Talk:Iran/Archive 10

Template:V0.5

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Fools!

Inclusion of references to Terrorism and WMD programs

The text "Iran is labelled by the U.S. State Department as an active sponsor of terrorism, and is believed by many nations to be attempting to develop nuclear weapons." is both sourced and of great interest to readers. It belongs in the Intro. I do not see where above any "consensus" was actually reached. Simesa 22:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the closest I found to a "discussion" on this topic was in Archive1, where K1 used a great amount of abuse in attempting to keep references to terrorism out of the Iran article. Simesa 22:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Simesa, before reverting edits, please allow others to make their views heard by giving some time (a week or so). This is only the rules of civility that I am asking you to follow on Wikipedia. Regarding your comments, explained above under “history of Iran” and “How to improve the quality of the article about Iran”, are the reasons why we decided to leave those subjects in the specific articles dedicated to them. As you might know, very often people come to this article (Iran) to express their views and disappear without any interest to improve the quality of the article. They (some) use it as a tribune to express their anger to an entire nation. Besides, I am not here to censure anyone, but please read those 2 discussions above and you will see that by following those suggestions (which are not mine only but of others) it has only improved the quality of this article over time. Moreover, people who are genuinely interested in those topics (United States-Iran relations or Iran's nuclear program) can finds links to those articles at the bottom of the page Iran (so it is not hidden in anyway). Besides, as explained more than once before, those subjects will inevitably have new developments and the article about Iran is already too long (that's what the Wikipedia page says when I try to update, even fore one line). This is one more real argument, if need be, why those topics should be treated separately.69.116.234.208 30 December 2006

Before accusing someone of vandalism in an edit comment, you should actually read WP:Vandalism -- my inclusions are proper, but your deletions of sourced material clearly border on vandalism. I didn't find Discussion or Archive sections labelled “history of Iran” or “How to improve the quality of the article about Iran” -- I did find "History section" and "Suggestion to improve the quality of the article about Iran", neither of which had anything like a consensus. The article and its See Also nowhere link to Iran and weapons of mass destruction -- you have to go through Nuclear Program under "Energy" to find it. The link to United States-Iran relations is there but the article has exactly one sentence relating to Iran's support of terrrorism and no cite (clearly needs work). You may think I'm picking on Iran; my viewpoint is that the most important information about Iran is basically completely shunted aside. Yes, I think the paragraph is needed. I'm probably going to file an RfC on it. Simesa 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not contest the validity of the fact about the UNSC vote but the unbalanced representation of the factual developments relating to this sensitive subject, specifically by your censuring of other facts and the focus on how to represent the chain of events. Regarding the talk page article, you are again playing with words and I do know you have the intelligence to realize yourself: Those articles are right above on this same page. Regarding Iran and weapons of mass destruction, it is mentioned at the TOP of the article Nuclear Program. Again, your report of those facts is evidently inaccurate.69.116.234.208 17:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Alain10 has proposed a resolution below. Simesa 17:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Mention of terrorism and/or weapons of mass destruction in Intro

This is a dispute about whether to mention Iran's alleged support of terrorism and/or the article Iran and weapons of mass destruction in the Intro or elsewhere in the article text. 01:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

*These are the most controversial aspects of Iran and yet are not included anywhere in the text. There is a link to United States-Iran relations in the box in See Also. Simesa 01:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I read your comments and maintain what I said above. I can only wish that you adopted a balanced point of view when you mention the recent UN Security Council decision (15 countries in total). Specially, when you objected me to report in the same section of the article the vote of 118 UN member countries (only 3 months before) regarding the very same subject: Iran's nuclear program. Honestly doubt of your good faith now, given your behavior towards me and others on Wikipedia today.69.116.234.208 01:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Struck out Simesa 18:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to argue that anyone using the search term 'Iran' in Wikipedia is probably more after an historical overview of a nation which clearly offers so much to learn about the history of human civilisation. I feel mention terrorism at all, especially in the introduction would overpower this fact. I feel the topic of terrorism should be kept in a seperate article, or relegated to a subheading lower down in this article titled "Iranian Foreign Relations" or somesuch, and this section could outline Irans relationship with Hizbollah, etc. I think with 4000 years of history to offer, we can do better than referencing something in the opening paragraph which only covers such a small percentage of that 4000 years, yet has potential to overpower the rest of the article and create an edit-war.--60.240.197.199 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

