid-7th centuries AD"
• Dr. Ali Akbar Sarfaraz, Dr. Bahman Firuzmandi "Mad, Hakhamanishi, Ashkani, Sasani"

One can explicitly deduce that the term "Iranian people" refers to different groups of people who speak an Iranian language and generally share some definite genetical similarity (Genetical markers) due to their common background from a single Indo-Iranian origin. The term is pretty much in use nowadays albeit many of the original Iranian peoples have been disappeared. Amir85 20:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

To zora:

The article, however, is using the term "Iranian peoples" for ill-defined contemporary groups who speak a language related to modern Persian. However, no evidence is given that any of them define themselves as "Iranian peoples". So who is applying the label?

Do you think all Germanic people, an average person from England for example, constantly think of themselves as Germanic? Believe me most of them, especially those without a college education, do not even know such thing exists. They think Germanic people are only people of Germany! but their ignorance does not change the facts. I am sure there are a lot of speakers of Iranian languages that do not know there is a language group called Iranian and that their language is a member but that does not change the fact that they are Iranian people. What other name would you have for speakers of Iranian languages? (I asked this question of all the editors who oppose this term and they could not give me an answer!)

Also what part implies that they are genetically connected, anymore that they obviously are? Can you be specific? The genetic section sounds accurate and factual to me. is it some other part?

Gol 20:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I would use the term "speakers of languages related to modern Persian". There's no particular need to have a short and snappy term for a classification surely of use only to linguists.

As for the "they obviously are", that is one POV, but there are other POVs. Gimbutas, Mallory, Ehret, and Witzel accept a theory in which a language spreads with a complex of technological innovations. People who adopted horse-raising and battle chariots adopted the associated languages. As a contemporary example, take the spread of the Internet and the associated spread of English. Does everyone who learns English to participate in international forums (such as this) automagically become English by descent? Zora 22:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Are Germanic people called speakers of Germanic languages? No they are called Germanic people.

Iranian people do share some genetic connection. But it is a fact that they share similarities with other people and might no longer be strongly connected to each other ( I think this issue is mentioned in the genetic section.) however You can not possibly argue that these groups have NO similarities to each other whatsoever! Or that it is only a POV! You can not possibly argue that their genetic connection to each other is ZERO!! Please try to be a little balance while presenting your own point of view. Thank you.

Gol 02:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not an all-or-nothing matter. It's greater or lesser genetic distance, measured by variance from an arbitrary standard. See Mitochondrial DNA and Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. Usually human populations share genetic peculiarities with people on all sides of them. Frex, Baluchis are related to Persians, but also to peoples of the Punjab. There is no one gene marker that is found in all populations speaking an Iranian (in a linguistic sense) language and in no other populations. People don't inherit language, they LEARN it. They usually learn it from their relatives, but not always.

As for the genetic background of English-speaking peoples from the UK -- it's a goulash! All-mix-up! And it varies from area to area. London you'd have a lot of mixture, rural areas not so much. There was a recent article about genetic testing done on a body preserved in a bog, from thousands of years ago (before the Anglo-Saxon and Viking invasions), and then on members of the local, rural, population. One schoolteacher, from a family that had lived there for a long time, was genetically quite close to the bog man. So he was not a Germanic person :)

This stuff is still cutting edge and it's still in a state of flux. But it is extremely exciting (at least to me) because it means that in addition to linguistic and archaelogical evidence for the human past before writing, we now have genetic evidence. It's going to solve a lot of questions and possibly upend a lot of what we think we know. Zora 04:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Thats wrong, it is not an ethnic group. VattuVattu

Several ethnic groups speaking several languages.... they are not an ethnolinguistic group, not an ehnic group, not a multi-ethnic language group, not a multi-lingual ethnic group

they are one a people who live

See: http://strategyleader.org/peopledefinitions/peoplegroup.html

Wrong info on wikipedia forums

VattuVattu

---

Archived

It looks like this page was already archived but the person archiving forgot to remove the archived material (or put in the link). I finished the job. Aucaman^Talk 14:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem here

Here's a message I left someone discussing some of the problems here:

The article does not provide any sources discussing the subject of the article. All the sources provided are about other ethnic groups, but they make side comments that have been taken out context and are contradictory to some of the other statements appearing on the page. The article is on Iranian peoples, so it should contain at least one source discussing who these people are. Such a source has yet to be provided.

I think the article was initially meant to be written on the linguistic group of all speakers of Iranian languages, but the definition has changed considerably due to some misunderstandings (Iran is also the name of a country and some Iranian citizens see themselves as part of a greater ethnic group, that of "Iranian peoples" - see the article on Greater Iran for signs of this). I'm not sure what's the best way to move on from here. The article definitely has to be rewritten with a clear definition in mind, but a lot of users are not being cooperative. I'd strongly consider any advice or mediation.

I think this well-describes the problem here. I think the Germanic peoples article makes a good model for this. Pay particular attention to this section as well as my comments here. Aucaman^Talk 14:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any contradictions in this page and it is well sourced. --Kash 20:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This page should merge with "Iranian Languages" page.

This page describes people who speak various Iranian languages. So what is it that we can have here that we are not able to add in Iranian languages.

Unlike the term "Germanic", the term Iranian has a strong link to citizens of Iran today as they have been Iranians for as long as history can recall the term Iran or Iranian. It is absurd leaving out many such citizens of Iran from an article named "Iranian peoples". I am not sure if term "Germanic" leaves out many German citizens out apart from those who migrated quite recently. It might even include some non-Germans in. However, the term Iranian people, the way described here, leaves almost 20 million Turkish speaking Iranians who have had the greatest strong links to Iran and contributed to Iranian history and culture. Iranians united under the rule and banner of those Turkish speaking people on more than one or two occasions. I am not sure how one can define "Iranian peoples" without them. I am not sure if there was a period of time when their ancesstors were called nothing but Iranian. Unless someone wants to redefine the word Iranian as a pure linguistic term.

If we want to be precise we might even think of Turkish as one of Iranian langauges since it has been spoken by Iranians for more than half a mellenium. (That is when Iranian Safavid rulers spoke the language or at least their army spoke the language.)

One can think of even changing the title of Iranian languages to Indo-Iranian langauges, as one portion of Iranian languages, for that matter.

Please go an invent a new word for this grouping. Say, Indo-Aryan speaker. Or whatever. But using an existing adjective for other than what it means is not acceptable.—This unsigned comment was added by 203.48.45.194 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 29 March 2006.

---

Sorry but I don't think many people speak Turkish in Iran. They speak "Azeri" which is a Turkic language. Iranian languages are part of Indo-Aryan and Indo-European languages. I am not sure about your other suggestions, please clarify. --Kash 12:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This issue had been addressed before, and Azeris have been left out here because of the concerns of those who mistakenly think Iranian peoples is a merely linguistic concept. Azeris are indeed Iranian people [12], not because they are citizens of Iran, but because Iranian peoples has a broader meaning than only language. Therefore, I also think they should be included, and the article modified accordingly to accomodate the more accurate, not only linguistic, meaning of the word Iranian. Shervink 15:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

Well Dear Kash, as you said it more precisely, Azeri which is a Turkic language. For the very reason you mentioned Turkic and not Turkish, I think this article is wrong to be called "Iranian peoples". You used Turkic on a pure linguistic terms. Since you thought someone might make a misjudgement and might think some 20 million Azeri speaking Iranians as Turks for their mother tongue is a Turkic language. Then how can we exclude them from an article called "Iranian peoples"? I really do not know what is the reason for this article to exist with this title! What is the point of including Afghans and Parsis in India in a group, if not merely linguistic, and leave out Azeri speaking Iranian peoles? What are we going to achieve with this grouping if not other than linguistic? As I siad, this article should be renamed or merged with Iranian languages. Or to be more precise, we need to even rename Iranian languages to Indo-Iranian languages so that we can exclude Azeri from that article too. I think Azeris are as Iranian people if not more than their Indo-Iranian speaking Iranians.

It is astonishing that still some editors refuse to recognize that this article is not about a linguistic group. This is why Azeris and Parsis (which by the way also do not speak an Iranian language) should be included here. Iranian peoples are the people of Greater Iran. What is so difficult to understand about this? And why should we disregard the fact that academia always uses this same term (Iranian) when talking about these people? Shervink 08:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

Not sure where Academia talks about Afghans, Iraqi etc. as Iranian peoples. Iranian peoples (Mardomaane-Iran) are Iranian citizens now, same as Turkish for citizen of Turkey, Germans for citizens of Germany etc. We might need to come with a term similar to Germanic for all who somehow are related to Iran at the present or past, either culturally, from an ethnic point of view, and/or a pure linguistic point of view. I strongly think the term Greater Iran can be interpreted as an aggressive term or represent a view of those who still think of glorious past and not present reality. Furthermore, Iranian languages can include all material in Greater Iran and no need for a different article.

However, this article with its contents discusses Lors, Pashtuns, Parsis, etc. who all share a linguistic and to some extent ethnic and cultural background while Azeri speaking Iranians are excluded. The only thing Iranian Azeris do not share with the groups discussed in this article is pure linguistic. Therefore, the grouping of people in this article is based on language. Then again, all those groups are discussed in Iranian languages! So I am not seeing any point on having this separate article!

