Talk:Persians: Difference between revisions

Archives
Dec 27 2005 – Feb 27 2006 February 28 2006 – 8 Mar 2006

Archived

This page was too long and has been archived.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

Removed dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion

I'd suggest some formulation on the order of:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Zora

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

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

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

1) Herodotus calls the Medes as Aryan.

2) Several Old Persian inscriptions call Persians Aryans.

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

4) Kanishka at the Ratabak call his language Aryan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dispute

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

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

Mediation

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

Request made by: Khoikhoi 04:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Talk:Persian people

Who's involved?

User:Aucaman

Against other editors:

User:ManiF

User:Zmmz

User:Gol

User:Kashk

User:Amir85

User:Tajik

User:Aytakin

User:Kntrabssi

User:Paul_Barlow

User:SouthernComfort

and me, I guess. --Khoikhoi 04:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What's going on?

It all started when User:Aucaman got into an edit war with an anon over a disputed tag on the the Persian people page. The page was protected, but since then there's been a huge dispute between the two parties, the Iranian editors and Aucaman mainly over the term Aryan. Aucaman maintains that it should not be used in the article because it is racist, but the Iranian editors say that it is not racist in this context, and the term is a part of their culture. I've tried to come up with a solution, but Aucaman refuses to compromise whatsoever.

Personally, I see myself as a neutral user, or at least I try to be. I have researched the word Aryan myself and have concluded that it has many meanings. The Iranian term has nothing to do with the Nazi "master race". --Khoikhoi 05:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?

I would like it if

1. Aucaman would be willing to compromise
2. This dispute would be over

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

discretion is not necessary on my side, but you can reach me through my talk page. --Khoikhoi 04:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you be willing to mediate yourself and accept an assignment as a mediator?

This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do

what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.

I do not wish to work in a different meditation case - I'm still pretty stressed out about this one. --Khoikhoi 15:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Please report evidence in this section with {{Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence}} for misconduct and {{Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence3RR}} for 3RR violations. If you need help ask a mediator or an advocate. Evidence is of limited use in mediation as the mediator has no authority. Providing some evidence may, however, be useful in making both sides act more civil.
Wikipedia:Etiquette: Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.

Aucaman requesting page protection against vandalism

3RR violation by Aucaman

evidence

• Lead to {{protect}} by KnowledgeOfSelf
• Same violation by 220.92.206.12 and 221.156.248.124 in this period.
• 221.156.248.124 claimed: "3rr was violated by the user Aucaman while pushing his point of view" before the incident.

--Fasten ^talk/med 13:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers

I've made this initial suggestion and Aucaman has indicated consent to use the following or a similar phrase:

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

somewhere in the article. Please comment. --Fasten 19:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

See also: #Compromise_offer (Sorry for duplicating this section)

Comments by others

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

I sincerely hope it is OK that I am leaving these comments here, but hopefully it gives a clearer idea of what to expect to the future mediator. I hope that user Aucaman may be banned from reverting that article. This is taken from the Persian people article discussion page. The Mediation Cabal cannot deal with disciplinary issues. i.e. banning a user from a page. KnowledgeOfSelf 05:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

“The original word Aryan[5]is from Iran, and it still represents those people. Later the Aryan invasion theory was adapted by the Nazis. This is the first time that I have heard from you yourself that states that this article is ``racist``. First of all that is an insult to an entire race and country to equate them to Nazi, Germany. Second of all it shows how biased your complaints are. So much for assuming good faith. Others tried to warned me, but I said I feel bad, let`s hear his voice as well. At this point, you honestly have no buisiness being here”. Zmmz 05:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this.Zmmz 06:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It's good to start by reading some of the stuff on Talk:Persian people, including the personal attacks (there were put there for people to see, right?). As I have indicated, the use of the term "Aryan" today is highly ambiguous and is discouraged by most dictionaries and some encyclopedias (I'll post more sources confirming the fact that the term is outdated). The fact that it was used in ancient times is also not related to the discussion here. People here are trying to say that "Aryan" means "Indo-Iranian" (read the article). The word "Indo-Iranian" was not known to ancient people and does not even exist in the Persian language today, so the two meanings are totally different. This is a simple factual accuracy dispute. The term Aryan does not mean "Indo-Iranian" - it was used in the 18th and early 19th century to mean "Indo-European" and "Indo-Iranian", but the usage has been dropped. Today it is sometimes used by Indian scholars to refer to Indo-Aryans, but this is not related to this article (Indo-Aryans are a totally different people who invaded northern India in the 2nd millennium BC). Aucaman^Talk 16:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Update:User:Zmmz also has this bad habit of using my signature to post comments not approved my me (I'm taking it out but it's in history of this page). Aucaman^Talk 16:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Aucaman. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, the term Aryan is now used in linguistics only in the sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages [6]. Heja Helweda 17:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Article begins.. "a people who, in prehistoric times, settled in Iran and northern India" does it not?! Thank you :) --Kash 00:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If we want to mention personal attack please mention those of Aucaman. Some of them extremely nasty and illogical.

He called us racist because we wanted to mention this term which is very commonly used in our country. More than once he compared the entire group of people to Hitler!

He says that ancient usage is not related to discussion here but in fact, he was the one who very passionately questioned the legitimacy of the archeological evidence. Those sites are proof that the word Aryan was being used by ancient Iranian kings but his logic was that Germans scholars were in charge of research!!! (British scholars were in charge of initial research not Germans! And these sites were examined by scholars from all over the world)

He said the Iran government uses this term because of their animosity toward Israel!!! Obviously trying to bring politics into the issue. (No Iranian official has EVER used Aryan identity in order to create animosity toward Israel, they use Islamic identity for this issue.) Before I used to disagree with him but I considered him a logical person. Not any more. Anyone who questions the legitimacy of famous archeological sites by saying that it was German propaganda is not a logical person.

Gol 20:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The term "Aryan" is used by many authoritative sources in the context of Persians' heritage. Aucaman is refusing to accept this fact, and is pushing his POV. The issue has been discussed over and over and over but Aucaman is not interested in any compromise. He's already made up his mind based on his own personal interpretation, accusing other editors of being "racists and anti-Semites" which is itself a breach of assume good faith policy of wikipedia:

"why don't come down to the Persian people article where a lot of users are trying to add racist, sometimes anti-Semitic propaganda into the article. Aucaman 07:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)"

Regards. --ManiF 20:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Aryan is an older, deprecated term. Archaeologists user Indo-Europeans and sometimes Kurgan culture; linguists use Indo-European; physical anthropologists talk about blood types and DNA analysis in terms of statistics and populations. Groupings based on linguistics and genetics don't necessarily match up. Then there are cultural practices, and variation therein. Present day social-scientists wouldn't assume that all these variations (history, genetics, language, cultural practices) coincide and uniquely define a group of people who could be called "Aryan" -- it's much much more complicated than that.