I'll make you a compromise deal -- we put the Terrorism/WMD paragraph in the Intro of this article and the NAM paragraph in the Intro of the other two articles (even though it is already in the text of at least one of those articles). Simesa 09:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the problem is that there are many issues regarding Iran. This is why I created a page : Iran international crisis which objective is to group all issues concerning Iran. Therefore the page "Iran and weapons and mass destruction" does not have to discuss terrorism. Alain10 11:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree, also I believe this can be found in all the articles mentionned above already. I have added a link under "See also" on Iran's page to this page. People can cast their vote now, with the understanding that no more addition will be accepted in the main page of Iran later on.69.116.234.208 04:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Question: Do you support Alain10 's proposal and mine?

Support 69.116.234.208 17:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't find in See Also, so couldn't check. I think a mention in italics above the Intro, as is common, is a better placement. I have placed it there, but will remove if not everyone agrees. Simesa 17:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Support Alain10's page. Simesa 17:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a message on my Talk page (diff [1]) saying this is acceptable, so the issue is resolved and I'll withdraw the RfC. Thank you Alain. Simesa 18:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

prevent the deterioration of quality!

Please refrain from insering too many images in the article especially those irrelevant to Iran. Including too many details about each subject will also reduce the quality of the article, excessive details belong to separate articles. Refrain from inserting irrelevant data in the article, for example construction of a mosque in China is definitely not relevant to history of Iran. Act according to WP:NPOV and do not insert your own POV in the article.

Happy new year, -Marmoulak 19:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much Siamak. I'm trying to do this for weeks, and then the same images pop up again. The details in some sections are excessive as you said and the images such as Rumsfeld with Saddam has nothing to do with Iran article (although it's good for Iran-Iraq war). Or the Iranian soldiers in the war also it not appropriate for this article. For example, we don't see an image of German soldiers in the Garmany article. Also, please limit the portrait of important people in this article to those who are really significant in Iran's history. For example, Cyrus, the founder of the Persian Empire, Mohammad Reza Shah, as the last shah of Iran, Mossadegh as an important opposition to Shah, and Khomeini, the leader of the revolutions are the most significant people we need currently. Thank again Marmoulak and happy new year to you too. --Arad 16:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thx Arad. I will try to request semi-protection for this page if the situation doesnt get better. - Marmoulak 18:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

An individual with IP address 65.96.234.178 is constantly engaged in vandalizing the Iran article. I have checked his so-called contributions, and it seems that he/she is targeting articles related to Iran. Could anyone do something about his constant childish vandalism? In the meanwhile I believe the best possible course of action is to Revert his edits prior to any new edition. Thanks Persiano 16:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Bias Issue

