Talk:Iran

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive
for the week of March 19, 2006.
Current status: Delisted good article
inactive
.
WikiProject iconAssyria Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCountries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess
    .
WikiProject iconWestern Asia Top‑importance
WikiProject icon
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

HDI is incorrect

The HDI given for Iran does not match the source, which should be 0.798, "high".

Recent reverts

@HereIAmNow1379: I have undone your mass revert for several reasons:

  • You restored a significant volume of unsourced and poorly sourced content. Per
    WP:BURDEN
    you are required to provide reliable sourcing in order to restore this content
  • Image captions are meant to be succinct, typically
    no more than three lines
    ; more detail should be provided in the body, at linked articles, or on the image description page
  • There should not be more images than the volume of text can support, to avoid
    issues with article layout
    . Not everything discussed needs an image here.
  • You are adding a lot of content and detail to an article that is already quite long. The material here should provide only a
    child articles. The articles that you raised as comparators, Poland and China, are both significantly more succinct than this one. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Have not had time to really look but [1] Moxy- 16:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is truly useless. How is it possible that people put so much time and effort publishing useful information and deleted so easily?! If no one does anything, everyone's efforts will be wasted. So what I do is this:
1- I will remove some of the existing images and replace them with more important ones
2- I will put the information that was previously on the images on the the article body without the images
In this way, the rules will not be violated and I request you to please do not delete them so that the editing works of all users remain on the article. HereIAmNow1379 (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can no longer load full article on my phone to help trim...can only load lead ...18305 words is a huge problem. Moxy- 18:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Religion numbers and unreliable survey