Aryan means noble, and it was used by Indo-European groups in Iran and the Indian sub-continent to refer to themselves, as opposed to "those other guys", the original inhabitants. Sassanids called their core territory Eranshahr, land of the noble, and the term survives in the recently revived country name Iran. The term definitely has a meaning now in terms of nationalist ideology, which ignores the complications discussed above and postulates a group of people who are "Aryan" by history, genetics, language, culture. This is a concept which should be described in neutral terms. However, it is POV to declare that this concept completely describes the fuzzy reality that scientists see. It is incredibly POV for defenders of the "Aryan" theory to dismiss peer-reviewed scientific papers as "student projects" and keep insisting that their mental construct defines reality. Zora 23:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Aryan is not a 'deprecated' term, when referring to the origins of Iranian people, scholars refer to the Aryans. Genetic experiments ofcourse do not 'necessarily match', as samples are usually small and since there are many ethnicities in Iran, and most of them have mixed together, it would definately not be easy to get a 'pure' and representitive sample to support or deny the "Aryan" theory as you call it. It is also a POV to dismiss the fact that in Iran and everywhere else where history of Iran is discussed, academics refer to the origins as the 'Aryan' migration. There is absolutely no evidence against this idea, the current genetic studies which you have mentioned, are only comparing the current Iranians to other Central Asians. --Kash 23:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: My two cents. Aryan might be a racist term in Europe, but it's a highly respected concept in Iran and India. Arya is almost a sacred word in India, just like the Swastika is a very sacred symbol in India. So meanings depend on contexts. That's all I want to say. deeptrivia (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

More users are against Aucaman: This user is trying his hardest to get help from Pan-Turks, Jews, etc. I do invite everyone to have a look at here: Talk:New_anti-Semitism#Examples, where Aucaman has called Iranian wikipedians racist.. and from which I would like to quote a reply by another neutral Wikipedian who talks sense:

The "repeated attempts of some Wikipedians" to re-introduce the use of the word "Aryan" have very little to do with Anti-Semitism, and a lot to do with the increase in Indian and Iranian contributors, for whom the word labels an important aspect of their culture. Many of them, especially Indians, resent the association of the word with Nazism and wish to emphasise their "ownership" of it (to a lesser extent the same applies to the swastika). They also resent having to apologise for words and symbols used in their culture just because some people thousands miles away used them once for their own purposes. These users rarely have racist intentions in my experience, though they can sometimes be highly nationalistic. The Nazi use of the term Aryan was certainly anti-Semitic, because it functioned as a synonym for "non-Jew", but strictly speaking the specifically racist aspects of Nazism concerned their claims for the superiority of the Nordic race. Yet no-one gets worried about the use of the word "Nordic" on Wikpedia. Paul B 19:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear admin, it is important that you yourself kindly look up the word Aryan, and Iran as well, in the major encyclopedias and dictionaries, rather than get caught inbetween a he said she said war. Please look into this, and see if there would be anyway to ban the two users from reverting that article for refusing to compromise and being perhaps politically motivated, specially, user Aucaman for implying the article and its editors are `racist`. However, no matter what the decision, please get involved and do make one, so over-editing and inserting exessive comments in the discussion page would end. That page needs to be rescued.Zmmz 01:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• In my honest opinion, I am against Aucaman. Aryan is not a racist term, no more than "Jew" or "Japanese" is. It is simply a term to describe a race of people who live in a certain area. Hitler may have changed public perception of the term, but the textbook definition has nothing to do with World War II, thus, there should be no content dispute. Kntrabssi 02:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent Study on Arya: The use of the word Arya or Aryan to designate the speakers of all Indo-European (IE) languages or as the designation of a particular "race" is an aberration of many writers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and should be avoided ([7], p.3, last paragraph).Heja Helweda 04:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do read the article, it says it in the begining paragraph of page 3: "Both peoples [Iraniand and Indians] called themselves and their language Arya" then it goes on to saying that Kurds were part of the West Iranians who came from the Aryan tribes. I think sourcing this article contradicts all your efforts on Talk:Iranian peoples saying Kurds are not Iranian?! The article is not a scientific research, it is full of an individuals opinions such as conclusion that Aryan theory is wrong, because British used it to invade India!

To source an article in a debate, use a trusted source such as Encyclopedia, [See below] --Kash 10:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Britannica very clearly mentions that '"Persians, Kurds, and speakers of other Indo-European languages in Iran are descendants of the Aryan tribes that began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the 2nd millennium BC."'

He still refuses to accept it and says that it is confusing and we should replace aryan with something else.

Gol 08:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Mini essay on the fair use of the word: The term Aryan has a number of complex overlapping usages. Aucaman is right that the term is often avoided these days, but this is not essentially because it is "racist" but because its multiple uses, especially in the West, make it confusing. We try to detail this in the Aryan article. We use the Aryan article as a kind of central clearing area from which to point up the history of the meanings and to direct the reader to other articles in which specific usages of the term are explored. Obviously these other articles have to have different names, so we use Arya for the social/spiritual usage; Aryan race for the Nazi usage; Indo-Aryan for the language-group; Indo-Aryans for the people who speak these languages; Indo-Iranians for the larger grouping in ancient history; Iranians for the modern people...etc. These distinctions are somewhat artificial in a sense. There have been several Indian contributors who have objected to what they consider to be the illegitimate Western use of the word, and wish to assert ownership of its "true" meaning on the "Aryan" page rather than be sidelined, as they see it, onto the "Arya" page. Only very recently the section on the Aryan page dealing with the racial meaning was deleted by Indian contributors who objected that this was a corruption or misuse of the word, so it should not be featured at all. These pages are certainly contested territory. In contexts where the specific usage is clear, and not attempt is being made to link it to the Nazi usage, I see no objection to the term. Terms like "Indo-Aryan" and "Indo-Iranian" are essentially Western constructions, invented for technical purposes. They were never used in these cultures historically. In English the equivalent to indigenous usage is Aryan, and I can well understand if Iranian contributors object to having a rather clumsy Western invention like Indo-Iranian forced on them just because of Nazi connotations to a word of importance to them

On race, this is even more ambiguous, because the word "race" can simply mean a human population group or ethnicity, so if Iranians say they are of the Aryan race, they don't necessarily mean anything more by it than that they have a distinctive population history, just as other groups may assert the distinctiveness of their "race" in this sense without that being automatically racist (e.g Laplanders/Sami). Perhaps the word race should be more carefully used, but then perhaps we shouldn't be over sensitive about it. It's just a word.

