Talk:Iranian peoples: Difference between revisions

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

	Iranian peoples is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 10, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 8, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted June 30, 2006 Featured article review Kept
Current status: Featured article

Template:V0.5

Iranian peoples is the 1000th featured article of the English Wikipedia!

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ethnic groups FA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Iranian people are not only related through langauge but also genetics. Iranian is a race, not just a culture. This is evident by just looking at a Kurdish person from Turkey and a Persian from Iran.

This is a new information from the above idiot that genetic relation is done by looking at the faces of kurdish and persian peoples. The new science of genetics from the idiots of Iran(the name that these afro asiatic persians of iran do not deserve on the basis of actual genetic research that shows that the vast majority of persian speaking people in Iran genetically cluster with the neighbouring afro-asiatic speaking peoples. These so called aryan persians are actually afro asiatics who were conquered by few really few aryan people which were strongly connected with the vedic aryans. The persians of Iran are genetically afro asiatic is the fact of the matter.)

Afro/Asiatic?!!!! who is saying that, a Nazi?!!! Iranians are Iranians, learn it, dude.

Here is what I have so far (Ethnic group info box):

The "Iranian peoples" are mainly characterized by their use of Iranian languages. The addition Not including possible Iranian peoples is not needed - instead, estimates vary should make it. There is no need to mention all kinds of languages ... it's totally enough to say Iranian languages. Tājik 00:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to edit it. Also, the reason I put that down is because Croatians, Bulgarians, etc.. are still disputed.Khosrow II 01:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we turn it into a template to be used on all the articles on Iranian peoples? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 01:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the image, but can we get more non-Persians please? We shouldn't forget that the other Iranian peoples are no less important!—Khoikhoi 02:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my previous one I had Saladin (Kurd), Cyrus (Persian), and Avicenna (Tajik). I dont really care what the image is, so long as there is an image.Khosrow II 02:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know. But I thought that these 3 Persians actually represent the wider "Iranian identity" rather than a specific "Persian identity". Zarathustra was not Persian but Bactrian. Darius was an ancient Persian and should not be confused with modern Persians - besides that, he was the Emperor of the first Iranian Empire. Avicenna wrote most of his works in Arabic rather than Persian. His ethnicity was most likely "Sogdian". Rumi represents a whole range of peoples - most of all, he represents a unique version of ISlam which sprang out of a strong Iranian element.

I removed the piture of Saladin, because Saladin was more an Arab than a Kurd or Iranian. And I replaced the picture of Cyrus with that of Darius, because Darius' picture is better known. Tājik 02:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Cyrus was not the shah of the first Iranian Empire. You have to remember that the Medes were the founders of the first Iranian Empire (while the Bactrians and Sogdians founded the first Iranian kingdoms).Khosrow II 02:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Tājik, it's just that I'd just rather have it not seem like Persians are the "dominators of all Iranian peoples". I'm sure there are plenty of famous non-Persians we can add—right? We don't even have to have 4 people, we can have many more like in the Kazakhs page, or even the Volga Tatars article (although I think that's possibly overkill). Additionally, not all Pan-Iranists are Persians, right? —Khoikhoi 03:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious why all the personalities in the image are Persians. Is this a page for Persians? Anyway, Tajik's argument on removing Saladin (being more Arab than Kurd !!!), sometimes makes me wonder that all this talk of Iranian people, Greater Iran,etc, are just convenient vehicles for advancing the cause of Persian domination over the region.Heja Helweda 03:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. By the way, not all of them are Persians. Tajiks are Central Asia Persians in the context that they speak a Persian dialect, however, they are mostly the descendents of Sogdians, and Bactrians, and other Central Asian Iranic peoples. However, I do believe we should have more pictures, including Ossetians, Kurds, Pashtuns, Balouchi's, etc...Khosrow II 03:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azarbaijani people should be included in the list as Iranian peoples. Their race and genetics are Iranian. This has been proven by various scientific tests (done by non-Iranians). The "Azari" name, culture and history is Persian. More than 40% of their language is Persian. Most of their names, traditional costumes, cuisine, architecture, etc....is PERSIAN not Turkic.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.66.84 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too, infact I was reading that before Azari, the spoken language in the now Azari region was Persian.--84.70.111.97 00:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been discussed in the talk page archives. Azeris may fit-in to your definition of Iranian peoples, but they don't match the definition of this article. Khoikhoi 00:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though this topic bases it on the Iranian ethncitiy thus Azeris should count!

I thought they were Caucasians mostly influenced by Turks.They don't have this old Iranian infleunce anymore but if you mean Azeris in Iran I don't know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.125.150 (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is useless as the Iranian peoples aren't an ethnic group, but a series of ethnic groups sometimes only linked by language and sometimes by other factors. Tombseye 05:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. {{Infobox Ethnic group}} is only supposed to be used in articles about ethnic groups. The Iranian peoples are a group of ethnic groups. Khoikhoi 02:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, but why do I get the feeling that resistance and controversy is on its way?! Tombseye 02:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it always is. ;-) Khoikhoi 02:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-This is absolutely correct, the Azeris were Iranians who were "turkophoned" (adopted turkish language)

*sigh* Khoikhoi 03:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Azeri's are Iranians my friend. There are several ethnic groups who speak Azeri today, but their origins are all different. For example, Iranian Azeri's are Iranian, while those from the Caucasus are Caucasians, and the ones in Iraq are called Turkomans.Azerbaijani 17:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's two pictures of Persian people in the article I think we should change one to a Kurd; Saladin would be good. Ozgur Gerilla 14:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1]

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

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

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

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

Tabreek!

Congrads for featured status!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually your take is an oversimplification at best.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You cannot accurately distinguish nationality between looks, first of all

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Any linguistic evidence?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So understand my point , please

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

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

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

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

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

OK i agreee with the last paragraph only.

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

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

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

Otherwise i found the Iranian peoples article very interesting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Azerbaijani - any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran. [2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you mean this:

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

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

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

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

The last sentence quoting Gimbutas in the roots section is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information see:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To whom it may conceren

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

I noticed it said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now we count Sunnis

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

some 70% of Afghanistan this makes 14 mlin

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

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

about 75 mln

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

true, the offending edits date from 10 July and were introduced by an anon [3]. You still expanded on them. This doesn't belong in the article. dab (𒁳) 13:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

,,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, the criteria is not set by me, see these articles in Britanica: [5] [6] [7] If you believe that Azerbaijani and Uzbek people should be classified as Iranian people, please cite sources that included them among the Iranian people. It is generally accepted that Azerbaijanis are Turkic people because of the language they speak. Grandmaster 07:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Either ways, we need to continue to fight for the Azari's to be counted as an Iranian People for the obvious reasons mentioned above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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