For many years until this edit three days ago data from CIA's country factbook has been used in this article's Infobox under religion section. Articles of other countries like Syria use CIA factbook as well. The new source used three days ago is an unreliable online survey from an unknown website called "GAMAAN" with dubious results. For example, it claims 7.7% of Iran population (87 million) are Zoroastrian which would be more than 6 million people, while the number of Zoroastrians across the world is no more than ~ 120,000! This source has zero reliability to be used on Wikipedia, It is not clear who with what expertise has conducted such a survey and how it can make such big claims for an entire country. Either official numbers have to be used mentioning that they are official, or if there are concerns with those numbers we can remove all the stats, It is not madatory to have percentages for religious breakdown when reliable data is not available. Just look at Lebanon e.g. Drako (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You keep contradicting yourself. Are you interested in what's verifiable or in what's official? I've already pointed out to you that there's nothing "official" about CIA estimates because the CIA is not some sort of official decreer of the world's numbers. Largoplazo (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either remove the section or use reliable data. In the lack of reliable data, at least official numbers are more noteworthy than an unknown unreliable weblog with dubious credibility. Of course it needs to be declared that it is just "official" so reader is aware. Drako (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gamaan is not a ‘unreliable weblog’ with ‘dubious credibility’. It is written by political scientists from across the top universities in Europe, has outlined its methodology clearly, and has been cited by numberous international organisations. In addition, it has won global awards by leading research associations. This is made clear should you spend time researching them. AryanTuranica (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of citations: The Economist, the Atlantic Council, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, the Independent and the LSE Research Papers (the fourth most prestigious research institute and political science university in the world), to name a few. A dubious and unreliable source would never be cited to such extent. AryanTuranica (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those imply it is just an online poll of a few hundred people. It is by no means legit to extrapolate to an entire nation especially when it contradicts obvious facts. Drako (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem unfamiliar with how data is collected within political science. A poll is the most used and reliable method by Governments, so long as their methodology and shortcomings is provided. Gamaan has done this, which you would know had you done any research. ‘Especially contradicts obvious facts.’ What exactly do you mean by this? That 99% of the Iranian population is Muslism? That the regime’s well-known propaganda tool is more reliable than what actual political scientists and Iranians have clearly expressed? Such methodology can be extrapolated to an entire nation, and is the methodology used by international organisations and Governments. An additional element is found in the case of Iran: fear. Iranians cannot exress their religious beliefs freely to government agencies in fear of backlash and oppression. Gamaan’s methodology accounts for this and is the most reliable source when it comes to Iranian’s true beliefs. It may not have been cited by Wikipedia, but it has been by government agencies, local think-tanks and NGOs. AryanTuranica (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One poll is not definitive. PEW is also a poll, which says 78% of Iranians believe religion to be very important in their lives. So which one should we rely on?
What I mean by that is 6 million Zoroastrians living in Iran is a big claim for which there is no evidence. Fear of Iranians answering polls is probably true, but it does not justify pretending dubious polls and numbers provide a reliable picture of Iran. That undermines Gamaan's numbers too.
All I am saying is that according to Wikipedia rules multiple credible sourcers are needed to back up any such claims. Drako (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a poll. One of many. And it has not info who is behind it, no page in Wikipedia, no reliable sources use it, it has no credibility to dispute reliable sources like CIA factbook which are in wide use. What international organization are you talking about? Does UN and WHO use its results? We are not here to assess its methodology. We need to find what reliable sources verify as credible. And this particular poll has no wide consensus on the big claims it makes. It fits definition of a questionable source as per
WP:EXCEPTIONAL
, Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Claiming there are 6 million Zoroastrians is a huge claim, for which there is no evidence.
. Drako (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Author of this online poll himself admits "when the relevant question was phrased to focus on their religion rather than on their personal beliefs and faith, the number of participants professing Zoroastrianism went down significantly." So these numers at best, are raw data for a particular sample and cannot be claimed to be representative of the entire nation. Until and unless credible references, like encyclopedias, cite same numbers, it is not wise nor reliable to refer to its numbers as reliable. Drako (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talking about their article on Zoroastrianism, but their 2020 Survey. It has also been cited by numerous organisations which I have already named, but which you are clearly ignoring. There is no point continuing this discussion when it is clear you are uninterested in facts. Great job spewing an authoritarian regime’s propaganda! Very reliable and factual indeed. AryanTuranica (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Their article is describing findings of that Survey in detail. The article itself is casting doubt such numbers are a true representation of Iranians' religious mixup. You need to stop ad hominem attacks right there, I am warning you. Drako (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that what many people consider to be reliable sources about this specific topic are either official surveys from the Iranian regime, which are all but reliable or some vague estimates from other sources, often reliable, like CIA but who have no ground to give reliable figures here. Seriously, Iranian population being 99,4% Muslim ? who can belive this ?---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 08:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given this discussion and the following sections, I think the most appropriate resolution would be to remove the section from the infobox and discuss the differing estimates in the article text. This allows proper context to be given to each and avoids presenting one as the absolute fact when that is disputed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I endorse. Drako (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I support this decision, but unfortunately some people still revert it. I think it's better to take action yourself so that no one changes it, do something please, it's getting really annoying. Farnaj57 (talk) 11:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the problem with gamaan.org. The organization is based in The Netherlands, calling themselves Group for Analyzing and Measuring Attitudes in Iran (GAMAAN). The group is run by scholars. GAMAAN is cited by many as an authoritative source. The Voice of America cited them,[2] FiveThirtyEight cited them,[3] Tony Blair cited them,[4] the American Foreign Policy Council cited them,[5] as did New York magazine.[6] The University of Utrecht praised them for providing an accurate counterpoint to official Iran government numbers.[7] GAMAAN is always described as authoritative, a useful reminder that Iranian propaganda is not the final word on the attitudes of Iranians.
The numbers are fine in the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm seeing here is users' propaganda, not Iranian. That number is literally sourced with an Anti-Iranian-opposition website called "Iran International", not an "organization". Are we really going to trust an opposition website over the country's *official* general census? The info on the infobox is flat out wrong, and that is a fact since we have the official number. The correct info is in the demographics section, and its even mentioned here.
Most country pages don't even include religion numbers on the infobox to avoid what is happening right now: setting the talk pages on fire. That number will confuse the readers, and no one even cares... Farnaj57 (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"No one even cares" except all the people here who are "on fire" regarding the new numbers. You contradict yourself.
The group we are trusting is GAMAAN who are putting together various polls of Iranian attitudes. Their methodology is solid enough for Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Solid enough to present in the relevant section, certainly. But I'm not seeing a reason to present their number as primary. I've removed it per above. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the figures should remain in the infobox, I don't see why you removed that bunch of sourced content.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 06:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple sources which disagree, and when there are multiple sources which disagree it's not appropriate to assert a single truth as you have now done. This isn't required to be included, and it makes more sense in this case not to. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the "multiple sources" in question are often unreliable IRI sources ...---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When did the Iranian government, which is intent on Islam remaining the state religion, become a reliable source as to religious demographic data? Please don't respond that it's official, because that's meaningless, even Orwellian. Largoplazo (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2024