I know of course that the subject of Anti-Semitism in Iran has been in the news recently, following well publicised statements by Iranian leaders, but I think it would be a mistake to confuse this with the use of the word Aryan. The "Aryan" Iranians are no more anti-Semitic than their "Semitic" neighbours in the Arab world. The problem arises from Islamism, not claims to Aryan ethnicity. It's just a coincidence that the Nazis also claimed to be Aryan and were also Anti-Semitic. There was a brief moment in the late 19th C when it was argued by some people in the West that Shia Islam was the racially Aryan form of the Islamic religion - that it expressed a link with the supposed superior qualities of the Aryan race, in contrast to Sunni Islam, but that's a very obscure and now wholly irrelevant concept.

It's also worth noting that the word Aryan to mean "gentile" was quite common in Germany before the rise of the Nazis. Freud, for example, uses the word to refer to non-Jewish psychoanalysts (he says in a 1908 letter that he wants to promote Jung's support for psychoanalysis because Jung is an "Aryan"). It was not automatically antisemitic, any more than "gentile" is. And the racial term that was equally important to the Nazis - "Nordic" - is used on Wikipedia without any problems. Paul B 10:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Great job with explaining the situation in such a detail. I think I agree with everything you said. Just made a minor spelling correction...hope you won't mind. deeptrivia (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Very well said, Paul. SouthernComfort 13:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. well said. Gol 02:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I must say that it is very unfortunate how the great history of a country which is from the Aryan root is tarnished by a facist dictator who runied the name and makes it racist to call our selves Aryan. Through being able to put a stop to these users and proudly puting the name Aryan in this page we will help bring very deserved respect to the term. (note: I know it sounds cheesy, but its true!) --(Aytakin) | Talk 02:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Offer Acuman cannot refuse!

Here is the deal: We keep the term Aryan and we add in parenthesis that this term has nothing to do with the German Master Race, and that in Iranic countries and to Iranic peoples, it has no racist meaning or intent.

How can you refuse that Acuman, you get what you want, we get what we want. So what do you say we end this dispute? Quit being so stubborn.Iranian Patriot 01:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Aryan in Indian/Iranian culture is just a title of honor not a racial/ethnic term

• Aryan as a race or language, By David Frawley, American Institute of vedic Studies: In Vedic literature, Aryan is not the name of the Vedic people and their descendants. It is a title of honor and respect given to certain groups for good or noble behavior. In this regard even the Buddha calls his teaching Aryan, Arya Dharma; the Jains also call themselves Aryans, as did the ancient Persians.
• India through the Ages: It is notable that in the Vedas, the word Arya is never used in a racial or ethnic sense. It is still used by Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Zoroastrians, as to mean "noble" or "spiritual". Heja Helweda 01:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary it is used in a racial or ethnic sense. The problem that started this whole dispute is that people who are not from Iran are trying to say they know more about Iranians than Iranians themselves. I'm sorry, but that is just not logical. The word "Aryan" is the race in which most Iranians are. In this page we are talking about "PERSIAN people" and the way it is connected to the word "Aryan". We are not discussing how Indians feel about connecting themselves to it. Over all, you should have by now realized that Iranians are Aryans and they will always call themselves Aryan and just because one person is 'trying' to change history, it doesn't mean it will work. --(Aytakin) | Talk 02:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Aryan is a linguistic term that refers to an ancient language group that was ancestral to the Indo-European family of languages. [8]

Diyako Talk + 02:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That is actually false, and taken out of context. I searched under Iran and also the word Aryan, but this time in the Columbia Encyclopedia, and saw the same things Gol mentioned. Here is what Columbia Encyclopedia said,“Early History to the Zand Dynasty Iran has a long and rich history. For a detailed description of the Persian Empire, see Persia. Some of the world’s most ancient settlements have been excavated in the Caspian region and on the Iranian plateau; village life began there c.4000 B.C. The Aryans came about 2000 B.C. and split into two main groups, the Medes and the Persians. The Persian Empire founded (c.550 B.C.) by Cyrus the Great was succeeded, after a period of Greek and Parthian rule, by the Sassanid in the early 3d cent. A.D”[9]. Zmmz 03:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is what the Merriam-Webster dictionary says, “1 : INDO-EUROPEAN 2 a : of or relating to a hypothetical ethnic type illustrated by or descended from early speakers of Indo-European languages b : NORDIC c -- used in Nazism to designate a supposed master race of non-Jewish Caucasians having especially Nordic features 3 : of or relating to Indo-Iranian or its speakers”[10]. Zmmz 09:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC) ”[11].Zmmz 03:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 1 pp.738
• The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 2 pp.3,45,46,47,48,53,55,56,127,.......
• The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 3 pp. 747,825,866,.....
• The Seven Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World: The Seventh Monarchy: History of the Sassanian or New Persian Empire pp. 11,12
• Ruzgaran : tarikh-i Iran az aghz ta saqut saltnat Pahlvi pp. 37,38,39

All these books are specifically associate the word "Aryan" with "Indo-iranian" and refer to Aryans as a racial term. Again they all cite that Medians, Persians and Parthians are all descendants of Aryans. These comments come from "Cambridge History of Iran" the most legitimate book about history of Iran and its people from its 1982's edition. -- Amir85 06:25, Saturday 4 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I understand the concerns of Aucaman. But I think we can safely delineate that the Arya that "Iran" is named after is not racist, but has a separate meaning. Hijacking terms for political reasons is nothing new in history. Type in ARYA here to get a comprehensive article on the subject. I therefore support Khoikhoi and others.--Zereshk 21:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Aryan According to Dictionaries and Encyclopedias