This is a comment to all working on this page: I came to the page to get a good background on Iran. I left it feeling as though I had to take everything I read with a grain of salt. I don't KNOW that the information is incorrect, but I do know that the cites and the writing style leave your neutral readers doubting. I'll try to come up with some good examples. 1) Writing Style Issues: constant mention of how "X thing in Iran's history was almost never matched", one of its empires is described, without a good reason for the comparison, as existing "longer than most Eastern Empires"(why did this need to be stated?), that its early religion was the most influential on mankind ever!? (no cite???), etc. I don't know much about Iran, that's why I'm here. But the writing style varies from defensive to fantastical to downright insisting that I believe the claims. I don't get the same feel of factual reporting that I see on other countries' pages. 2) The huge section on the 1953 coup has the worst citations I've ever seen. I spent the afternoon reading all of the cites on "Operation Ajax" and I'm still not sure whether it's a real. 3) Finally, there are a lot of things mentioned without any explanation or reasoning. The second paragraph of the Islamic Persia/Golden Age is a nightmare of confusion. What thing "have its bases" in the Qur'an? Also, why is the period from 900 to 1500 skipped over, only mentioning in passing that Persia was wiped out until 1500? Spell/gramm errors are also a problem. I'm not intentionally trying to nitpick. I'm just letting you guys know that, as a neutral observer, the page is a mess--I'm now having to look elsewhere. Usually I use wikipedia to form a base, then evaluate for accuracy with more reputable sites. In this case, I have to start out completely new somewhere else. Sigh. Good luck with it! Kyraven 19:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have pointed out to the author some obvious examples of bias, basically Iranian chauvanism, but the author has refused to even enter into a dialog...Jakob37 10:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

- Well, we're starting now, but not quite done...Jakob37 02:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Dating

I am really sick and tired of the use of the BCE Ce dating system. Cant we use the B.C. and A.D like we learned in school.

you learned that in school. what is more accurate is something else which is being practiced here.

Reduce the size of History part

I would like to bring everyone's attention to our first priority which is reducing the size of History section by moving details to History of Iran article and using Wikipedia's Summary style. - Marmoulak 21:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this the reason for taking out the section that was entitled "Iran 1989-Present"? I had thought to make a few spelling and grammar corrections there, but found the whole section removed just a short while later. I know there's already an article about the History of Iran, but why not have a short summary paragraph covering the years since 1988? It may be recent history, but it's still history. -- wacko2 23:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And now the user Cyrus111 has added the section back. While I appreciate some detail as to recent years, I would agree the section is too large and should be summarized. -- wacko2 23:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Current events belong to wikinews, not here. The article is too large as it is. --Mardavich 01:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

What was the GDP of each province of Iran in 1980? thanks

"the predominant culture"

In the context of the Middle East, it is quite controversial to say that Iranian culture is "predominant" (I say this even though I am personally much more familiar with the Persian language and culture than with Arabic) - the Arabs and their language and culture would seem to be quite a bit more wide-spread, an certainly quite influential --- indeed they were once the overlords in Iran, and have left their writing system and vocabulary as basic parts of the modern Farsi language. Likewise, there is a lot of traditional Arabic literature that was not derived from Iranian sources - this whole paragraph strikes me as quite chauvanistic in tone. At the very least, such sweeping statements should have clear references to back them up (good luck!). My suggestion: "a dominant culture" or "one of the major cultures" along with the later part to read something like "some of the major works of Arabic literature are in fact translations from Persian sources" Jakob37 09:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed "the" to "a", it sounds fine now. --Mardavich 10:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That's an improvement. May I also suggest that instead of "Nearly all philosophical, scientific, or literary work of the Islamic empires...." it read:

Much of the philosophical, scientific, or literary work of the Islamic empires.... Such a slight change would make it sound more fair and not like Iranian boasting. Certainly the Persian cultural influence on Turkey (and the previous Ottomans) was great, but don't forget that a lot of the ancient Greek scientific and philosophical books were translated from Syriac into Arabic, and then into Latin (much later), so that didn't involve Persian (or Pahlavi).Jakob37 13:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC) :p.s. for a good example of an even-handed approach which has received praise, see the article on Persian Literature. Jakob37 15:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Persian not Farsi

The correct designation for the lingua franca of Iran in English language is Persian and not Farsi. This is an effort to replace the word "Persian" with "Farsi" is not only inappropriate with the history of the Persian language but also creates confusion and misunderstanding. While the use of the word "Farsi" is a political statement for some Islamic republic authorities, for others it may indicate a unawareness about the history of this language. It points towards those who carelessly promote the use of the word Farsi are indeed engaging in an ambiguous representation of this language and may not, by any means, be promoting Iranian culture. Surena 20:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What year did Persia start using the name Iran instead of Persia? Tracy