As I said before, Azeris must also be included in the article, and the only reason they are not is because of the POV-pushing of some Kurdish editors who denied the relations of Azeris with other Iranians, forcing the article to be written in this incomplete manner. Thus, I totally agree that they should be included, because this article is not only about language. As for the terms Greater Iran and Iranian peoples (meaning the people of Greater Iran), both are very, very common terms in academia. The only reason one would interpret Greater Iran as an agressive term is lack of knowledge about the numerous works of scholars using the term. That the term Iranian peoples(note the s) can be easily confused with Iranian people(citizens of Iran), is a problem. But this is nevertheless common academic usage, and which meaning is intended is always made clear within the context. As Wikipedia prohibits original reasearch, we must adhere to the term used in academia rather than invent something in place of it. Shervink 11:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

It's not used in academia in the sense that it's being used here in Wikipedia. As I said, I googled on the term and found that it's either used for ALL the ethnic groups in the current Iran (including Kurds, Azeris, Arabs, etc.) or for a hypothesized wave of migrating peoples speaking Iranian (in the linguistic sense) languages, back in pre-Achaemenid times. Persians, Medes, Sogdians, Chorasmians were considered Iranian peoples. Using the term for contemporary groups speaking languages related to Persian is not academic and it seems to be an innovation of the CAIS website.

Read the WP article on Ethnicity. It points out that people think of ethnicity as a fact, when it's a choice. People choose to identify themselves as something or other. People here in Hawai'i who have eight great-grandparents, one of whom was Native Hawaiian, will self-identify as Native Hawaiian. That's a choice. They could have identified with any one of their great-grandparents, who may have been American, German, Portuguese, Chinese, whatever, but they picked one, for personal reasons. Well, so far as I can tell, none of the groups identified as "Iranian peoples" describe themselves in that way. If they don't think that they're Iranian peoples, then how can they be "Iranian"? Zora 12:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Rather than googling the term, it might be good if you take a look at textbooks written by scholars of Iranian studies. There are plenty of choices, if you do not trust the CAIS website. But one way or another, that website has been created by a number of well-respected academics, so it deserves proper attention as well. Shervink 13:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

Unprotection?

Do you think the conflict is settled and it is time to unprotect? abakharev 01:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Not yet, please refer to the above discussion on merging this document with Iranian languages.

No, precisely because of issues such as the one mentioned above and any possible moves that might be made against consensus. Until such users learn to accept policy such as WP:V we will continue to have problems with them here. Interestingly enough, they have not attempted to impose their ideas over at Indo-Aryans. SouthernComfort 08:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No sure how learning WP:V will teach someone to accept opinions as facts??? No one is against facts and no one can have anything against facts so long as the facts are stated from truely non biased sources. So No there is no consensus and there will be none, unless "all" learn WP:V.

That is what makes writing objectively so difficult. But it is worth the effort.

I agree. Not yet. Aucaman^Talk 12:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

More proof

People have been saying that Iranian peoples are "only a linguistic group", but this article provides sources to show that they aren't. See Iranian peoples#Genetics for example - it cites a scientific source (I believe Xebat was asking for one awhile back) and says the following:

People are not saying "Iranina poeples" are only a linguistic group. What they are saying is that this article, called "Iranian peoples" groups all who have a common language origin while excluding Iranian Azeris who, according to your source below, share common mtDNA lineage composition with the rest of Iranians. So that is why, we either have to merge "this" article with Iranian languages or mend this article to reflect what true definition of "Iranian peoples" is. Please note that we are not here to invent meanings for terms but to define them the way they are used in true academia.

As I mentioned before, I'm totally in favor of including Azaris in the article. In fact, we must include them for the article to be complete. Shervink 19:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

Populations located west of the Indus basin, including those from Iran, Anatolia and the Caucasus, exhibit a common mtDNA lineage composition, consisting mainly of western Eurasian lineages, with a very limited contribution from South Asia and eastern Eurasia (fig. 1). Indeed, the different Iranian populations show a striking degree of homogeneity. This is revealed not only by the nonsignificant FST values and the PC plot (fig. 6) but also by the SAMOVA results, in which a significant genetic barrier separates populations west of Pakistan from those east and north of the Indus Valley (results not shown). These observations suggest either a common origin of modern Iranian populations and/or extensive levels of gene flow amongst them.

The study is showing that there are many common genetic markers among the Iranian peoples "from the Tigris to the areas west of the Indus". Even further down this article it goes on to say that Kurds may not be as close to other Iranian peoples as previously believed. --Khoikhoi 18:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've read that entire article. The definition of "Iranian" they have there is different from the one here. In that study Tajiks and Pashtuns are not considered Iranian. The study also shows that Pashtuns are genetically close to South Asians and Tajiks are close to Eastern Eurasian people. Iranians (i.e. those from the country of Iran) are generically closer to Caucasians and Turks than Tajiks, Pashtuns, and various Pakistani groups that happen to speak Iranian languages. I've already discussed all of this here and your post here shows that you haven't been following the previous discussions. As I've said before, we need to find sources that specifically discuss Iranina peoples as a linguistic group. I've checked a copy of this book and will let you know if I find anything (I haven't had the time because you keep removing my other edits without much reason). Until then the article would be protected until someone presents some sort of an academic paper that discusses who these people are (no, an article on Kurds doesn't count). Aucaman^Talk 19:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman, you say: we need to find sources that specifically discuss Iraninan peoples as a linguistic group, whereas the whole point of our discussion is that they are much more than that. Your statement basically suggests that you are only willing to accept sources which validate something which you mistakenly already have decided to be true. This is not the way to work here. Shervink 19:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

Well you have not provided any evidence that say they're more than just a linguistic group. In fact, as I have pointed out, the evidence show that Eastern Iranian peoples (who are closer to South Asians and/or East Eurasians) are genetically different from Western Iranian peoples (who are closer to Caucasians and Turkish people). In any case we need to come up with sources that clearly define who these people are. Right now we don't have any. The only source presented so far is the one mentioned above which shows that Iranian peoples are genetically heterogeneous. Aucaman^Talk 20:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. You have been presented with overwhelming evidence. In fact, it is nearly impossible to find a source defining Iranian peoples in merely linguistic terms, so in any case the burden of proof lies with you (who is the one challenging common academic views). I'm not going to waste my time reciting the sources. You can find them yourself by looking at the discussion, or looking up many books you would find in a library. The definition is also clear. Iranian peoples are usually defined as the people of Greater Iran, according to many of the same sources. The fact that you select not to look at or accept the definition does not refute its existence. Shervink 21:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

"People of Greater Iran"??? Like I said you have not provided any sources. Aucaman^Talk 22:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course. The people of Greater Iran. [13][14][15]Shervink 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

I'm asking for sources for this article, not Nowrooz or "Persian myths". Aucaman^Talk 16:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no source for that and if there is it does not serve big claims of some people, so you never find a proper source for that esp by claimants. Indeed whole of this article is manufactured here in this talk page and is not based on scientific evidence. KhalidMarwan 17:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman, I cannot teach you how to read books if you have never done it before. These books and articles very clearly support the contents. Shervink 21:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

What's your problem, Aucaman? The term "Iranian people" is a scholarly term used in many works. Here, take a look at the article "Ancient Iran" in the Encyclopaedia Britannica: [16] The word "Iranian people" is used, and it does NOT refer to the present-day population of the modern nation "Iran"! And now, please stop wasting our time and instead try to imrpove the article! Thanks! Tajik 00:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just wanted to add one thing about the Pashtuns. They largely do NOT cluster with South Asian populations, but rather with Iranian peoples of West ASian origin. If you look at the map with the genetic affinity breakdown, the genetic survey used people from the Punjab, possible Punjabi Pathans, a group that overlaps with Pashtuns and Punjabis. Most genetic studies of just Pashtun groups show that they cluster with West Eurasians as with the study regarding their supposed Greek ancestry etc. found on the Pashtuns page. In addition, I've been to Peshawar and if they are largely South Asian, I don't see it. They more closely resemble the Persians I've met in LA. Tombseye 21:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Iranic peoples

I think that this article should be moved to Iranic peoples. Compare: Germanic peoples, Italic peoples, Slavic peoples, Turkic peoples, etc. Tajik 00:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In principle you are right, since that would remove any possible confusion which some editors are concerned about. But the fact of the matter is that Iranian is much more common in academia than Iranic, and in most works it is made clear from the context of the discussed issue whether the modern nation-state or the larger group of people is meant. I think we should accept the more common practice and use Iranian. Shervink 11:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

Hello all. Sorry for entering this dialogue late, but I would say that Iranic people would be a great term to use since Iranian, unlike Germanic etc., is also applied to a nationality. Of course, Iranian is the most accepted academic term as well. Iranic would not be unprecendented though as many academics and books refer to an Iranic people as well and we could do a redirect so that Iranian people would redirect to Iranic people. This wouldn't be original research either and it would clarify that we don't mean Iranian people as in the Persians or people of Iran, but a group that shares common languages and some common ancestries. Tombseye 21:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is really no other consensus, I would accept this as well. But it must be made very clear that Iranic/Iranian peoples does not have a merely linguistic meaning. The best definition, which is both clear and common, is to define Iranian (Iranic) peoples as those living in Greater Iran, thus as those people with a major influence of Iranian culture and language. Examples were given before already on this page. Shervink 09:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

I remind you that this is Wikipedia not a personal factory. Every linguistic term has a definition. If there is some cultural similarities for example between Persians and their Afghan brothers or some similarities between Baluch and Pashtuns, it does not make all of this people an ethnic group. there is the same similarity and connections between pashtuns and indians or Tajiks and Uzbaks, or Hzaras and Turkmens and people whose languages are member of Iranian group are not surrounded and limited circle of Iranianness. The term Greater Iran by itself is a problematic term with no clear definition as I clarified and sourced it in its article and soon was censored and falsified by some Iranis including you. KhalidMarwan 13:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Khalid, the only possible fabrication here is the notion that Iranian people are a linguistic group. That is very simply not the case, and no sources whatsoever have been provided so far to back up that claim. Iranian people include many Azari speaking people (who speak a Turkic language), as well as people speaking Aramaic (a Semitic language), as well as those people with Arab ethnicity who speak Arabic in southern Iran (but usually also Persian). All these people are members of the Iranian cultural continent, or Greater Iran, which is a term that has been in use by (notably also western) scholars for decades, if not centuries. It does not imply superiority or whatever. All people whose language or culture or traditions (one or more of these) have been influenced in a major manner by Iran and its previous empires, fall into this category. The issue of Iranian languages is a different matter, with its own article. Iranian people are not limited to those speaking an Iranian language. All major sources referring to Iranian (or Iranic as suggested above) people relate them to Greater Iran, noting their many non-linguistic ties. Moreover, I am not saying that all these people are one ethnic group. I had pointed that out before already. People can be from various ethnic groups and yet have more common defining attributes than only language. Shervink 15:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

So easy! So easy you add every people whoes lands are oil-rich and/or have a important strategic position into YOUR Iranian peoples by YOUR definition! Why not Azeris and Kurds are Turks? The former still speak Turkish and the latest although have forgotten their language but culturally and historically have been remained as Turks! Or why Khuzistani Arabs are not Arabs? The fingerprint of politics is quite obvious and clear behind this unimportant linguistic groups new suggested definitions by some users. In Iran, Persis who form only a low percentage of Irans population strongly are afraid of the future of their bloody empire and so are politically creatinging new ethnicities by rewriting history and science for continuing their colonialism on those peoples. KhalidMarwan 16:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Khalid,

First, be polite.