Here is one the definitons of the word Aryan by Oxford dictionary, “The restricted use rests on the ground that only the ancient Indian and Iranian members of the family are known on historical evidence to have called themselves Aria, Arya or Ariya; the wider application rests partly on the inference that the name probably belonged in pre-historic times to the whole family, while this still constituted an ethnic and linguistic unity; and partly on the ground that even if it did not, it is now the most convenient and least misleading name for the primitive type of speech from which all the languages above-mentioned have sprung, inasmuch as Indo-Germanic is too narrow, and Indo-European too wide, for the facts, while Japhetic introduces speculations of which science has no cognizance”.Zmmz 03:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster dictionary says, “1 : INDO-EUROPEAN 2 a : of or relating to a hypothetical ethnic type illustrated by or descended from early speakers of Indo-European languages b : NORDIC c -- used in Nazism to designate a supposed master race of non-Jewish Caucasians having especially Nordic features 3 : of or relating to Indo-Iranian or its speakers”[12]. Zmmz 03:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Columbia Encyclopedia says,“Early History to the Zand Dynasty Iran has a long and rich history. For a detailed description of the Persian Empire, see Persia. Some of the world’s most ancient settlements have been excavated in the Caspian region and on the Iranian plateau; village life began there c.4000 B.C. The Aryans came about 2000 B.C. and split into two main groups, the Medes and the Persians. The Persian Empire founded (c.550 B.C.) by Cyrus the Great was succeeded, after a period of Greek and Parthian rule, by the Sassanid in the early 3d cent. A.D”[13].Zmmz 03:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Dictionaries and encyclopedias are not reliable guides to contemporary academic standards. They are inevitably behind the times. Zora 04:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The 2004 Editions of the Merriam-Webster dictionary, or Columbia Encyclopedia for example, are outdated?Zmmz 05:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation process copied from the talk page

It's good to start by reading some of the stuff on this page, including the personal attacks. As I have indicated, the use of the term "Aryan" today is highly ambiguous and is discouraged by most dictionaries and some encyclopedias (I'll post more sources confirming the fact that the term is outdated). The fact that it was used in ancient times is also not related to the discussion here. People here are trying to say that "Aryan" means "Indo-Iranian" (read the article). The word "Indo-Iranian" was not known to ancient people and does not even exist in the Persian language today, so the two meanings are totally different. This is a simple factual accuracy dispute. The term Aryan does not mean "Indo-Iranian" - it was used in the 18th and early 19th century to mean "Indo-European" and "Indo-Iranian", but the usage has been dropped. Today it is sometimes used by Indian scholars to refer to Indo-Aryans, but this is not related to this article (Indo-Aryans are a totally different people who invaded northern India in the 2nd millennium BC). Aucaman^Talk 16:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If its usage in ancient time is unimportant why were you so eager to prove that the archeological sites were misused by German scholars and express doubt that the world Aryan was ever used by ancient kings? If it is not related to our discussion right now?

Take a look at this article

http://www.chn.ir/en/news/?Section=2&id=5611

obviously united nations does not consider this term to be racist or ambiguous or it would not agree to the proposal.

Gol 19:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

We're not talking about racism here. That was just a minor divergence. I'm saying "Aryan" does not mean "Indo-European". What does Aryan mean to you? Aucaman^Talk 01:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Indo-Iranian. --Khoikhoi 01:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well then see this. That's not enough evidence for you? You're saying American Heritage, Britannica, and Columbia are all wrong when they say the word is no longer in technical use? Why do you think they're saying it's no longer in technical use? Aucaman^Talk 01:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, it is in use Iran and India. --Khoikhoi 01:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

And like I said, it never means "Indo-Iranian" in Iran (the word "Indo-Iranian" doesn't even exists in Persian). Do you have any Iranian sources that say it means "Indo-Iranian"? I've given you plenty of sources that say it is NOT "Indo-Iranian". So, again, who says it's Indo-Iranian? Aucaman^Talk 01:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Aryan#Indo-Iranian. --Khoikhoi 02:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to? Where does it say Aryan means Indo-Iranian? The way it's used by Iranians it just means "Iranian". Like I said the term "Indo-Iranian" doesn't even exit in Persian. So, for the third time, who says Aryan means Indo-Iranian? Aucaman^Talk 02:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

In the section about the Indo-Iranians, it says clearly:

The most probable date for Proto-Indo-Iranian unity is roughly around 2500 BC. In this sense of the word Aryan, the Aryans were an ancient culture preceding both the Vedic and Iranian cultures. Candidates for an archaeological identification of this culture are the Andronovo and/or Srubnaya Archaeological Complexes.

--Khoikhoi 02:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

So now Aryan means Proto-Indo-Iranian? You changed your mind? Aucaman^Talk 05:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't change my mind. I thought the source said that it meant Indo-Iranian. *Sigh*. --Khoikhoi 05:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is a further source that says the term has fallen into disuse and has never been well defined: de:Arier --Fasten 20:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that it has fallen out of use in the West, but it is still used by most people in Iran and India. That's that Aucaman is refusing to accept. --Khoikhoi 20:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

To quote Indo-Iranians: The term Indo-Iranian includes all speakers of the Indo-Iranian languages, i.e., Indo-Aryans, Iranians and the speakers of the Nuristani languages. The historic term for these cultures is Aryan.

Is it used by people in Iran when using the english language or when using the persian language? If we are talking about the persian word maybe it should be clearly marked as a persian word (provided that this information is correct) --Fasten 21:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Both. See this article for an example. --Khoikhoi 21:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

A possible wording could be:

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

(I have no knowledge of the modern use of this word in Iran and India, I'm merely suggesting a wording) --Fasten 21:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This is similar to what I suggested to Aucaman, but he simply said, "why can't we just not use the word Aryan"? --Khoikhoi 22:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The words are still used in Iran, atleast, as well as every academic place where they discuss and study the origins of Iranians, so we will not settle for one or two users who are pushing their POV. --Kash 23:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard

Two incidents have been reported on the Administrator's noticeboard:

1. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#.5BUser:Aucaman.7C.5D (submitter: Zmmz)
2. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Aucaman_and_User:Heja_helweda_and_User:Diyako (submitter: Kash)

Can somebody provide evidence for the accusations? --Fasten ^talk|med 14:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The evidence are there. Also see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aucaman (I am losing the count of the pages we have to report to, just to get some admins on to this!) --Kash 23:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There are many false accusations among what you call evidence. --Fasten 18:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman is accused of removing admonitions from his talk page

Comment by Aucaman in the history of the talk page:

Vandalism - Stop posting this here unless you have a reason

I know that user Diyako erased a warning from his talk page[14].Zmmz 01:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It should perhaps be noted that the "warnings" being erased are not warnings from administrators, but threats from Zmmz and others to ban the user if he/she doesn't stop opposing Zmmz. Zora 18:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No, in good faith, instead of, waiting for him to make another mistake like breaking the 3rr, as suggested by Wikipedia policies, we warned him first. That is standard procedure. Unfortunately, you Zora, and user Acuaman do not seem to get along with anyone here, and are chronic violaters of some of Wikipedia policies. Aucaman just broke the 3rr again in the Parsi page today.Zmmz 22:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a link under #Evidence if you consider it worthwhile. --Fasten 18:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman is accused of having vandalized this page

Please provide diff links. --Fasten ^talk|med 14:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are some of evidence of disputed behavior by Aucaman,

• Civility infractions

Ex: “You don't know what you're talking about Kash. Aryan now means "Indo-European"? Is that really what you want to say? Or do you mean "Indo-Iranian"? Do you even know the difference?”, Line 906:[15]

Line 793:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Persian_people&diff=42628069&oldid=41862241 “OK let's forget about the school thing. You brought it up. The new regime has kept the word in the texts because it supports its anti-Israeli agenda”.