Please read the article about it. In a short summery, because Reza Shah wanted the international community to recognise Iran (Persia) by the name the Iranians recognise themselves. There could be many reason why he done this. But many Iranians still consider using the name Persia, because it does not create confusion with the neighboring Arabs States. --Arad 17:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

no only iranians in america di that because Iran has such a bad name there. but in Iran they call it Iran especially the minorety's because they are Iranian but not Persian

Google Earth

Wikipedia Google Earth Geographic Web Layer for Iran appears to be incorrect. On Google Earth, 4.0.2722, Jan 5 2007. It shows the Iran Wikipedia icon inside Iraq.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mlnovaaa (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

History section is History not current news or BBC station

Wow guys. Someone or some people are going way over the history section. we're having very recent dates as history and each is one paragraph. The least section of history, is way too long. History section stops at Iran-Iraq war. Even the section for the war is too long. I wont erase them until we have a consensus but this is WAYY to loong. --Arad 22:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

LAND OF THE ARYANS?

iv seen in many places that Iran is all persian people or w/e but genetics show that afghanistan has more aryan in them then iran and yet they dont include Afghans in that section. Afghanistan also means "Land of the Aryans" before Afghanistan it was Aryana and before that Khorosan, this is the first time i have seen taht Iran is called Land of the Aryan. some one help me on whats going on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.74.177.116 (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

It's the definition of the word "Iran" (Airiana). See the etymology article.--Nightryder84 02:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The response by Nightryder84 is correct and this meaning has been widely accepted by almost all historians, etymologists, and Linguists. Also to your comment regarding the name of Afghanistan, the name Afghanistan means the "Land of Afghans" and not Land of Aryans. Also to your comment regarding the name of Aryana, what you I think you are referring to is Airyanem Vaejah, which is what Achaemenid Empire was regarded as and not only afghanistan which was part of the persian empire in that time. --(Aytakin) | Talk 02:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Images

That world without Zionism image has to go. We all know that the presidency in Iran doesnt have any real power. He only has some domestic executive powers. He doesnt control the armed forces, or policy making. IOW, his words are not necessarily representative of Iran.--Nightryder84 02:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear issue?

I can't seem to find any mention of the nuclear issue, and the debate between Iran's right to nuclear power and the international community's fear that the nuclear technology and material could be misused. Is there another article on that subject? Isn't it a crucial current event? Scotchorama 16:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

see this Nuclear_program_of_Iran (full of details)--Pejman47 16:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I had found it by searching, but I do think that it's not very visible. But my comment may be a little POV-ish... Scotchorama 16:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

anyway, this article is about a country with atleast 2500 years of history, its cliamte and culture and etc. Putting more than a link to the mentioned event is somehow "currentism"--Pejman47 17:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The intro mentions "Iran is significant in international politics on account of its large supply of petroleum and influence in the region." While this is true, it should also mention--at least briefly--the debate over the development of Iran's nuclear programme. The 2500 years of history don't mean that one should ignore major current events. The main China article contains information on the current political situation. Omitting the topic completely is POV. Scotchorama 11:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for destroying the article