Second, assume good faith. I am not politically motivated.

Third, what I am saying is backed up by many academic sources. What you are saying is not.

I will not continue the discussion if you reduce its level to this kind of dirty talk. Please reconsider your views, and the way you express them. Shervink 16:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

God says: جاء الحق و زهق الباطل ان الباطل کان زهوقا

The truth came and the falsifying disapeared. Indeed the falsify is simply Destroyable. KhalidMarwan 16:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

So?! Shervink 16:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

Pashtuns

This is the third time I'm repeating this. Take a look a the map here. You can find the table of codes here. Pashtuns are denotes as PT (for Pathan). It looks to me like they're more than half South Asian. Aucaman^Talk 21:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am also referring to that map which places that group in the Punjab in eastern Pakistan. That is not where the Pashtuns mostly live. In addition, they surveyed a tiny group and the usage of Pathan tells me that they didn't use an actual Pakhtun or Pashtun as natives do not call themselves Pathans. Regardless, other surveys conflict as with Cavalli-Sforza who cluster Pashtuns with West Eurasians correctly, while the Punjabi Pathans would be the group that ovelaps 50-50 with South Asian and WEster Eurasian groups. Tombseye 22:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay I'll take a look and see where the samples are coming from. But even if you're right then some of the discrepencies have to be mentioned in the article. Pashtuns are Pashtuns. There's no "right" group of Pashtuns. If there are conflicting studies then this is a good indication that they're more diverse than some people have been claiming. What's that other study you're referring to? Aucaman^Talk 22:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Pashtuns aren't all Pashtuns is the problem. There is a group, some say sub-group, called Pathans who are of mixed Pashtun and Punjabi/Indian origin and I suspect that the group surveyed is what is shown in this survey and as result are half and half as to be expected. Cavalli-Sforza's various books including the History and Geography of Human Genes place Pashtuns in Western Asia genetically. In fact, to many Pashtuns, if you don't speak the lanaguage of Pashto, then you aren't considered a Pashtun. They have a great deal of criteria, but let's say we go with the academic view of those who live in close geographic proximity to each other and speak Pashto as the criteria. This article was also what I was talking about: A Study of the Greek Ancestry of Northern Pakistani Ethnic Groups Using 115 Microsatellite Markers. A. Mansoor, Q. Ayub, et al.Am. J. Human Genetics, Oct 2001. Also, having encountered the Brahui, I find it hard to believe that they are more Iranian than the Pashtuns. Either way there is a major discrepency. The diversity is that the Pashtuns are genetically varied from the Pathans and since the Pathans tend to not speak Pashto, they can't really be considered an Iranic people either, but perhaps some tranisitional group. That's my point here. Tombseye 22:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to investigate all of this, but if what you're saying is correct you should probably make some changes to Pashtun people first (it's asserted that Pathan is another name for a Pashtun). In any case it's pretty clear to me that Iranian peoples (as a linguistic group) do not form some sort of a homogeneous race, but are genetically diverse. (Take a look at Baluchis and some of the other people in that map I showed you.) The problem is that most of this article was written before it was sourced - and that's not how you write an encyclopedia. Aucaman^Talk 22:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's another problem though, to people from outside Pashtun/Pakhtun areas, they are called Pathans (as by people in eastern Pakistan as that's their varied way of saying Pashtun) which is also sometimes applied to all Afghans regardless of their ethno-linguistic background. The article should point to some genetic links (as even the 'Pathans' and Baluch are roughly half West Eurasian for example) between Iranian-speaking peoples, but yes it needs to clarify that there are variations. Also, it may not be surprising that even within groups there is diversity as Kurds living near Persians may have mixed more with Persians and Kurds in Turkey with other groups etc. Perhaps the genetic section for this larger linguistic group makes less sense than for smaller groups since there does not appear to any one 'race' as you say. I say this even as the guy who added the section in the first place. Also, some of the studies seem to be quite scant (meaning the surveys only take into account small groups or even 1 individual for a survey). Hopefully, this conversation won't devolve into some argument as in the past though. Tombseye 23:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Right now we don't even have a consistent defitnition of who Iranian peoples are. You would guess that they're just speakers of Iranian languages, but this definition has been put under question with edits like this. Until we get a unified definition we can't talk about anything else. Aucaman^Talk 23:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a guess on my part as the Germanic peoples page and Slavic peoples page are rendered with an emphasis upon language and then some partial common ancestries that vary. That is easily applicable to the Iranian peoples as well as they are in a similar situation. And the differences between the Iranian peoples aren't that great as even the Hazaras show some West Eurasian ancestry for example. I think the emphasis should be upon language though, yes. Tombseye 03:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, 'race' as such is somewhat more pliable here. Although if we put a typical Hazara next to a Pashtun from some remote mountain village they'll look clearly different, but then there are Hazaras who show significant admixture as well. We're talking about general genetic variations, but also commonalities here. Iranian peoples should emphasize the language and certain cultural traits, common histories (they do have that in most cases) etc. until we have more genetic tests of all peoples concerned as the question of Kurdish variation is a valid one as is the variations amongst the Azeris who may vary from north to south more than we now believe. Tombseye 03:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've got a copy of this book and it seems to contain a lot of archeological discussions about the origins Iranian peoples (as far as linguistics is concerned). I agree that there are a lot more things to talk about besides "race". But first I want to see some materials directly discussing Iranian peoples. Aucaman^Talk 03:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've skimmed that book in a library before. Please let us all know whatever relevant info. you find. Tombseye 23:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

List of Iranian peoples in this article!!

This article lists the following people as Iranian peoples:

1) Non-Azeri speaking Iranians

   * Persian speking Iranians (Fars-Haa)
   * Iranian Kurds
   * Iranian Balochis
   * Gilanis
   * Mazandaranis
   * Bakhtiaris
   * Lurs
   * Laks

2) Non Iranian citizens with links (more linguistically) to the above:

   * Non-Iranian Citizen Kurds 
   * Pakistani Baluchis 
   * Tajiks
   * Tats
   * Pashtuns
   * Talyshi
   * Zaza
   * Ossetes

Well, I am not really sure how someone can call the above Iranian peoples!!! Is there any conspiracy here? Who is doing it? Any Azeri separatist here? Not trying to try the blame game. But can someone leave Pashtuns out of Afghani peoples, Italian Swiss out Swiss peoples, or Berbers out of Algerian peoples? We are not taking about Serbs and Croats here who did not think of themselves Yoguslavs but Serbs and Croats. We are talking about two branches of Iranian people: one only able to talk Persian and the the other knows both Azeri (Iranina Turkish) and Persian. The latter contributed so much to Iranian culture and to Persian language, if not more than earlier branch, equally to them! It is really astonishing that one can make such a grouping and content with the grouping!!!

If the above argument does not convinces you, here is another one. When someone tells you Iranian peoples, what is the first you think of? What if we ask someone else who knows about Iranian peoples to some extent? What about Iranologists? Do they really think of the above as Iranian peoples. What would they call the above group? Would they not call it Non-Azeri Iranians and those with some link to Iranian old and modern languages.

What do we want to do here, to define a term for people or to define the term as people perceive it when they read and hear it? We should really think twice about the name of this aritcle and the reasons for its existing besides Iranian languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.48.45.194 (talk • contribs)

I move that we base this article upon the Germanic peoples page

Or even the Slavic peoples page. These pages describe mostly the early peoples who spoke these languages etc. and begin with etymology (a great way to describe what Iranian or Iranic means), and what the classification Iranian means and doesn't mean, cultural traits, history of mostly the ancient Iranian tribes, and references. I think this page should NOT have an info. box or a picture of Iranian peoples as they are not quite an ethnic group in the sense that Persians or English people are. I think this is a fair compromise and also reflects academic usage and the other pages that discuss peoples with common languages. Mirroring the better articles that cover similar ground may resolve the conflicts. Ultimately, everyone won't be satisfied, but I think some concensus can be reached here. Tombseye 16:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with any rewriting as long as the material is sourced and consistent (e.g., there's a clear, sourced definition). Aucaman^Talk 17:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Consider aligning it with Indo-Aryans as well: we have a persistent anon there, insisting to add an image of mugshots there on the basis that this (disputed, protected) article has such an image (sigh) dab (ᛏ) 17:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with those suggestions and definitely we'll put sources and clear definitions. Yeah the Indo-Aryans usage of images is exactly what we want to avoid. The only images we should use should be of ancient depictions of Iranian peoples as we should just stick with a broad definition and not an 'ethnic' one. Good points guys. Now if we can get everyone else on-board we should be able to fix this article. Tombseye 17:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Response