• Not assuming good faith; accusing others of vandalism

[16], accusing user Woohookitty [17]

Accusing user with IP address 69.196.139.250 of vandalism, and threatning the user[18]

Accusing another user of “Anit-semetic behaviour”, while complaining to user Irishpunktom [19]

Accusing another multiple users who do not agree with him of vandalism[20]

Accusing a fifth user of vandalism, and other policy violations, even though many admins and other users repeatedly informed him the user never did such a thing, [21]

Accusing a sixth th user of vandalism, and other policy violations, because that user agree with Aucaman, even though many admins and other users repeatedly informed Aucaman the user never did such a thingCleared as filed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aucaman&diff=42363770&oldid=37462965

Being repetatively warned about violating the 3rr policy by admin ESkog to no avail [22]

Random inserts of disputes, e.g. 'POV': [23] In here he actually see's Iranian revolution as a POV!! --Kash 23:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Personal attacks, mostly due to political activism

Repeatedly attacking others, despite warnings, using harsh language such as,“Hideous nonsense. Jews have been living in Iran longer than a lot of other Iranians. Armenians have only been living in (proper) Iran for the last 100-200 years. Not even comparable. Most Jews have been persecuted and discriminated against simply for political reasons that have very little to do with Iran or Persian Jews. The ones left in Iran (not that many) are kept in such horrible conditions that they can't even network against the country even if they wanted you. You're just giving into Islamic Republic's propaganda”[24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33],

Line 883:[34],

Line 906:[35]

More quote examples: “Instead of discussing obvious stuff why don't come down to the Persian people article where a lot of users are trying to add racist, sometimes anti-Semitic propaganda into the....” article”[36] [37] [38] [39] [40]

• Abuses of editing privileges, and disruptive behaviour; violating the Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point policy by constently inserting banners, writting excessive amounts of texts in discussion pages, Disruptiveness etc., examples:

[41] [42] [43] [44] [45]

• Breaking the 3rr policy close to 12 reverts in one day,

[46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54]

Breaking the 3rr policy [55] [56] [57] [58] [59]

Breaking the 3rr policy [60] [61] [62] [63]

• Refusing to Compromise, i.e., hinting of some sort of biasness, even after a third opninion first attempted by user Amir85, and then after upon request from the neutral user Khoikhoi who tried to mediate the Persian people article and the one who set-up Mediation Cabal,

[64] [65]

Other examples of refusing to compromise: Line 883:[66], Line 906:[67], Line 777:[68], Line 701:[69] Zmmz 00:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Heja helweda is accused of having vandalized page(s)

Please provide diff links. --Fasten ^talk|med 14:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Recently, an article about Turkish-Kurds was put up for a vote by some users, as a vendetta--then User:Heja helweda attacked many articles that have to do with the politics or the culture of Turkey[70][71][72].Zmmz 01:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman, Heja helweda and Diyako are accused of racism

The links provided under (2) refer to the following texts: --Fasten ^talk|med 14:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• An example of only [one] diff , among many others, to user Diyako`s quot and racist personal attack saying; “In fack I am discussing with a racist turk qashqai pasdar terroris pro ahmadfinejad turk whho even can do ne recognoze UN emblem and think it is PDK”[73].Zmmz 00:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Personal attacks, by user Aucaman.

Repeatedly attacking others, despite warnings, using harsh language such as,“Hideous nonsense. Jews have been living in Iran longer than a lot of other Iranians. Armenians have only been living in (proper) Iran for the last 100-200 years. Not even comparable. Most Jews have been persecuted and discriminated against simply for political reasons that have very little to do with Iran or Persian Jews. The ones left in Iran (not that many) are kept in such horrible conditions that they can't even network against the country even if they wanted you. You're just giving into Islamic Republic's propaganda”[74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83],

Line 883:[84],

Line 906:[85]

More quote examples: “Instead of discussing obvious stuff why don't come down to the Persian people article where a lot of users are trying to add racist, sometimes anti-Semitic propaganda into the....” article”[86] [87] [88] [89] [90]

Reference: Article on ethnic variety

Talk:Persian_people#Article_on_ethnic_variety

There are counter accusations by Kash and Zmmz but not evidence of racism I recognize. Please explain what constitutes racism in this paragraph. --Fasten ^talk|med 14:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, there are some misrepresentation as of now. Please take time to read the comments, we or at least I, never linked the article above to racism, and the article you mention below as well, yet, we did request at least one authoritative sourcere that was not provided. We then asked that such sections, or texts to not be inserted into articles, unless the editor discuuses it first. And, due to their refusals to delete such studies, and due to their constent attacking of the editors who had come to a previous consensus, and as now rushed to defend themselves, we stated they [are] pushing a POV. In fact, user User:Heja helweda seems to repeatedly put banners on articles, because other users do not agree with him or her, and all of his or her edits, as well as, comments are politically charged. Recently, an article about Turkish-Kurds[91] was put up for a vote by some users, as a vendetta--then User:Heja helweda attacked many articles that have to do with the politics or the culture of Turkey[92][93][94]. Surely, that hints of some activism, and certainly not possesing an NPOV, while violating Wikipedia`s policies such as, Neutral point of view (NPOV), Wikipedia etiquette, Verifiability. We believe this behaviour tranlates into excessive edit wars and excessive questioning in the discussion pages of Persian articles as well. ThanksZmmz 00:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Reference: Estimation of mixed populations

Talk:Persian_people#Estimation_of_mixed_populations

There are accusations of original research and callous disregard for valid refrence offering and biased allegations by Kash and Zmmz but not evidence of racism I recognize. Please explain what constitutes racism in this paragraph. --Fasten ^talk|med 14:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

What does constant attack on both Iranian wikipedians and Iranian articles mean to you? The guy has called one of our well-respected Wikipedians a 'terrorist' for crying out loud! For full account please read both the mediation page and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aucaman. --Kash 23:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