This article is destroyed by meaning. I can keep up cleaning it. It's the longest article on any country. The Cinema part is far from ridiculous and the history section (present part) is just stupid. Thank you for making this article one of the worst of wiki. (as mentioned before it's also very confusing). --Arad 00:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Again: why does the history section end in 1988? At least a link should indicate where information can be found on post Khomeini Iran. Scotchorama 11:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with scotch, who are you arad to decide what is stupid and ridiculous in the article all other countries have sections of music, art, film etc you dont have the right to revert others contributions! The western media empire is portraying iran as a backward nation while we are winning awards for our arts and sports worldwide, at least here it can be known. Also dont you think the earthquakes, millions of refugees, sanctions, Khatami, Ahmadinejad elections, zionist conferennce etc are major events worth of mentioning as well as Ahmadinejads actual statements and how they then are tainted and exploited in order for our brothers and sisters to get bombs rained on them again!!!??? You sit there in your cozy little house in sweet Canada and erase the truth I will at least let the truth get out there! Anybody that agrees with me should make this clear to this guy and let the truth be known!!! se Iran international crisis (the talk page) and see how Iranians from Iran are debating about their fear of military action, You are not the one who have to fight and die when it really comes down to it. Wake up Arad!--Cyrus111

Cyrus111, your massive, undiscussed, often unreferenced and messy additions to the article violates rules of Wikipedia (read WP:NOR, WP:V) as well as reducing the quality of article. I think you have completely misunderstood the purpose of this article. This article is not a collection of copy-pasted information related to Iran, we are not writing a book here. The purpose is to give an overview of the country to the reader and be concise and get-to-the-point. Information that are related but not required to informativeness of the overview and excessive details belong to separate articles. Original research and POV material are not allowed. Current events belong to news section, not here. Please stop disrupting the improvement process of the article and help improve the quality of the article instead. Thank you! - Marmoulak 21:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Marmoulak, I understand why one would tend to keep current events out of main articles, but this current event in question, i.e. Iran's stance in world politics and it's nuclear programme, is one of the major issues in the world today that attracts a lot of attention from everybody. Forget POV: to blatantly ignore it very misleading. Contemporary politics in Iran can be tackled in a very NPOV way. Right now, the history of Iran ends in 1988, according to the article. The article should present a fairly complete comprehensive overview of Iran, its history, culture, geography, and role in the contemporary world. To say that Iran is an important actor in international politics because of petroleum and its influence in the region is incomplete. It is also an important actor because of its declared political stance regarding crucial issues in the Middle East. Furthermore, it is also an important actor because of its stance on the development of nuclear. That's an unbiased fact. See China or the USA. The articles mention briefly current events. Scotchorama 23:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there already existed a brief present section but the one cyrus111 was trying to insert was a too long and mostly POV. - Marmoulak 00:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Again I agree with Scotch, millions of people read these articles to get a another source of information, a source that is based on facts and not P.R controlled media, there is not many other places they can get their factual news source. I am not saying lets make it in to a newsstation but at least mention on a factual base major events that are going on in Iran and which obviously gets major attention. Hence the article 1989-present is justified! Think of it this way: last part Irans history is the Iraqi invasion, and then nothing, and then suddenly Iran gets attacked again...-the follow up to that should be there! Iran is so much on the news these days and you only get to hear the "brainwashing part side" and not from a neutral journalistic point of view (which is non existent these days since there are only a few networks left).

File:Rotterdam-Iranians.jpg

Reza Abedini and Mohsen Namjoo on the poster of Rotterdam International Fim Festival (2007) Not worth mentioning in the article-ridiculous and ruins the article

File:Meera album cover.jpg

With careful maneuvering, Meera was one of the first rock acts to be able to gain state approval for an official album release. Not worth mentioning in the article-ridiculous and ruins the article

Apparently, for some strange reason some "Iranian"? editors here seem to think that thats Ok???!! And that its not needed, and that the human rights part where we have the -"freedom house-US backed-aipac lobbied-Iran liberty ranking-to justifie war" is ok, and that not bringing up cultural achievement such as the music part, architecture, poetry etc is ok, but doing so is ridiculous and ruins the article (see above). Here is an advice , if you can, "step out of yourself, think outside the box and stop the personifying of the article" and start representing your fellow iranians in Iran, this is what the article should mostly be about and not your personal opinion of what is ridicolous! They complain that the article is to long, an article that is now 84 kb and together with "present history" and "cultural mentioning" is about 100 kb altough tons of other aricles are way longer, just look at UK’s article for example, here is a country way younger than Iran and has not the fraction of Irans news coverage, but has 121 kb at its display, but thats ok... To some "Iranian"? editors (am I the only that sees whats going on here?)... Iran is today one of the greatest civilizations of the world Gore Vidal. Excuse me Cyrus111