Iranian peoples are an ethnolinguistic family, they should not necessarily be compared to other groups of people. If you have any specific plans in mind post it here so we can agree or disagree or it will result in yet another edit war. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 18:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Iranian peoples ARE analogous to the other peoples. Its common academic usage that emphasizes the linguistic ties rather than some ethnic (or even racial which is not relevant here) designation that is clearly artificial. The Iranian peoples share some general traits, while they vary in others. They are hardly the same as an ethnic group like the Baluch or something. These people split off from each other perhaps as long as 1500 years ago in some cases. How are the Scythians the same as Persians or Kurds? Unless you have some credible evidence that supports the Iranian peoples as an ethnic group your position won't be tenable. We need to emphasize that the Iranian peoples exist as a language group first, cultural group second, and then sometimes share some common ancestries that really do vary. Ultimately, this article should concentrate the ancient tribes, meaning of the term, the historical movements of these tribes etc. Definitely no info. box or pictures to create some illusory ethnic group. Tombseye 18:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"Illusory ethnic group"? You didn't have any objections to the infobox beforehand, but at any rate, that particular issue is moot. As for "illusory ethnic group" - who even made that claim, that "Iranian peoples" are an ethnic group? As was made clear time and time again, and in the article itself, it is an umbrella term for a number of interrelated ethnic groups. I was under the assumption that you had agreed with this definition? SouthernComfort 12:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I still don't see why an editor like dab objects so strongly to the inclusion of images - going so far as to label such images as "mugshots" - what the hell? I strongly disagree with him. SouthernComfort 12:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well the article seems to be sliding into treating the Iranian peoples as if they're an ethnic group and you some supporters on this page. The Kurds, Persians, and Pashtuns do NOT view themselves as an ethnic group together, nor do they speak the same language, and many object to even being told that they are related (this is a complicated issue as many may not be that closely related due to language replacement, cultural drift etc.). Interrelated ethnic groups does not equal an ethnic group and using the infobox etc. pushes what the article's original intent was (I ought to know since I wrote most of it). Treating the Iranian peoples as an ethnic group is extremely misleading as it's like treating the Ukrainians, Russians, and Belorussians as an ethnic group or just Slavs (who share many similar genes, history, culture, and related languages too). The info box makes no sense and this is stepping into making things up, i.e. turning the Iranian peoples into an ethnic group which they clearly are not. As for my not objecting before, I've been away so I don't know how you're keeping tabs of what I'm objecting to or not, but that's not really the point as I simply was not willing to go into this with the people who seem to want to promote the group as a single unit due to a lack of free time on my part. As for the mugshots issue, well again it's like treating these people as if they are a single ethnic group whereas the Germanic peoples page is much more academic and informative and delves into various meanings, archaeology, movement of tribes etc. That's what I'm suggesting this page reflect as well. I'm the guy who added all the info. on the genetic tests (some of which are inconclusive and vary in their findings as some tests have shown variations within Persians who vary from east to west and north to south in various cases) at any rate. I'm suggesting ways to improve the article and one way to improve it would be take an approach similar to the Germanic peoples page. Before disagreeing with me take a look at that page and you may see how this article could in turn be improved. Tombseye 02:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

File:Iran peoples.jpg

• Look at the map to see that they are considered as the Iranian ethnolinguistic family (a sub group under the IndoEuropean family), as for the genetics, they are indeed very close to eachother as concluded by a recent study that can be seen here for the the study see here which concludes that Iranian people such as Azeris, Persians and Tajiks 'exhibit a common mtDNA lineage composition' and 'consisting mainly of western Eurasian lineages'.

• Although I don't believe there is any need necessary to discuss recent genetic studies to prove that as you put it, thousands of years ago, people had common descendants as people may have inter-married a lot especially in a country such as Iran which had been under foreign rule for 500 or so years.

I hope this has helped to clear things up for some. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 12:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

To review the study though, things are not clear cut on for example Azeris as there are genetic studies found that consider them to be one of either Iranian/Central Asian/Caucasian (as discussed on Azeris#Origins, but this is down to the 'mixings' I mentioned above, I believe. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 12:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who added all of those studies and there are discrepencies from other tests, but regardless, some common genetics does not mean we can treat this group as a super ethnic or even racial group as there numerous variations. Also, at the very least, the northern Azeris are probably not very Iranian at all, but mostly Caucasian according to genetic tests so it may be a case of a Caucasian people who absorbed some Iranic and Turkic peoples rather than an Iranic people absorbing the Caucasian and Turkic groups. At any rate, the Germanic peoples page is rendered with more of an academic stance towards the movements of tribes, archaeological finds, various concepts such as 'Volk' etc. I'm suggesting that we take a similar route with this article and not even to remove information (just the info. box which is frankly more useful for ethnic groups) and go for adding more to the article. why the objections? Tombseye 02:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not even sure why we are having this discussion. "seems to be sliding into treating the Iranian peoples as if they're an ethnic group", it does not to me. It clearly says "ethno-linguistic group of interrelated peoples", these people have a lot in common and this is their name. We did removed the "info box", there is just a single picture of the people left. You are assuming that some people might have problems with it? I suggest you start a new heading with your personal problems on the matter. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 22:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not making anything personal so I don't know why you keep reading into everything I write. I just want this article to be based more upon the Germanic peoples page with a shift towards more neutrality when it comes to saying inter-related since that may be as assumptive as saying the Germanic people are all inter-related, which they are to SOME degree. Where we seem to differ the most is that you want to emphasize a solid connection whereas I think we need to move towards a rendition that is more focused on language as even the English are only part Germanic as I have stated. And we also clearly differ on the relationships as I think the Iranian peoples relationship to each other is very similar to the Germanic peoples and I don't think the Iranian peoples are more interrelated than the Germanic peoples are. In fact, they are excellent analogies. That's really the main problem. I say we take a vote as to the direction this article takes. Tombseye 03:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite on the contrary, Germanic peoples are a very bad example to compare with Iranian peoples here. There is no objective reason as to why we should structure this article in a similar manner, or why the extent of similarity of Iranian people should be the same as that of the Germanic people. One remarkable difference is that Germanic people have almost never in their entire history lived as one nation. They have always been dispersed politically, have fought wars against each other, without ever really being united. Moreover, those in England are also geographically remote from the others. All in all this means that they had far less opportunity of acquiring a common culture. There is nothing comparable to what you would call Iranian culture among the Germanics. The cultural elements they share nowadays are more and more of a religious character, or generally western, rather than Germanic. That is not at all the case for Iranian people, who have developed a great deal of cultural conformity due to their mostly shared thousands of years of common heritage and history. So I think the comparison is wrong, and we should base this article on objective academic evidence, rather than on another Wikipedia article which has only a similarity in title. Shervink 11:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

Actually, under the reign of Charlesmagne, a fairly large proportion of Germanic peoples lived in a single empire. The Germanic peoples, largely have been of followers of Protestantism and their cultures ARE surprisingly similar in various ways including folk tales, patrilineal societies, and as we know many genetic links that span from the British isles to Scandanavia. Also, the literary importants of Beowulf and other old Germanic writings are significant as are the influences of Rome that were one of the main reasons for the Germanic tribes' dispersal. Iranian culture varies as much as Germanic culture as you take the Pashtunwali code of honor that has no real analogue with the Kurds or the Ossetians. In fact, the Ossetians don't seem very 'Iranian' at all and morphologically may seem more like their neighbors the Russians and Georgians. I do agree that certain peoples have shared common historical epochs, but also have drifted due to isolation (the Kurds in the mountains, the Pashtuns in isolated valleys, the nomadic Baluch) from each other over the vast expanse of the Iranian plateau and its environs. All in all, I think the Germanic peoples article takes a sensible view that the language is the primary link followed by certain aspects such as culture, genetic links etc. Keep in mind that I am talking more about adding information than deleting, although I think the infobox should remain for ethnic groups only. In addition, ethnolinguistic (something I added by the way) should be changed to linguistic to reflect that this not an ethnic group, but a series of ethnic groups. If you don't believe me, then just note that many of the Kurds and Pashtuns clearly object to being relegated to what they view as a Persian center and do not view themselves as ethnolinguistic kinfolk, but rather partial relations with linguistic and some cultural and, as you say, historical commonalities. Regardless, I think we do see aspects of Iranic culture from the Tigris to the Indus including amongst the Iraqis, but we aren't including them or the South Azeris for that matter. This article, the way I myself wrote it, has some rigidity to it that needs to be made more flexible and neutral as I think the preliminary genetic tests show SOME genetic links, but (like the English) are possible only part of the equation. Tombseye 19:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, It seems that I'm needed although I did not want to interfere. This scientific source not only in this article but also can be used in several other related articles which recently there have been debated going on.

Turkish and Kurdish HLA profiles are studied for the first time. The comparative study of their allele frequencies, characteristic haplotypes, genetic distances with other Mediterraneans is complemented by neighbor-joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Iranians, Jews, Lebanese and other (Eastern and Western) Mediterranean groups seem to share a common ancestry: the older "Mediterranean" substratum. No sign of the postulated Indo-European (Aryan) invasion (1200 B.C.) is detected by our genetic analysis. It is concluded that this invasion, if occurred, had a relatively few invaders in comparison to the already settled populations, i.e. Anatolian Hittite and Hurrian groups (older than 2000 B.C.). These may have given rise to present-day Kurdish, Armenian and Turkish populations. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1034/j.1399-0039.2001.057004308.x

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanyar (talk • contribs)

Interesting however I can not seem to have access to the full study? Just the abstract? My guess is that the study did not use a representative population for the "Iranian group" subjects (as it calls them). There is a recent study posted just above that rejects this - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 16:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

A responce with an evidence on distinction of Kurds from Iranian which more directly discuss the matter: (Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan)

A research in Middle East suggested that the mitochondrial DNA of the Kurds is distinct from the Iranians; that is, although they speak an Indo-European language, they are probably mainly descended from the ancient Hurrians.