First and foremost, we would like to invite the admins to look under Iran in a later edition of Columbia Encyclopedia, or any other major encycloipedias; it does not convey, confirm, or mentions anything that would suggest the specific mixing of populations claimed by users who inserted that info into the article[95]. If it had, or if it remotely hinted of such studies, we would have not requested the user to erase that section. Secondly, evidence of personal attacks were already provided in the above sections, however, the article mentioned bove certainly seems to be of original research, at best not universally recognized, and not backed-up by [one] major dictionary, or major encyclopedia. Regretablly, the provider`s of the article seem to infer that the 2004 editions of most dictionaries we researched in, or encyclopedias are, “outdated”. Because of such statements, and the fact that users such as Heja Helweda, repeatedly inserting a `Genetics Test on Kurds`, that is not backed by [one] major source such as an encyclopedia, into articles such as Iranian people, and many, many other articles, we conclude that the user along with user Aucaman, Diyako, and Zora who back-up each other in every single article, are not adhering to the NPOV policy. In fact, such reverts reveal a certain biasness from these users` part. Again, back to the example, not only original research like that should not be put into an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, at least not yet, but also you had made 3/4 of that entire Iranian people article, flooded with some info about the Kurds, and that Genetics Test. When others tried to request that valid references be provided, and/or to kindly move that section to an article about the `Kurds` perhaps, you and these three users teamed-up again, and an edit war ensued on almost [all] articles that have anything to do with Persia. Despite requests for a third opinion, which we did on many of these articles, despite setting-up a Mediation Cabal, and despite providing numerous references to you Zora, user Aucaman, user Heja Hlwelda, and user Diyako, all of you four users refused to compromise, and instead started almost vandalizing other articles. Zmmz 00:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Reference: Semitic-Turkic people

User_talk:Heja_helweda#Semitic-Turkic_people: Quote by Mesopotamia. What's Mesopotamia's involvement? --Fasten ^talk|med 14:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Kash

• personal attack (reported under (2), by Heja Helweda) --Fasten ^talk|med 14:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: They were in responce to being called a 'nationalist extremist' everyday, after defending Iranian articles day after day from attacks reported here. I would apologize if I could remember who exactly I was referring to! --Kash 23:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Accusation of helping out western information agencies preparing for war against Iran

How that? --Fasten ^talk|med 15:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

What is that? I certainly agree that, this is an off-the-wall statement. Maybe that was used as a last minute effort by Aucaman or others to divert attention, or perhaps a misunderstanding, but I will [guarantee] you they cannot provide any evidence for that. We certainly did not imply anything remotely close to that.Zmmz 00:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember such a thing neither..perhaps you misunderstood something --Kash 01:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, this is something that happened with Diyako and Zereshk a long time ago, before this conflict started. I can't find the message right now, but I think Zereshk said that Diyako actions, along with Heja's, were just like what the CIA is trying to do. He then gave a link to a news article that said that the US is trying to make all the minorities in Iran angry at the government because the US wants to take over Iran. I think Diyako somehow misinterpreted this as accusations of him working for the CIA. If I'm mistaken please correct me. --Khoikhoi 01:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment: Aucaman

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Aucaman

This is not part of the mediation case, it is merely a reference since it is related to the case. --Fasten ^talk|med 21:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Home of Aryans

Here is an article about Aryans written very recently from one of the greatest Professors of Indo-Iranian languages: Home of Aryans. So the claims of Zora and others that such a term is not used is actually wrong and after seeing so much proof, it is up to them to show honesty and end this discussion. Also see my short posts.

No the word is used in very specific situation when talking about Indo-Iranians in general. It is not used to refer to Persians, although Persians are Aryanic peoples. The problem is that people here are confusing the term with an "Aryan race" and they talk about descendants and ascendants. Just because people speak the same language it does not mean they're of the same race. The whole discussion of race is very unscientific and should be avoided. This is all I've been trying to say. Aucaman^Talk 23:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sure you know that the Persians are a sub-group of Indo-Iranians! Plus Darius the Great and many other sources I already mentioned refer to Persians as Aryans and you may read this article [96]. But about the racial discussion, I agree to an extent. When we say Aryan(Iranian), we mean Iranian(Aryan) ethnicity, language, culture and descendant/ascendant. But not race, as racially Iranians are classified as mediterranean of Irano-Afghan type. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irano-Afghan] But your point about the term Aryan not being used in Academia is wrong since as you can see it is clearly used. As per your opinion that the discussion of race is scientific or not, I am sure there are other enteries that battle this out. But to deny the Aryan heritage(Persians, Medes, Indo-Iranians, Parthians) of Iranians is clearly a historical forgery since we speak their language, practice their culture and throughout our history have known ourselves as Iranians (Aryan)(See Shahnameh) as well as others have used this title for us (Greeks, Armenians).

Um, you should read the article. The author uses the word "Aryans" in titles, referring to the long-sought "home of the Aryans". It's a historical reference. Otherwise he uses the term Indo-Iranians throughout the article. It's an interesting article, I'm glad you posted a link. The Bryant book I'm reading keeps referring to Witzel. Zora 10:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with this statement?

Before we move on (there are other things to discuss), I need to know what's wrong with the following statement: "Persians and Medians were part of Iranian peoples tribes who migrated to Iranian plateau in first millenium BC." The people were in fact Iranian and not Indo-Aryan or Nuristani, so why not just call them Iranian? Aucaman^Talk 16:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Use of Aryan

Would you accept a wording similar to

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

somewhere in the article?

see #Mediation --Fasten ^talk|med 19:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I still don't have an answer to the question I posed above. As for your question, the answer is yes, but I don't see how such a sentence is related to an article on modern Persian people and their culture. In most cases, people all talking about Iranians - not Indo-Iranians in general. Aucaman^Talk 21:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think saying " Proto-Indo-Iranians, historically also referred to as Aryan (Aryan-), a name still in modern use in Iran and India ... " is really a compromise, as we have provided countless sources that many western dictionaries and encyclopedias use the term "Aryan" in relation to Iran and Iranians. --ManiF 06:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

They have to give the older terms because the readers consulting them might be looking up a word they found in an 1830 publication! The terms in use in academia today are Indo-Aryan (for the Sanskrit branch of the language}, PIE (proto-Indo-European) for the ancestral language, and by many scholars, Kurgan culture as the archaeologically verified culture most likely to have spoken PIE and spread to Europe and Central Asia. Not universally agreed, however. Aryan is deprecated in mainstream academic publications. That it is still used in India and Iran has more to do with nationalism as well as the state of academia in those countries. Zora 06:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