Cyrus111, neither wikipedia is a discussion board nor am I willing to participate in a political debate with you. Read my previous post, WP:NOR and WP:V carefully. For every subject there exist and article in wikipedia, stop adding lengthy texts to this article and try editing the main article on subjects instead. - Marmoulak 00:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's makes really angry if anyone says I don't care about Iranians and Iran. The only reason I'm here is wiki is in fact Iran. You're not getting the point. I didn't revert your edits (except some seriously irrelevant ones). As you said we can BRIEFLY talk about current events but not in detail. Cyrus111, you added dozens of paragraphs talking about Zionism, Ahmadinejad, the nuclear issue, etc ,etc. These all have their own respective articles. The article of UK is very much better written than what your writing. All you do it copy paste, without considering this is an overview as marmoulak said. You add images that have nothing to do with this article. We don't need details here, we need overview. We need more sections, yes we have to talk about Iran's culture, but not about every successful movie. Then if that is the case, we should see Titanic, Gladiator, etc etc in the USA article because they are successful movies. This article is not long because it's 84 KB but because it has few section with too many paragraphs (mostly confused, unreferenced, added by one user and too much in detail, These in formations should be added in Iran's Cinema, history and other article dedicated to them. This article is not about News. Even if USA article talks about news, that doesn't mean it's right. Yes we should talk a bit about the current events, but not 5 paragraphs. And I'll be happy to know, where do you live? From the beginning of history section, for every Empire and link them to their article for more information, but you add so many information for the present Iran, it has nothing to do with history. Make a different section about current events (only one paragraph max) and link it to another article (which we already have) about more current events on Iran. --Arad 18:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Now i see some improvements, which is very good. Keep up the good work. (some sectioned are shoretened and now we have more section about Arts and others. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arad (talk • contribs) 18:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Arad, I partly agree with you, therefore I have now squeezed in "Iran-1989 present" in an article of its own and because you thought the music section was ridicolous I havent even added that, which I think we should. You are more than welcome to add any recent major event in the iran 1989 present part, for instance Ahmadinejad is being criticized back home for failing to keep economic promises to the Iranian people as well as other important issues. --Cyrus111

Too many pictures

Is this article a picture gallery? For example, in the Etymology section there are 4 pictures. I remember that a while ago there was only the map! The new military section has 5 pictures. I think many of these pictures can be removed. This is a encyclopedia not a gallery. I think we should have a vote to see what pictures should be removed. Thank you. Wikilo12 18:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly dont think there are to many pictures. Again we have to remember that if the Iran article "contains a bit more" its because of the long long history and all the important and influential characters throughout its history! for example you have the etymology part it, is Zoroaster then Darius and Xerxes who are the "namers" of the country and also a map where its name comes from another source. Further you have Cyrus and his empire, Avicenna and his canon of medicine and so on. The military part represents the army, navy, airforce and a glimpse to the historical women warriors- which I think should be combined with the women Basij members. Also there are other country articles with tons of pictures but not half the history. The pictures stays and even more added when the article is expanded, reading an article on wikipedia should be accompanied with an image it gives flavor, makes more fun to read and much more dimension than just "empty texts". Thanx Cyrus111Cyrus111 23:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Tavajjoh

Greater Iran's Barnstar of National Merit

This news item needs to be on the main page on the news section. Why isn't it?