Actually there are a ton of evidence for such issues. http://www.juancole.com/2005/06/history-and-genetics-in-madagascar.html Zanyar 20:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, you can't cherrypick genetic studies to suit your view. Different tests from different subjects may point to diversity. In addition, the studies about the Iranian peoples talk about a West Eurasian group which does include Armenians, and other groups in West Eurasia. A better approach in interpreting this data is that the genetic markers show various peoples who came and went and who made the greater contributions. In addition, genes aren't all that define people at any rate. Tombseye 19:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to leave genetics out of this. It is irrelevant and is going to get us nowhere. The argument is not, and never was, whether Iranian people are genetically connected or not .The argument is that Iranian people are not just a linguistic group but a cultural one as well and compare to other linguistic groups such as Germans, they share far more with each other when it comes to culture; therefore, some believe that it would be unfair to model this page after the Germanic people’s page. that's all. please stay on topic. Gol 20:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you for reminding.

Here Britannica states:

Iran is a culturally diverse society, and interethnic relations are generally amicable. The predominant ethnic and cultural group in the country consists of native speakers of Persian. But the people who are generally known as Persians are of mixed ancestry, and the country has important Turkic and Arab elements in addition to the Kurds, Balochi, Bakhtyari, Lurs, and...

Here in this article we learn that Iranians culturally are diverse, and there is a distinction between Persian-speakers culture and other ethnic groups culture. Altghough some of them may have similarities but they do not all practise ONE culture but distinct cultures. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-230041 Zanyar 20:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all in this Britannic text Iranian is not a reference to Iranian people but rather citizens of Iran. Some of them, Turks and Arabs, are not Iranic people.( we however are not talking about Iranian citizens but Iranic people)

Second this had nothing to do with my objection to your post. I said don’t bring genetics into it. and I will say it again, Genetic has nothing to do with it. This is about common language group, and possible cultural connections. Whether or not Iranic people are culturally connected has nothing to do with their genes. Gol 21:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As you can see above there have been some users claiming Azeri Turks and Khuzistani Arabs should be inclueded in this article because they think they are culturally and/or even genetically the same as other Iranic-speaking groups. Britannica clearly rejects that.

In addition the evidence clearly makes a distinction among Persian culture and other ethnic groups culture in Iran by calling Persians a cultural group thus it is quite related to the discussion. Zanyar 21:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Note on the English people page there is a debate as to whether the English are solely Germanic or not as well. This can become a subjective view of things. As to the links between the Iranian peoples, they are very analogous to the Germanic peoples or better still Slavic peoples. Similar religion, lots of similar history, obviously a common linguistic ancestor (Proto-Iranian), but also variations that do not qualify the usage of ethnic, but rather linguistic. I originally did envision that the Iranic peoples were ethnically almost a single entity, but have since changed my view on that as I think they have enough cultural variations and divergences that this article should reflect either the Slavic or Germanic peoples pages. Genetics is meant to add nuance and not be the end all was my original point that I still stand by. With all of this said, I do believe that an Iranic culture (not to be confused with the modern Persians) has permeated various Iranic peoples, but with localized variations and cultural and social drift. Thus, Pashtunwali has no analogue in other Iranic peoples for example, whereas the Persian New Year is more common. Tombseye 20:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I agree that the best thing would be to go according to language which can be clearly defined and is not ambiguous and that some Iranian people, are culturally very different from others. However while I don’t know much about Slavic people and their connection, I still think Iranian people on the whole have more connection culturally than Germanic people(English people included). If English people were not to be considered Germanic then of course things would change however I don’t think it is an academically accepted idea, at least not yet. English people are Germanic which makes the Germanic group more diverse than Iranian group in my opinion.Gol 21:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a valid enough argument. I do agree that the majority of Iranian peoples (with the exception of the Ossetians) share more commonalities than the Germanic peoples to varying degrees as well as I don't mean it to be an exact analogy, just a general one. Perhaps this is something of a concensus we have reached? Tombseye 21:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I want to point out the fact that there may be a huge different between Kurds and Eastern Iranian-speakings. How and how much a Kurd from Aleppo is related to a Hazara or Tajik in cenral Asia? Do they culturally feel themsselves to belong to one cultural entity? They hardly resemple to eachother. Zanyar 21:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The Hazara, like the Ossetians are definite exceptions. The Tajik, on the other hand, are more closely linked to the Persians and share many similar cultural traits. The Pashtuns, like the Kurds, view themselves as a unique group unto themselves, but academics do acknowledge that Pashto, like Kurdish, is clearly an Iranian language. As for resemblance, in the physical sense, there are a great many similarities between the Tajiks and Pashtuns with both the Persians and Kurds. The Hazara are the main exception as they are more Mongol. Tombseye 21:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly, I have been in much of Middle East. Kurds do not resemble Iranians. While I can recognize a Persian (and some times Anatolian Turks) from 100 m distance from a Kurd it is harder to me to recognize an Iraqi or Syrian Arab from a Kkurd. (although Kurds due to region vary amonmg themselves.) Maybe we need to see some types of people from Tajikstan and Persians Hazaras etc... also read this that clearly states that Kurds do not strongly resemble Iranians. http://www.hostkingdom.net/ancmesop.html (And indeed I did not mean in appearance but in general!) Zanyar 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I am a little confused here, how come you have just changed the Kurdish people article to state that they are apparently "Iranic ethnic group" [17] but in here you are argueing against the same idea?! -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 22:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Please provide the correct diff otherwise people may think I did all of those edits and named it 'Minor edit'

Iranic in the case of Kurds (and may many other ethnic groups in this groupping)is a linguistic term not ethnical, racial, genetical, etc. I named them Iranic not because they resemble or do not resemble Iranians but because of their language which is related to language of Tajiks the same. Zanyar 22:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, and no don't worry, your edits are highlighted in red. In any case on these heated topics its best to talk science than to use such words as "resemble" when talking about a group of people. As discussed, there is no certain figure model for how a Persian for example looks like, and as far as I know the same goes for Kurds and other ethnical groups. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 22:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are quite right and I did not meant that. I meant more cultural not racial. That topic is not what I exactly meant or like. I don't like it. We are all humans the same as eacother.Zanyar 22:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess but lets see what other editors think as well.Gol 21:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a vote if necessary to see where we can take the article. Tombseye 21:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with it currently - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 22:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem either. Shervink 23:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

Neutality

Actually I did not and do not want to interfere to this article but Lurs, Gilakis and Mazandaranis all are distinct ethnic groups from Persian. Some uninformed users changed the articles and tried to merge/hide [18] those ethnic groups articles into their homeland provinces. It is clearly a POV and does not help anyone. Those ethnic groups languages be related to Farsi or not does not change the matter, since Tajiks speak Persian but still are distinct from Persians. Gilakis and Mazandaranis speak a language which even is not a southwestern Iranian one as Farsi is.

http://globalrecordings.net/language/3300 http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=mzn http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=glk

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html#People

PS: There are hundred of verifiable sources that if required can be provided. Zanyar 14:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Lurs could be called a distinct ethnic group from Persians, but Gilakis and Mazandaranis are Persian. Shah was Mazandarani... --ManiF 15:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, What do you mean by Persian here? A Persian speaker as in FARSI zabaan? If a Mazandarani, then he was not a Persian speaker and rather a Tabari.

Luristan is the Lur homeland and a separate article for them is unnecessary since their history as a people is tied to that of the province. I'm half-Lur myself and it is obvious that you have a POV in this attempt to separate the Lurs from their land. SouthernComfort 20:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Your ethnic background does not help or change the matter, not because it is not provable but because it is irrelevant. Lorestan is a province [A geographical place] and Lur people are [an ethnic group] and these two are quite different. This is like we say we should merge the article [Iranian peoples] into the [Greater Iran] or the article [Tajik people] into [Tajikstan] etc. Please do not accuse me as one (and not me) simply can accuse you to this that you have a POV and are pretending Lurs and other ethnic groups as subroups of Persians to help creating a new Iranian ethnic group a non-academic and failed attempt which surprisingly some uninformed users to these issues have been trying to do it. Zanyar 20:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Zanyar 20:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you stop making false accusations about me. Luristan and the Lur people cannot be separated from each other - the history of the Lur people is the history of the province. If you have a problem with that, too bad. SouthernComfort 23:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Iranian people2.jpg

Image:Iranian people2.jpg is a derivative work of another image (Image:Lily afshar.jpg) that we are using under the fair use guidelines. We do not have a license to use this image, so we cannot make derivative works from it. I have tagged the image as no license. If someone wanted to remove the single non-free image and make a new collage the remaining image would be ok to use. - cohesion 07:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, what is wrong with the other images please, and how can the possible problem be fixed?Zmmz 07:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Choose a picture that is not fair use. Aucaman^Talk 07:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the other images in that collage, or the other images on the page? There is nothing wrong with the other images in the collage. - cohesion 17:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Iranian Turks (Azeris etc.)

I added non-Turkic to the first line since I think it is important to do so. Iranian Turkic people are so Iranian that it is absurd to leave them out in an ethno-linguistic groups where some little known ethnicities such as Zaza's are mentioned here and the Iranian Turks with such a strong cultural and historical connection to Iran and Iranian-ness either as a culture or as country. I also saw an uncomplete article with the title Iranian Turks by User:Persian Magi. Not a bad idea if we can make it more complete. Please do remember that not all Iranian Turkish speaking people are Azeris.

I also think the name of this article should reflect the above too. It should say Non-Turkic Iranian Peoples to reflect true content of the article. I seriously think we should do so if we keep the same content and I move to ask everyone to consider this. Otherwise, the article's content should reflect Iranian Turks as a very tighly bounnd historically and culturally to Iran, should be listed here.

Eeven though they are also mentioned in Turkic people, that does not mean they are not Iranian peoples. Groups of peoples can overlap. Without mention of Iranian Turks, we are leaving a great part of Iranian peoples out.