We have already given you numerous refrrences; please refer to the below section. With all due respect, stop filling these discussion pages with rhetoric, this is not a political platform. You are driving away some editors that have something legitimate to contribute to Wikipedia.Zmmz 07:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Aryan is NOT "deprecated in mainstream academic publications", numerous references have been given that the term is still used by the latest editions of many scholarly sources in reference and relation to Iran and Iranians. --ManiF 10:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Mani, academics do not regard dictionaries and encyclopedias as the best references. Take a look at the article on Kurgan culture in this very encyclopedia. I don't think the word Aryan is mentioned once. You are generalizing from conditions in Iran to the broader international scientific community and the generalization does not hold. Zora 23:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora, what are you suggesting, that Encylopedias should not be used as reference?! You actually think one or two small-scale genetic studies here and there are important, but Encyclopedias are not?! you are wasting our time. As far as I am aware we have the right to provide such academic sources like Encylopedias here, and they are considered very highly important, so your argument is pointless --Kash 00:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You may think that encyclopedias are the last word in wisdom, but academics don't. Please try reading some archaeology, historical linguistics, history, cultural anthropology, and historical population genetics. Zora 00:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You're dodging the question

Stop dodging the question. I'm the one who put in the dispute tag and I'm not going to remove it until my concerns are addressed. Aucaman^Talk 11:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you have hopelessly confused everything and everyone, please explain again what it is exactly that you are disputing? SouthernComfort 11:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, not answering my question. I've outlined how the use of the term Aryan is discouraged by many sources and proposed very reasonable alternatives. Aucaman^Talk 20:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Use of the word Aryan

link	claim	publication date
"Autochthonous Aryans?" by Michael Witzel	§1. Terminology: At the outset, it has to be underlined that the term Ārya (whence, Aryan) is the selfdesignation of the ancient Iranians and of those Indian groups speaking Vedic Sanskrit and other Old Indo-Aryan (OIA) languages and dialects. Both peoples called themselves and their language årya or arya ...	2001
"Autochthonous Aryans?" by Michael Witzel	However, the use of the word Arya or Aryan to designate the speakers of all Indo-European (IE) languages or as the designation of a particular "race" is an aberration of many writers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and should be avoided.	2001
American Heritage® Dictionary	No longer in technical use	2000
Encyclopædia Britannica Online	It is now used in linguistics only in the sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages (q.v.).	current version
The Columbia Encyclopedia	"[...], term formerly used to designate the Indo-European race or language family or its Indo-Iranian subgroup."	2001-05

Aucaman's position

This section is only for Aucaman and supporters and the mediator, please. If you need to comment anyway be very consise (one line) or your edits will be removed by the mediator. --Fasten ^talk/med 13:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The English term "Aryan" is highly ambiguous and its usage is discouraged by many sources (see above). The term has been used by various cultures and ethnicities to mean different things and this is exactly why it can be misinterpreted by various readers.

The term is still sometimes used in academia as a synonym for Indo-Iranians as a general linguistic group, but this is not the adopted usage in this article. Many here are claiming that the term is to be used when referring to ancient Iranians (and ancient Iranians alone), but they have yet to cite any sources that say the English word Aryan means ancient Iranian. Most of their arguments also seem to directly violate WP:V and WP:NOR.

The other side

This section is only for the other editors and the mediator. If you need to comment anyway be very consise (one line) or your edits will be removed by the mediator. --Fasten ^talk/med 13:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman has indicated consent to use the following or a similar phrase:

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

somewhere in the article. Please comment.

Warning : You are providing way too much evidence and I have verified many links that were plain useless. If you want to provide any evidence of misconduct put it in the Evidence section and use the appropriate templates. Don't provide too much evidence or I will discard it. A small number of appropriate and verified links are better than 100 links where 50% are useless. The latter will be interpreted as spamming the mediator. (Example: The alleged insult of an editor as vandal who was in fact a vandal, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Aucaman#Outside_view_by_Zora)

We removed the links to vandalism that showed Aucaman uses it as a tool to threatened newcomers. But, please aware that the page hereWikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Aucaman#Outside_view_by_Zora contains a comment by an outsider stating that certain report of vandalism by Aucaman is legitimate, yet that particular report was never used in our evidence. Finally, the evidence page is now updated with relevant diffs, rather than the previous links, which were history links.Zmmz 18:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to that particular statement only because the link (added here) was among the links I verified myself and I was rather taken aback about its use as evidence of misconduct. I'd prefer not to draw outside views from the RFC into this mediation without any need. We should try to come to a conclusion for possible uses of the word Aryan in the article, not try to assign blame to each other, which is of limited use in mediation. --Fasten ^talk/med 18:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes you`re right, unfortunately it seems the evidence page was a bit messy. Again, we cleaned-it-up, and took-off the section about vandalism reporting altogether. We hope there will be a compromise, yet, regrettably from experience over the past months it seems the user in question most likely will go back to initiate edit wars after some time. But, let`s give mediation a last chance.Zmmz 19:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offer

This section is only for constructive criticism. If you submit complaints or insults your edits will be removed by the mediator. --Fasten ^talk/med 13:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-Iranians, historically also referred to as Aryan (arya-), a name still in modern use in Iran and India ..., which a sentence offered by Aucaman does not elaborate the description of an entire culture, and its people accurately. Proto-Indo-Iranians is mostly used to describe the language of the ancestors of Iran. Furthermore, in an article about Iranian people mentioning India is irrelevant; it should be used though in the article about Arya, and Aryan. Indians do not use it to describe their ancestors, such that today’s Hindis have a different ancestral lineage.