Please remove the religion section in the infobox, its already mentioned in the demographics section. Saeed.1348 (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done: Infobox is supposed to summarize the article. Section is appropriate.  // Timothy :: talk  23:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1- The one on the infobox at the top is wrong, sourced with unreliable websites, one of them being an opposition website (Iran International).
    2- The one on the demographics section is the official general census by the country, and its even mentioned here.
    Please correct the religion numbers on the infobox and match it with the official numbers on the demographics section, having two completely different statistics on the article will undoubtedly confuse the readers. Farnaj57 (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its good to have it for sure, but those numbers are completely wrong. Iran is a Shia majority country, its even mention on the demographics section. A recent edit broke all the information. Please change it to the previous statistics, which was the official one. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saeed.1348 (talkcontribs) 00:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with the use of "opposition" websites, which are often more reliable than those of the Iranian gov.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 06:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not have four different discussion about the same topic going on on this page at the same time. Largoplazo (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statics on religion section from infobox is completely wrong

Those religion numbers on the infobox is baseless and wrong, Iran is 90% Shia, and its mentioned on the demographics section which is heavily sourced. Its even mentioned here. Please someone change it to the previous statics which was the official one, and was previously discussed. Watchers should be more careful so that anyone does not change important information easily. ArmanOh (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is already being discussed above. Largoplazo (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2024

Hello. There is a problem on the article that needs an immediate fix, there are two different religion statistics that are going against each other:

1- The one on the infobox at the top is wrong, sourced with unreliable websites, one of them being an opposition website (Iran International).

2- The one on the demographics section is the official general census by the country, and its even mentioned here.

Please correct the religion numbers on the infobox and match it with the official numbers on the demographics section, having two completely different statistics on the article will undoubtedly confuse the readers. Farnaj57 (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An edit request detailing this is already open above. Please add on it to if you feel the need to instead of making a new one. Thank you!
Urro[talk][edits] ⋮ 17:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I didn't know that one is related to this topic! So I'm not the first to ask for this. Can you please do this and finish it once and for all? it's a big problem. A lot of users will be grateful. Farnaj57 (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

false information

Unfortunately, religion statistics are wrong and edited without any source and are very ambiguous Hkigssdwnb (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above and don't reinitiate the same discussion that has already been initiated on this page four times in the past week or so. Largoplazo (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15 Year Old Edit?

If you go back to September 2010, this image was there. Now, out of nowhere, we have an editor that had a eureka moment to delete it. I vote to keep it in another 25 years!

Edit in question (Under the Government and politics section):

Iran's syncretic political system combines elements of an Islamic theocracy with vetted democracy.