Please note that Iranian Turkish speaking people are not merely Iranian citizens. It is impossible to discuss Iranian/Persian history and culture and even language but not mentioning them. They are the building blocks of Iranian culture. Simply look at how many Turkish speaking scholars, artists and poets contributed to Persian culture. If we want to leave them out, we need to merge this article with Iranian languages. If ethnicity is the point Iranian Turkish speaking people are more than an Iranian ethnics.

Sorry, but I can't agree that we should include the Azeris as an Iranian people because we aren't talking about language as the MAIN link and then other factors. Lots of people overlap just like the Azeris, like Iraqis, Assyrians, Turkic groups in Afghanistan, the Brahui who live with the Baluch, etc. At that rate, the article would lose all its viability. The Azeris are a Turkic people by virtue of their language, and the northern Azeris are, at least, more Caucasian in ancestry than Iranic given the genetic tests that cluster them with the Georgians and Lezgi. Also, this article is not about just the Persians, as they simply ONE of the Iranian Peoples, but all of the groups who qualify as Iranian peoples. Tombseye 18:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Genetics about Azeris of north has nothing to do with Azeris, Shahsavans and Qashqaei's of Iran. Furthermore, if you base the grouping on genetics, then you should use a different title for your article and go in length about genetic groupings if an article does not exist already. I really do not understand why "Iranian peoples" is being used to describe some Iranians and some non-Iranians. I am not talking citizenship here. I am talking true Iranians, i.e. Azeris, Shahsavans and Qashqaeis, who happen to be Turkic peoples as well. If you base everything on Iranian languages then why bother with another article than Iranian languages.

Okay, you apparently don't understand the concept of Iranian or Iranic peoples. They, and in most cases their languages, are derived from early tribes who spoken the same languages. This means Proto-Iranian and the tribes that sprang from them. The language requirement is the main criteria and the usage of Iranian peoples is similar to that of Germanic or Slavic peoples. MODERN Iran's population is another matter entirely as some people qualify as Iranian peoples such as the Persians, Kurds, and Baluchis, while others do not such as the Azeris and Turkmen. This article IS required because it discusses the various ancient tribes and from whence these languages and peoples came from. Your dislike of the usage notwithstanding, the majority here supports the article I would venture to guess and understands why the Azeris are not included. Tombseye 19:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are becomming a personal attack now. But I hope you did not mean it as a personal insult and take it as positive and not an insult. So I do answer you.

Iranic, yet to be defined. But Iranian peoples are Iranian peoples, as simple as that. The term you define in ther first paragraph does not carry the meaning of Iranian peoples. That is defining more on a linguistic base. Then why we have a separate article from Iranian languages.

You do not have to re-define terms in Wikipedia. You need to explain them what they mean to people. The meaning you are inventing here, does not reflect Iranian peoples.

If you are talking about anciant Iranian people, then the article should clearly titled so.

Azeris are Iranian peoples who also speak Turkish (the Iranian version) if Iranian peoples are what everyone percieves as Iranian peoples.

Iranian peoples should include Iranian peoples. Then again we are not talking citizenship here. Iranian peoples should be about who are and believe to be Iranians and have shaped culture and histroy of Iran, form whom one quarter are Turkish speaking and existed in Iran as part of Iranian culture and history for at least a thousand years. If you do not like Turks and count them as Iranians, that is a subjective matter. But the fact of the matter is that Iran as country and Iranian as a culture and even language is greatly built upon what Iranians have done and that INCLUDES Turkish speaking Iranians. Just as a rough idea, from the last 1000 years and tens of dynasties, only few were Persian speaking dynasties. The last great Persian empire built by an Azeri poet, named Shah Ismail. Even some Persian poets, such as Hakim Nezami, were Azeris.

Iranian Turks were not invaders and from somewhere else, they did not separate themselves from Iranian culture and did not even consider Iran separate from themselves. Neither other Iranians did so. They have build a country and culture "together".

In conclusion, for the current contents of the article, the term "Iranian peoples" does not suit. It leaves out a great portion of Iranian peoples out.

As a compromise, I though we should clearly specify this article does not include Azeris and Turkish Iranians in the begining so not to confuse the true meaning of the term with what we are going to describe afterward. However, the best approach, I think,

would be to change the name of this article to reflect what is is worth for.

I made no personal attacks and I think anyone reading this page will see that. Let me make this clearer then, you're the only one complaining as the majority of contributors to this article do not find it confusing at all and, again, the Azeri ties to Iran are explained on the Azerbaijani people page, which I also helped edit. The term Iranian peoples does 'suit' as it is in wide use in academia. The term Iranian or Iranic is not the sole property of the state of Iran or Persians, but is an academic term that is analogous to Germanic and Slavic etc. This article explains the languages as the basis of the Iranian peoples and then explains variations, commonalities, ancient tribal movements etc. That cannot be explained in the Iranian languages section which discusses the languages. Nor is this about cultural commonalities between Persians and Azeris. The article's parameters are clear and adhere to academic usage. I don't think there is any need to mention the Azeris or Turkic peoples as they have articles of their own. The article on Nouruz explains that the Turkic peoples also practice it and what's more, at this rate, none of the articles on language related groups such as the Germanic, Latin, Slavic, Celtic peoples will be viable because anyone can come along and say, 'Hey what about the Basques, they have a culture and history that is linked to the Latin peoples so include them too.' That's just not a tenable position here as there is no problem with mentioning common cultural, ethnic, and other ties between peoples, but this article is about something specific that is explained clearly. Tombseye 23:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Made changes and added a lot more information with regards to history and culture

Hopefully, I've made some changes for the better including adding a lot more information with references provided. Tombseye 20:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That's an improvement, but it still seems to me to gloss over recent work showing that there isn't common descent, just common language. The genetic tests don't show a common heritage, they show that the western and eastern populations of the Iranian plateau are different. The eastern ones have the M17 marker, the western ones don't -- they are much more like neighboring Mesopotamia than they are like eastern Iran. I think that should at least be presented as another POV. I'll do it when I have time -- I'm swamped these days. Zora 22:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The genetic information belongs in the genetic section. It is POV to inject that material elsewhere in the article. SouthernComfort 23:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Definitely add it to the Genetics section as it would only help to add more nuance to the article. Tombseye 19:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I am not sure why some people think it is obvious that Iranian Turks are not Iranian peoples!!! Some of us do not think so. So there is no consensus. Therefore, I request protection until we settle this dispute. We need to be clear here. Either we think Iranian peoples is a language based grouping, then fine, merge this article with Iranian languages. Or we think there is more than linguistic link. Then Iranian Turkic people are Iranian peoples.

I do agree. Azeris and Iranian Turks are as Iranian culturally and ethnically as any Lur, Mazandarani etc. Persian Magi 12:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I unprotected the article as I, as a party to dispute, could not protect the article. However, be nice and do not remove my edit until there is a consensus against my above arguments. There has been quite a few editing and deleting going on recently on including Iranian Turkic people. So please do not start an edit warware. It is not fair. When you are respected, try to respect others. Something might be obvious for you, but if you think objectively rather than subjectively, it might not be so.

Okay, again Iranian peoples does not, in the context of this article, mean the country of modern Iran's population as a whole. Iranian peoples refers to people who speak an Iranian language first and foremost and then other factors are discussed. Since the Azeris do not speak an Iranian language they do not qualify as an Iranian or Iranic people. And we've already debated all of these issues ad nauseum. Look up Iranian peoples on the web and you'll find that the Azeris are not included. Their sharing modern Iran or a Persian culture or most aspects is, again, another matter that is discussed in the Azeri people page and on the culture of Iran page. this article is quite specific and the appellation of Iranian peoples is in reference to the various tribes that spoke Iranian languages and their descendents, however putative. Tombseye 19:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Guess our disagreement is in the term "modern Iran" and also the title of this article. Firstly, Azeris and Iranian Turks built Iran as a country together with the rest of Iran. If a thousand years ago is still considered modern time. then you are correct. Please note that Iran has been integrated and disintegrated quite a few times, namely, before and after, Cyrus, Ashkanian, Sasanian, Samanian, Ghaznavian, Kharazmian, Safavian (500 years ago) , Afshar, Zand, Qajar. You can see how many times of those were Turks. At least from Safavids on, they were not considered other people than Iranians. (Do you think Shah Ismail or Nader Shah was a non-Iranian at his time?). Secondly, If you are talking linguistics here, then the title of the article is misleading and inappropriate and the article should merge with Iranian languages. Iranian peoples are Iranian peoples and not "speakers of Iranian languages".

The term Iranian is used by academics to denote a group of people as well its modern usage as applied to the people of modern Iran. Terminology changes over millenia and called many names, often those of ruling dynasties. As noted at the top of the article, Iranian peoples is not about the Iranian demographics or Iran itself, but simply parts of its population who speak Iranian languages. I'm talking about the ancient movements of the Iranic peoples as well as their languages, some commonalities and differences and the most common accepted definition that does not include Turkic speaking peoples. I think the only way to resolve this is a vote to see if people think inclusion of Turkic peoples is warranted or not. Tombseye 00:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify who "acadmeics" are. I am guessing you are not refering to internet pages with subjective contents but rather refering to University text books and known scholars using the term exactly the same and for the same meaning. Persian Magi 01:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please Vote

I move to do one the following to clear ambiguity of the article's title as per above discussions between above anonymous editors and Tombseye:

To do one of the following:

• 1) Change the article in one of the following ways to reflect the

   true meaning of Iranian peoples: 

 *a) Merge the article with Iranian languages as a purely linguistic grouping so that
     leaving Iranian Turkish speaking people is ok. 
 *b) Change the title of the article to Iranic Peoples so that it is not confusing
     and does not imply all Iranian Peoples. 
 *c) Add a phrase to the first line of the paragraph that this article does not include 
     Turkish speaking Iranian peoples. 

2) Leave the article as is.

