Wikipedia talk:Iranian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 4

This page is an current talk page .

Many people only know about the crusades dealing with islam. Almost no one knows that the first crusade was infact against Zoroastrianism. Should i create a new article for this or add it in some way to the crusades page?

I think the best way is to add it to the crusades page. I am not sure how much info you have on the subject, but if it isn't that long the best way would be the main article. You are right, not many people have heard of this. Including me. Where did you learn about this? --(Aytakin) | Talk 05:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

will durant's books. he was a very educated historian.

Iranian Patriot

15:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!--(Aytakin) | Talk 15:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

See, the reason i asked was because the Crusades page is about the muslim christian wars. putting in zoroastrianism there just doesnt make sense. i will look and see how much information i can get and then decide were to place the information.

I am trying to get a copy of another book that also talks about this first crusade. then hopefully i will have enough information to create a full article dedicated to this subject.

Iranian Patriot

19:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought about that too, but if we don't have much info it won't make sence to create a stub. Also I am looking into getting his book "Age of Reason". NONE of the book stores around me have it and the only one that has it is online and its out of stock. I'll try looking for it on amazon. --(Aytakin) | Talk 04:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have gotten a hold of a 364 page book dedicated to that crusade. i dont think we will have a problem with information. once i finish reading it i will start the page.

Just out of curiosity: which war exactly are you referring to? That between the Byzantines and the Persians in the 7th century? I'm sure that's already dealt with under some other page. And be aware that this war, or whichever else it is you're thinking of, is not commonly referred to as a crusade, let alone "The First Crusade" as a name, in English. The most it might warrant is a sentence that some author has described it as a kind of crusade or likened it to the Crusades. You need to distinguish between usage of proper names and descriptive common nouns here. "The Crusades", as a name, refers to the wars between the westerners and the Muslims, period. Just my 2c as an outsider. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

actually, the wars between christianity and zoroastrianism have been called by some historians as holy wars, and they contend that heraclius actually did implement a crusade. what is certain is that khosrow II, shah of Persia, did call for a holy war against christianity, in which thousands of jews and non-christians also participated in, on the side of the zoroastrians. there is a lot of evidence supporting the fact that the there was actually a crusade.

if there is already a section on it, can you show me the link so that i may expand on it? i dont think there is anything about it on wikipedia yet.Khosrow II 06:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

See

Khosrau II. I think 'Roman-Persian Wars' is the best place (and there should be a redirect from Byzantine-Persian Wars or something similar. I strongly warn against using "Crusade" in an article title here, - it may be a characterisation employed by some author or other, but it's certainly not the name these wars are known under commonly in English. Fut.Perf. ☼

06:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

To Iranian Patriot, you said you have a 364 page book. What's the name of the book? Thanks--(Aytakin) | Talk 07:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

sorry, its actually 280 pages (i was estimating at that time). its The First Crusader: Byzantium's Holy Wars by Geoffrey Regan. the book starts of talking about christianity and how it expanded and eventually became the main religion of rome. then it goes on to talk about the holy wars against zoroastrianism, and then goes on to talk about the byzantine wars against the islamic armies. but from the looks of it, it seems to have a good chapter or two dedicated to the zoroaster vs. christianity conflict.