[2][3]

I dont know why the media is ignoring this. Please spread the word around.--Zereshk 21:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Use this Wiki-Award

I just finished making this Barnstar. Wikicommons has no National merit barnstar for Iran (which is weird). So I uploaded it there. Please use it to support editors who are taking lots of shit because of their efforts to improve all articles pertaining to Iran. I hope u like my taste.--Zereshk 22:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

unconstructive edits

For God's sake, Cyrus111 take a lead of other featured articles on Wikipedia. Do not enlarge the pictures over 200pix and for those that are rectangular 150pix at most. Four freaking pictures for small sections like military and etymology is too many it reduces the quality of the article tremendously, looks more like a picture gallery than an article. Picture of a book doesn't illustrate the content or importance of a book, there are much better choices of images for that section (and it has enough images already). Do something constructive for a change - Marmoulak 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Bias issue part II:

This is somewhat related to the initial bias issue. There are a few sections that cause the reader to doubt neutrality. For example-

"It should be noted that Iran as a country has not invaded or committed aggression to any country for centuries and maintains its military doctrine is that of defense.[61]However the country continues to be demonized, and maintains under the threat of military action. [62]"

(1.) The second sentence is not a sentence. (2.) Citation 61 is more of a paraphrase that subtly changes the meaning of the citations. You can check the original source under the subheading Iran is a threat to the stability of the region. (3.) "Campaign Iran" does not appear to be the most neutral of sources. Reading through the entire citation leads to some questionable responses that indicates bias.

I am concerned this page is becoming less of an objective overview and more of a series of questionable articles. I understand if people wish to present countries in the best light possible, but that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Sentineneve 06:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that still in there? I thought I saw it get removed recently; probably a revert restored it. Feel free to remove that particular sentence if you come by it. It is rather silly; the people like to say that the country has 'always' been called Iran by the natives, yet when it comes to invasions, only IRI counts. People boast about Achaemenids, Parthians, Sassanians, Safavids, etc., who are all 'Iran', but not when it comes to military action. The double standard shouldn't be here. The Behnam 07:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Taking a look at it, it did say "centuries", which is arguable, but in no way merits the "innocent Iran" idea portrayed by the statement. The lack of invasions in the last century or two can just as easily be attributed to incompetence on Iran's part. The whole statement isn't necessary or merited; I think it was just added out of emotional response to Iran being demonized by its enemies. The Behnam 07:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it has been removed already. Sentineneve 15:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

To settle the disagreement on certain parts of the article, please participate in the following consensus and vote what you think is the better choice of images for each of the following sections. Choose 1 to 4 images for each section, the number of images you choose indicates how many images you think, there should be in the section.

From the fall of the Sassanian Dynasty to 1500 CE

• 
  #1
• #2
  #2
• 
  #3
• 
  #4
• 
  #5 (New)
• #6 (New)
  #6 (New)

• #2 - Marmoulak 16:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• #1,#5 - The Behnam 16:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• #3 - Giorgioz 16:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• #1 because it is an actual picture, not an imaginary illustration.--Zereshk 17:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can use one of the pictures of Ferdowsi, or a statue? The Behnam 16:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• #1, 4 or a good Ferdosi-related one --Rayis 17:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• #3, 5, 6. --Mardavich 21:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

• 
  #1
• 
  #2
• #3
  #3
• #4
  #4

• #1, #2 - Marmoulak 16:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• #2,#4 - The Behnam 16:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• #4 - Giorgioz 16:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• #1 - I think the map by Eratosthenes has more weight than imaginary illustrations.--Zereshk 17:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• #1, 4 --Rayis 17:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• #1, 2, 4. --Mardavich 21:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Military

• #1
  #1
• #2
  #2
• #3
  #3
• #4
  #4
• #5 (New)
  #5 (New)

• #2, #4 - Marmoulak 16:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• #3, #4, #5 - The Behnam 16:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• #2, #3 - Giorgioz 16:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• #4 - --Zereshk 17:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a picture of an Iranian helicopter? The Behnam 16:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• '#5 --Rayis 17:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• #2, #3, #4 - --Mardavich 21:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)