If you are voting to item 1, please also specify which option you go for. We close this voting in one week time so that everyone catches up.

Thanks

Persian Magi 00:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Votes in favor of 1)Change the article with choice of changes:

- My vote is 1. and okey with either 1.a, 1.b or 1.c Persian Magi 00:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

- I vote for #1.b and 1.c, but I would have prefered the same name and article, including Iranian Turkic groups (Azeris, Shahsavans and Qashqaeis) in the article. 203.48.45.194 02:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

- I agree with Shervink's below statement. However, between the choices I would rather to have 1.b and/or 1.c. 59.167.12.160 11:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

- This article should be moved to Iranic peoples (like Persians, Tajiks, Balouchs, Pashtuns, etc), because "Iranian peoples" is confusing to many people who do not know the difference between "Islamic Republic Iran" and the historic people of this region. I have no problems with adding other peoples of Iranic origin who do not speak Iranic languages, like Azeris, Croats, etc. On the other hand, the article Iranian peoples should be ONLY about the citizens of the modern Islamic Republic. Tajik 16:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Votes in favor of 2)Leave article as is:

I vote to keep the article as is, but do not have a problem with the term Iranic peoples since there does appear to be a never ending stream of confusion on the issue, but there would have to be a redirect if someone typed in Iranian peoples would be my condition or at least a disambiguation page. Tombseye 00:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I like #2 - I think the status quo if fine. Besdies, it's already stated at the top that Iranian peoples speak Iranian languages. People like Azeris speak a Turkic language. —Khoikhoi 01:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I vote for #2. --ManiF 01:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I vote for #2. As khoikhoi mentioned, the meaning is defined on the top. I don’t have a problem with term Iranic other than it does not seem to be the academically used term for speakers of Iranian languages. Looks like Iranian is the standard term.Gol 02:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I vote for #2- This article will not be shattered into fragments, specially when, the ethnicity and cultural/racial/genetic ties of the people are well-established by now, and frankly, non-negotiable (does anyone know of any other articles, like the Greek peoples, or Germans that is so relentlessly disputed? ).Zmmz 05:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with all choices. I think the name of the article must be kept as it is, and Azeris (Turkic speaking Iranian people) should be included. They might not be linguistically Iranian, but with the broad definition of this article, in many other ways they are.Shervink 06:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

Leave it as it is - Although reviewing the situation, I know what you mean. I believe Azeris should be included because Iranian peoples are not strictly Iranian-language speakers. I think that is very true, we should fix the article according and we should vote only on that matter instead of radical changes! -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 16:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

So, it's now 6 to 4. What say we end this by tomorrow unless people disagree? Tombseye 21:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion

I suggest that we use Iranian peoples as a disambiguation page to point to 1) Ethnic groups of Iran (isn't there already a such an article?) 2) Iranian language group and 3) Ancient Iranian peoples (Medes, Persians, Sogdians, Chorasmians, etc.) Perhaps also a pointer to Greater Iran, with references to the political parties that espouse pan-Iranian irredentism and perhaps an article on the term used by the Encyclopedia Iranica, which is, I believe, "Persian culture continent".

The disambiguation page could also give something of a history of the term and give cites for the many ways that it has been used in English. (Those many ways being greatly responsible for the "confused armies clashing by night".) Zora 01:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That could count as vote for option 1, as you also favour the change of the contents/title. You could put a comment there as you do agree with change but want a fourth option apart from a,b and c and as the above. Persian Magi 01:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I don't really get what you're trying to say, you're basically saying we should delete this page? There is such thing as the modern Iranian peoples, just as there Turkic peoples, Germanic peoples, and Slavic peoples. They are not limited to just Iran, the Hazara of Afghanistan are in this group for example. Whatever is the case, I think that the hard work of Tombseye and others should not be erased. —Khoikhoi 01:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Iranian peoples are not the same as Germanic or Turkic peoples. Iranian peoples are the same as German and Turkish peoples. That is why the term can not be used as Turkic and Germanic peoples. 203.48.45.194 02:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to tell us why you claim such a thing? There is a language group called Iranian just as there is a language group called Germanic. What is the difference? Gol 02:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly.she is basically asking for the article to be deleted and i dont know what is her logic for that. Speakers of Iranian language deserve their own article just as speakers of Germanic and Slavic languages. I also remember how earlier she said we don’t have such a term and she would call Iranian people simply “People who speak an Iranian language”!!!!! funny is that those who speak Germanic languages or Turkic languages deserve to be called Germanic people and Turkic people but rules changes when it comes to Iranian languages? Why? Gol 02:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I defintely agree and acknowledge hardwork by the editors. Whatever we do, we need to value and keep the valuable contents. I am going for option 1 for the same reason. Persian Magi 02:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If the country was still called "Persia" in English, we would not be having these problems. Using the same term, "Iranian", for people, provinces, handicrafts, etc. pertaining to the nation of Iran, and also for speakers of a family of languages many of which are spoken outside the border of the present nation of Iran, is extremely confusing. Hence the editors who feel that Turkic groups should be considered "Iranian" for the purpose of this article (because they're an honored part of the nation of Iran) even though those groups speak a Turkic language rather than an Iranian one. This is muddling the categories with a vengeance!

I would go with using the term Iranic if it weren't that it doesn't seem that an encyclopedia (presumably a collection of information rather than an original work) should be inventing new classificatory words. I don't think we have any linguists here, but I would suppose they would be upset at non-linguists' meddling in a professional matter.

That's why I suggested a disambiguation page, to send users off to a page that discusses the aspect of "Iranian-ness" (linguistic, historical, genetic, political, cultural) in which they're interested. Zora 14:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The current intro of the article defines what it refers to as 'Iranian peoples' very well, I suggest you have a look. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 16:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Zora but first of all as kash said, it is defined what we mean here by Iranian, you could propose to define it better but not to destroy the article completely, also there is a linguistic group called Iranian and the scholars did not think it should be changed because it might be confusing did they? Also, there is a country called Germany, that does not seem to bother you that there is a Germanic people article. What is the difference here? Why should rules change for this group? Borders of the country called Germany does not seem to have anything with the Germanic people article either. Doest it? Again, what is the difference?

Also I don’t think it is confusing. I personally had no idea about the existence of such a linguistic group, but it took me less than a minute, after reading the explanation, to realize who they are talking about and why Turkic and Arabic speaking citizens of Iran are not mentioned instead Kurdish speaking citizens of other countries are mentioned. I am a normal person who could figure it out and so will other average and above average readers. Gol 17:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think a lot of the problems are non-issues. For example, if you type in Iranian you get a disambiguation page to various definitions which clarifies matters. It is only when you type in Iranian peoples that you get this page, which is really quite fair. Ideally, it would be nice to call this article 'Iranic peoples', but to do so would constitute a form of original research since common academic usage is Iranian peoples. I've added some more to the article to help explain the usage of the term and address the Azeri/Arab issues etc. This article is necessary because the Iranian languages is about the linguistic aspect, while the Iranian tribes and the modern peoples thus would have no article about them. The Azeris, also, have both their own page and a Turkic people page as well and now we have a Turko-Iranian page to explain the cultural overlap as well. As Gol said, he wasn't familiar with the Iranian peoples as a group, but readily got it once he read the article. That's perhaps the problem, some people either don't read it or gloss over it and then fume over its exclusion of people in Iran or its seeming attempt to relegate various ethnic groups under the Persian/Iranian sphere. At this point we can't worry about the people who are just not reading the article or aren't satisfied that it is not addressing THEIR concerns rather than something palpable that is academically backed. Universities regard the Iranian peoples as a viable and diverse group and what I think we've done so far is try to relate that. Tombseye 19:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Azeris

To placate some concerns and valid arguments I added a paragraph regarding the Turkic peoples who are Iranian culturally to the point that one can speak of a Turko-Iranian 'culture' and info. on various other peoples who are influenced by Iranian culture. Hope this helps. Tombseye 17:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Its a good move however currently it looks like you have pointed out only the Turkic minorities in Iran - Many Turkic speaking countries such as Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan have an almost identical culture to those of minorities in Iran -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 17:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I thought of that, but the Soviet Union's influence has largely reshaped what we could once call Turko-Iranian in those regions. I did mention the Central Asian situation however. I'll see what I can do to refine the section. Tombseye 17:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well for once I think the article is moving on the right direction instead of just edit-wars! :) -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 17:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Perhaps a vote is no longer necessary, although it does appear to be headed toward keeping the article as is. Tombseye 17:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If thats the case, dont you think Kurds and Ossetians should be added to Turkic peoples, considering that a significant number of them are culturally indistinguishable (especially ossetians in turkey) from Turks? What about culturally russified peoples like Kazakhs and Kirghiz? -Kilhan 20:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because they live in Turkey it does not make them Turkic. Kurdish culture is not only identical to Persian culture, it is an important part of the Iranian culture and since when do Ossetians have a Turkic culture? And this article does not talk about Kazakhs, etc. Please do not remove the image without discussion in the talk first. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 20:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we haven't added any Turkic peoples to the page. The only things I added were that there were some common cultural and other forms of interaction between various peoples such as the Azeris, Uzbeks, etc. The previous definition stands and excludes the Turkic people who cannot be counted as an Iranian people. The Ossetians don't have a Turkic culture or language, but do have a Caucasian/Russian culture while still being speakers of an Iranian language and thus are an Iranian people. The Kurds do not have a Turkic language either. I think some of these issues of cultural overlap could be addressed in the Turko-Iranian article though. Hmm, I didn't realize that the picture had a Turkish person in it. That does create a problem as we are trying to maintain a page about the Iranian peoples as defined within the parameters of the article. Plus, the picture is really badly made in that it's really long and I had to put it where it would disrupt the article the least. Tombseye 20:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The removal of the image is a fairly straightforward issue. It includes a non-Iranian Turk. Therefore, it is not representative of IRanian peoples. Simple as that. I suggest you click on the image and take a closer look at the contents of the image

As for the topic, well Kurdish culture is very similar to Turkish culture too. How do you measure cultural affinity ? What is "Turkic culture" and "Iranic culture" to you ? If Kazakhs who in many ways share an almost identical culture with russians are lumped in as slavs as a result of it, why not relate Kazakhs to say, "Estonians" who share a relativley common culture with Russians ? Heck, why stop there, why not relate Kazakhs to Bantus or Cherokees, since we can always go zig zag across other ethnic groups.