Twillisjr (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's included in Government of Iran, and more appropriately placed there. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
15 years of editors and traffic concurring that it belongs on the main page says otherwise. Twillisjr (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply being longstanding is not a rationale for retention. The proposed image is illegible at default size and conveys information appropriately expressed in prose. We cannot indiscriminately include every potentially relevant image. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Upon all the red and mass deletions of content in the recent history of the article shows what you are all about. Hope other editors come here and stop what you are doing.Ive got a delete button for the entirety of Wikipedia, wanna push it? Bet you would! Twillisjr (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nikkimaria is doing a great job at cleaning up the article. Moxy🍁 14:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moxy, trivia: Who is the Founder of Anonymous? Twillisjr (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We all do different things to improve the encyclopedia...some editors are more geared towards academic endeavors then others. Moxy🍁 02:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After 15 years of edits, with a multitude of editors writing in bits and pieces in an absence of complete editorial coordination and sometimes at cross-purposes, a shaggy article NEEDS a run-through to smooth it down and make it flow in a cohesive manner and remove excessive detail and redundancy. And the article is still too large, see WP:Article size — Preceding unsigned comment added by Largoplazo (talkcontribs) 02:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2024

Hello. Some information needs to be updated and improved:

1- According to the 2024 statistics, Iran is now the world's 14th military power. The current information in the military section is sourced with the same website but its dated to 2023, so all you have to do is just update the info and put the 2024 data. https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php

2- In the "medieval period" section, the image of Falak-ol-Aflak Castle has zero information, only the name of the castle is written. Add this text to the image (with link to the castle's name, Khorramabad city and Sasanian Empire): "Falak-ol-Aflak in Khorramabad, built in 240–270 AD during the Sasanian Empire."

3- At the beginning of the article, add a bold "(IRI)" next to the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is the country's definition, and multiple pages like China have this.

4- At the begninig of the "Government and politics" section, a very short explanation has been written, one which is already available in the human rights section. Please remove it.

5- At the end of "top", the word "people of Iran" is bold for no reason, please fix it.

Thank you! Saeed.1348 (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've made the edits you requested to Iran's Wikipedia page. Praxeria (talk) 08:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Already done Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persian miniature (?) enigma

Court scene.

Help! I cannot find a reference for this image. It is claimed as "

Ilkhanid or Jalayarid) and currently appears in the Arabic miniature article. Can someone confirm that the language of the text in the miniature is Persian, rather than Arabic? I would personally bet for a version of the Great Mongol Shahnameh. Any thoughts? Any RS reference for this image? पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Do NOT add new info unless you HAVE to.

Hey folks! I just wanted to say that if you're about to make an edit, please improve unpon the already-existing information as much as possible, and do not create new sections or more texts unless you have to. This article is definitely one of the heaviest among all the country pages, and long-time contributors are doing their best to keep the article's size as low as possible. If an extremely important news related to Iran has happened, add it to the artcile, otherwise, please aviod adding more texts. Thank you! Farnaj57 (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Of the material you removed in this edit, two parts were from existing material which I had actually edited to be smaller, while at the same time being more detailed. The 14.3% irreligious figure I think is especially important to contextualise the following Gamaan survey which puts those without a religion at a much higher (IMHO, less credible) number, and because this would be the largest non-Muslim minority if correct. If one of these claims is to be removed for brevity, I would make it the Gamaan survey. At the same time, I think this religion section is already quite small as it is and both can fit.
The one addition I made which did increase the size was the religious freedom score. That I think is important simply for its heavy significance, and and to contextualise the later point about Baha'i persecution.
If the problem is specifically that the images are overflowing the section itself, as you say in your edit message, then the more obvious solution would be to remove one of these four asides currently occupying such a small section. It seems hard to justify having so many, when the section itself has to be so small. Won't removing text from the section in fact only make the image problem worse?
As for the claim about Yarsani population, I don't think that source is very reliable, but it is worth including a proper estimate of the population. The Yarsani article itself gives academic sources of half to one million.
The final paragraph about Armenian church buildings is the paragraph that I would argue for condensing the most, if need be. It seems odd to mention specific buildings, when no buildings are mentioned for any other religion. This paragraph, on buildings, within a demographics section, is actually the largest paragraph. That doesn't make sense.
With this in mind I will try to restore the content while not increasing the overall size. Fedjmike (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]