The word Aryan was and is very much used in India. Here's a quote of a quote, found in Bryant's 2000 book, In Quest of the Origins of Vedic Culture:

Raychaudhuri (1988) outlines this immediate, and more euphoric, level of reflexive popular response:

The Hindu self-image had received a moral boost from the writings of Professor Max Mueller. His linguistic studies stressed the common origin of Indo-European languages and the Aryan races. These theories, translated into popular idiom, were taken to mean that the master race and the subject population were descended from the same Aryan ancestors. The result was a spate of Aryanism. Books, journals, societies rejoiced in the Aryan identity…. Educated young men, in large numbers, affected a demonstrative reversion to the ways of their forefathers—with fasts, pigtails, well-displayed sacred threads, and other stigmata of Hindu orthodoxy. The name “Aryan” appeared in every possible and impossible context—in the titles of books as much as in the names of drug stores. (34–35)

Hindutva activists today are actively trying to prove that the homeland of the Aryans was India, India is the oldest civilization in the world, all civilization stems from India ... Zora 19:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

In that sense, it is only used to describe settlers in the Iranian plateau, and what is today Northern India. In all, with all due respect to the user who disagrees with using the word Aryan, the sentence above uses a language that in a subtle way undermines the enormity of the word as it pertains to the Iranian culture and history. However, saying, ...the decedents of Aryan ancestors who settled in Iran around.... is more appropriate. We would also like to remind you that the over-whelming consensus agrees to the latter. Nevertheless, we could use Proto-Indo-Iranians when we describe the language.Zmmz 18:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Rephrase, please

So what is the exact compromise offer, please? You seem to insist on using Aryan without stating that it's use in academic publications is not undisputed (see Talk:Persian_people#This_article_should_be_read_by_everyone). --Fasten 18:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Use of the disputed or totallydisputed templates

The edit war included in the evidence section was mainly about the inclusion or non-inclusion of a totallydisputed notice in the article.

Since at this time there was a dispute about the content of the article Aucaman was right about demanding a disputed notice. The totallydisputed notice may have been an exaggeration. When there is a dispute that even leads to an edit war the demand to remove the disputed notice appears inadequate. --Fasten

• Comment: I started by using the "totallydisputed-section" tag to mark the section in question. But some users have intentionally expanded the disputed language to other parts of the article, so I had no choice but to use the "totallydisputed" tag. Aucaman^Talk 01:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: User:Aucaman claims that he "had no choice but to use the totallydisputed tag" when other users "intentionally expanded" the disputed language to other parts of the article. That's a totally inaccurate description and chronology of events. The dif link User:Aucaman has provided [97] is only from today and User:Zmmz appearers to have unintentionally duplicated a part of the article which he thought had been removed and the change was immediately reverted by User:Khoikhoi with an explanation. [98] Days before any of these events took place, User:Aucaman intentionally expanded the dispute tag from a section to the entire article without any valid reasoning except that "he can", which is only another indicator of his intent to disrupt the entire article. --ManiF 17:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• You're wrong. Here's a much older revision. Far older than any totallydisputed tag I've placed. As I explained in the talk, the phrase "Indo-European lineage" does not make any sense. Indo-European is a linguistic categorization. It was after this edit that I started using the totallydisputed tag (and justifiably so). Aucaman^Talk 06:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: With all due respect, User:Aucaman claims that he "..Had no choice but to use the totally disputed tag" is another off-the-wall claim that some editors have some sort of weird conspiracy against him, not assuming any [good faith] about my accidental revert, which was a mistake, and pointed-out as such by user Khoikhoi. User:Aucaman--to this date--breaks the 3rr (for the fourth time) [99][100], initiates, and engages in multiple article disputes to push a POV, and still not only there is no sign of compromise, but his activities and efforts to erase every single section relating to the Persian ancestry being that of Aryans have in fact increased. I’m not sure why one user proceeding to tell an entire civilization, and culture what to call themselves, or how to, still seems to be an unresolved dispute. How much more time and effort, and energy of editors that seem to agree to an over-whelming consensus has to be devoted to this dispute, initiated by one user? As early as today 03/11/06, User:Aucaman tried to change the `History` section of the Iran article to something so out of the mainstream, that I’m not sure if it even belongs to the discussion pages of an article, nevertheless, the article page itself. It shows how biased, controversial, and extremely offensive User:Aucaman`s edits can be[101]. Yet, we are still writing, discussing, and responding to these disputes. Fasten, where has all this mediation gotten us so far? What progress have we made? You are the third person who tried to mediate this, when is this going to end? Please respond. Thank youZmmz 01:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've provided another diff. Was this one accidental too? You want one more? Aucaman^Talk 06:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• There is no other diff, originally I had copied and pasted the `Origin` section into the introduction section. That was not done on purpose. User:Aucaman makes very misleading comments; I`m not sure, but in this case he is most likely using it as some sort of excuse. After the edit he made to the Iran article[102], I am convinced that he is an unreasonable editor. Also, the hypothesis he gives for Indo-European usage is so that the word Aryan would be eliminated from use in all articles. It`s a repetitive argument. The user gives very politically motivated reasons for each edit he makes. And, unfortunately experience shows any editor who is that biased about his or her views cannot properly work with others. I`m not sure when will the admins step in and put an end to this. Zmmz 08:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Reply to "I am convinced that he is an unreasonable editor." by Zmmz
  • Do you imply that the source http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Iran/persia_or_iran.htm is inadequate. If that is the case please elaborate. --Fasten 19:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Reply to "What progress have we made? You are the third person who tried to mediate this, when is this going to end? Please respond." by Zmmz
  • This is an attempt at informal mediation. This is the first mediation that is part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. To resolve a dispute at least one side, preferrably both, must be willing to accept a compromise and change their position. Mutual accusations are not going to solve the dispute. It is especially useless if you keep providing evidence that Aucaman makes useful contributions. If you want to provide evidence that Aucaman is causing a problem don't provide links that look like he is making useful contributions. --Fasten 19:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Reply to "I`m not sure when will the admins step in and put an end to this." by Zmmz
  • It still looks like a lot of fuss about a minor disagreement in wording to me. Taking this to further dispute resolution would be a wast of time. I suggest you rather work on your compromise offer. --Fasten 19:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Aryans were Proto-Indo-Europeans

In ancienet times before the establsihment of nations. Language developed alongside racial lines. The Proto-Indo-Europeans or Aryans were a real racial group not just lingustic. 69.196.139.250 20:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside opinion (my two cents)

I'll admit that this is massive, and I have not read it all. The more narrowly Aryan is used, the less objectionable. I think that it is reasonable to say that in an Iranian/Persian context, the term is generally acceptable; the moment one gets deep into India or into the Caucasus, it is generally another matter, and begins to smack of a usage that has been very discredited by association with the Nazis.

I would suggest that the best way to move forward would probably be to try:

1. to delineate the various ways the term is used.
2. to see which usages both sides can agree are unencyclopedic. (For example, I presume that using "Aryan" as a synonym for "gentile" can be agreed by both sides to be unencyclopedic.)
3. for each side to propose its wording to talk about each potentially acceptable use.
4. to nominate someone whom both sides trust (mediator) to come forward with a proposed compromise once the two wordings are there.
5. to agree to abide by what that mediator comes up with unless something can be arrived at which both sides consider to be an improvement over that wording.

Jmabel | Talk 00:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Academic use or non-use of the word Aryan

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

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

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

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

Aryan tribes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article should be read by everyone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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