What makes culturally assimilated Turkish Kurds "non-Turkic", but Turkic-speaking azeris in Iran "Iranic"? Either Azeris are just Turkic, and Kurds are Iranic, or they are both Turkic and Iranic IMO. -Kilhan 20:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Those are all valid points that could be brought up in the Turko-Iranian page. However, for the purposes of this article we are talking about the Iranian peoples mainly and as they are PRIMARILY defined by their language followed by other factors such as descent from various tribes as well as culture. I do agree that there is a Turko-Iranian culture that includes a lot of people though, but for the purposes of this article we discuss a lot more than the issues you've raised as they are peripheral to the main topic of the article, that is the Iranian peoples, ancient and modern. There is a lot to cover and these articles (Turkic peoples, Slavic, Germanic etc.) can't account for everything, but do link to other articles that can address other concerns. For example, Nouruz is celebrated by many Turkic people as well, while Turkic people such as the Tatars may seem more Russian than Turkic to people, but are still considered Turkic etc. Kurds are non-Turkic because they do not speak Turkic languages. That's the primary barometer of measuring Iranian and Turkic peoples. The other aspects are secondary and are discussed as such. Hope that clears things up. Tombseye 20:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that language is the way to go here. Azeris speak a Turkic language (one is that almost mutually intelligible with the Turkish spoken in Turkey. People watch Turkish TV in Baku !) and the kurdish language is clearly non-Turkic. Those are the factors we should consider. But, you've got to agree that the faulty picture in the collage has to go. ET would be just as representative of Iranian peoples as that woman in the headdress ! Besides its way too laterally elongated -Kilhan 20:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes that picture not only has the problem of having a Turkish person which is contrary to the article, but is badly made. Except for the two boys, the other selections don't come off too well and ET might be a better substitute at this point. :) Tombseye 21:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops I never realized that there was a 'Turkish woman' in the picture. I have no idea why that was there! -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 21:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The picture

Hi, please refrain from edit-warring, and know that the picture of the Turkish woman, is in fact, of an Iranian-Turkic woman[19]. I was given non-exclusive rights to that picture; its usage is generic.Zmmz 00:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am not seeing any picture in the page anymore. Have you put the picture back? Persian Magi 00:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The picture is here[20], do not worry about its mere file name. What changes do you want to be made? I don`t want to edit this article anymore, so let me know by today please. Thank youZmmz 00:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

He would like you to remove the image of the Turkish woman. The source here, just says "Turk" under her picture. I don't see anything about her being "Iranian-Turkic". —Khoikhoi 01:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Actually, at least 3 of us found the picture to have some problems. First it has an ethnic Turkish woman which falls beyond the parameters of this article regardless of whether she is an "Iranian Turk" or not as that is better suited for the Turko-Iranian page or demographics of Iran etc. Also, the picture is very strangely created in that it is extremely long in the linear sense and distorts the article. If you want to make a collage of various Iranian peoples please make sure they fall within the ethnic groups mentioned and are not Azeris or Uzbeks etc. Next, if the picture could be more compact that would be ideal (such as 3 or 4 pictures stacked on top of each other or something). Thanks. Tombseye 01:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, please see if these pictures is better.[21], and this[22]ThanksZmmz 02:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, the first one is fine. Please put it in the ethnic section as it is the most appropriate place for it so that the opening is relatively clean. Thanks. Tombseye 21:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You can go ahead and submit it yourse, since I rather not edit the article.Zmmz 21:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Calling Iranian Turks a minority is like calling Lurs, Gilakis etc. minorities

A positivie move by Tombseye. However, I think we still need to wait for the votes. I think, Iranian Turks are more than just another minority like fellow Iranian Arabs. Iranian Turks have been an indistinguishable part of Iranian peoples at least for more than a thousand years, even in case we argue that they emigrated to Iran before and after emergence of Saljughs. If we believe in theory of Iranian Turks acquiring the language because of Turkic armies and conquers, then they have been there as long as Iran existed as a country and culture during which they have shaped Iranian culture and history together with the rest. Persian Magi 00:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That's likely, but I'm not sure that we know. More proof that language, genetics, imputed ethnicity, etc. are not indissolubly linked. Moreover, you can't just say linked/not linked. There are various degrees of correlation. Zora 01:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "we know". Don't we know that Iran as a country included Turkic speaking people for a mellenium? Don't we know the kings and armies and numerous tribes of this country have been mostly Turks for centuries?

True, we can not tell in anciant and pre-historic Iran, Turks might not lived here or as Iranians. So didn't Persians, Medes etc. at some stage.

I am amazed how one can use a obvious term such as "Iranian peoples" and use it for a portion of Iranian peoples. I have to emphasize here, I am not talking about just Iranian citizens in modern Iran. I am talking about a group of Iranians who shaped Iran as a country and as culture in a big way. Persian Magi 07:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

We can wait for the voting, but that is a separate issue. The various articles such as Iranian Turks and Turko-Iranian are the place to discuss the commonalities and there is a great deal of debate that does not make it feasible to include the Azeris as an Iranian or Iranic people. First, at least some genetic evidence shows that northern Azeris are more related to the Caucasus peoples than Iranic peoples and secondly they speak a Turkic language barely different from Turkish. They simply can't easily be placed into this article as again I would like emphasize that this isn't just about the Persians and their relationships with various peoples. At any rate, I'm against their inclusion and we'll see how the voting goes. Tombseye 01:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Genetic discussions are hardly any evidence and most of those studies are premature and inconclusive especially with little data they have worked with.

Furthermore, you always mention northern Azeris being related to Caucasus people. How about people of south of Aras river and also Qashqais?

Above all, I am not agaist grouping people in the way done in this article. I am against what you call this group, i.e. Iranian peoples. This term has already an established term with its meaning and it is unacceptable to use such a term in describing what described in this article. You are describing in the way Germanic and Turkic peoples are described but the name you use is equivalent of what people use for German, Turkish, and Italian peoples. In fact, this article is a great article for its contents. But the name does not reflect the contents. Persian Magi 07:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, they are evidence, albeit PRELIMINARY rather than inconclusive since northern Azerbaijan has had a great deal more genetic testing than the south, but they do correspond to historical information that may mean simply that the northern Azeris were 'turkified' just as southern Azeris (with a more Iranic background if we're speculating) were also 'turkified'. Well, the main reason we are using Iranian people is not because I want to, it's because it's common in academia. Iranic would be better so as to avoid confusion, but it's not up to us since wikipedia is not about original research. If the vote goes the way for Iranic to be substituted, well then so be it. Tombseye 21:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarifying the definition

These sort of complications occur when the definition is ambiguous. This article is supposed to be about a linguistic group of people and is supposed to cover various archeological and linguistic evidence regarding Iranian peopes (i.e., the speakers of Iranian languages). Ethnic groups are defined regionally. I agree that Iranian ethnic groups are ethnically closer to Iranian Turks than they are, say, to Tajiks. But this article is supposed to be about a linguistic group. Aucaman^Talk 09:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem here. This article is not about a linguistic group. Most editors do not agree with your view, which you keep repeating for months now. Please see my post below. Shervink 15:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

That's debateable though, since many Tajiks would argue to the contrary. 'Ethnic' proximity is tricky here as we are really talking about people moving around a lot and even links between Persians and Arabs for example. The definition is not ambiguous though, it's just not what a lot of people like which is different. As Mani said, he got it and he hadn't heard the term before. The main criteria is language followed by other ascepts, which is the same criteria applied to Turkic, Germanic, Slavic etc. Tombseye 21:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Iranic peoples clarification

I am modifying the article as the following:

The term Iranic peoples is sometimes alternately used in order to avoid confusion with the modern people of Iran who include Turkic and Arabic-speaking minorities.

at the end of "Etymology and usage" section, we might move it to the end of first secion where we introduce the term "Iranic peoples".

I also think, the wording to change to:

The term Iranic peoples is sometimes alternately used in order to avoid confusion as this article does not include Iranian Turks.

Iranian Turks have been a part of Iran for a history and not only a minority of modern Iran. So the above can avoid such a misconception.

Please do not revert back unless consensus says no here.

Persian Magi 08:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I still think it is very wrong to exclude Azeris from the Iranian peoples. The fact that the current definition seems to exclude them, (which is something I do not agree with, since the definition should not be merely linguistic) is not an excuse. You cannot stick to an improper definition just in order to justify false derivations made from it. Azeris are in many ways Iranian, pretty much to the same extent as many other Iranian groups. The propblem is the definition which - mainly because of the POV-pushing of some Kurds - has become too linguistically-oriented. Once the definition is fixed and balanced, there will be no problem with the inclusion of Azeris or Iranian Arabs. Excluding them from this article seriously reduces the value of the writing. Shervink 09:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

If we do add them, we’ll have to get rid of the note at the top of the article, which says “this article does not include Iranian Turks”. —Khoikhoi 18:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

We can't add them. This article is not just about the Persians, but about all the Iranic peoples. The Turks will then want to include the Kurds as 'Turks' which the govt. of Turkey has done in the past. This has more to do with modern nationalism than the anything else. The voting will decide the issue, but I do not believe the Azeris or any other Turkic people can be included because they fail the central criteria to qualify, speaking an Iranian language. Tombseye 21:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way adding that the term is distinct regarding Iranian Turks at the beginning is okay by me. Tombseye 21:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)