Also, I would against like to stress that heraclius's war against persia from 622-628 was infact a crusade; the persians had captured jerusalem, and had taken the true cross and many other christian relics back to persia, and the byzantines did everything they could to take them back, including using religion to help fill their ranks, just as the other crusades against the muslims. Also, Fert.Perf, i want to thank you for the links. But there is nothing dedicated specifically to this subject, and i believe it deserves its own page. I will finish the book soon and then decide whether i have enough information to create a page, if not, then i will just add on to those links. also, i didnt realise that there was very few information on the "battles of the sassanid empire" page, i will definetly also be adding some battles to that too.Khosrow II 14:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll make sure to read that book. thanks--(Aytakin) | Talk 16:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid the statement "...was in fact a crusade" doesn't make much sense - "The Crusades" is, first of all, a proper name that refers to just a fixed set of events; over and above that, it's a very loose concept that can mean everything and nothing and has no fixed meaning in historical scholarship, for all I know. If anything, it would denote a war that was sanctioned by the Pope through a certain formal indulgence. That, not the target Jerusalem, would have been the defining criterion. Which doesn't apply here. So I'd strongly recommend, yes, by all means, expand the articles that we already have about the Byzantine-Persian wars, and do mention that "these wars have been likened to the later Crusades by some authors" or something to that effect, but please don't use that term in the title or as the principal point of an article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the eastern orthodox church has as much ability to call for a crusade as does the pope. just because the term "crusades" refers to a fixed set of events does not mean that the word crusade cannot apply to other holy wars. infact, recovering jerusalem, which was the holiest place on earth at the time for christians, recovering the true cross, and defending the "christian empire" (the byzantines believed their empire to be a christian one ordained by God, and therefore, they had to do everything in their power to defeat the non-believers) all support the context that it was a crusade. also, the byzantine emperors used their religion and God to swell their ranks and boost morale. all of this fits with the events of the later crusades, and was infact the first crusade. infact, the byzantines even sacked the holiest zoroastrian city in their holy war, and destroyed all the temples where ever they went. thse wars have been over shadowed by the later crusades, but nevertheless, this was a crusade and needs to be recognised. the byzantines were about to be wiped out, their empire was crumbling, almost nothing was left of it, however, their crusade gave them the morale and will to rescue the dying empire for another 1000 years.Khosrow II 19:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You still need to distinguish between proper names and common nouns. Not every war that happens to have lasted 30 years is The Thirty-Years' War. Not every revolution that happened in France is The French Revolution. Not everything that could be or has been described as a "crusade" is The Crusades. You may think that the term "crusades" can be "apply to other holy wars". Fine. Some authors may think so. Fine. But fact is, the term isn't commonly applied this way. So, it doesn't make for more than a sentence or two in an overall article, which will deal with that war under whatever normal term it is commonly referred to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

your disputing the title? I thought you were trying to say that it wasnt a crusade. Im not saying that these wars should be called "The Crusades", im saying that these wars were crusades. we can call them what ever you want, that doesnt matter to me. infact, i was planning to call the article Perso-Byzantine Holy Wars or something. There is obviously some confusion here as to what each of us is talking about.

I thought that you were implying that the byzantine holy war was not a crusade but in reality you were tyring to say that we cannot have the title be called "the crusades". am i correct?Khosrow II 20:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was indeed implying that the statement these wars were crusades is not one that we can simply state as an NPOV statement. We can state that they have been called crusades, or better still: they have been likened to the Crusades (by such-and-such an author). As for the title, the best title is simply

POV fork anyway, I guess. Fut.Perf. ☼

20:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

ok well, i will finish reading the book, and then we can see what happens next. Khosrow II 20:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me know when you start, I might be interested in making some contributions too. Maybe I can dig out some material from the Byzantine perspective of things. Take care - Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

oh trust me, everything in western books will be of the byzantine perspective, just like the book i am reading now. its the typical western bias against anything not european, but oh well, i'll deal with it.Khosrow II 21:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example; on the

To ALL of you for creating the 1000th featured article for the English Wikipedia! The article Iranian peoples is written by many members of this notice board. Congratulations to all of you. And keep on the good job! Tajik 16:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Press releases: English Wikipedia Announces Thousandth Featured Article ---> Iranian peoples -Wikimedia

Yes congrats. I see users tombseye and khoikhoi have helped making the article into a FA but its still sad to see that only those two have gotten all the credit in the wikimedia news article. Once again congrats. --Spahbod 09:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Regional notice boards#A uniform naming scheme. Zocky | picture popups 00:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The article contains facts that are not fully explained, nor are they fully neutral. Before I start, I would just like to inform you that I am the only one ever using hte talk page, as Grandmaster and Tajik ignore the discussions, yet refuse to allow any changes.

Let me begin:

• The article makes a very general statement saying: there is no specific ethnic criteria as to what constitutes a Turk

Is that not general? How can insert such a broad and general claim into an encyclopaedia? If there isn't anything that constitutes a Turk than couldn't someone, by this statement, claim that everyone is a Turk or no one is a Turk? Now let me point out to you the section I created on the Talk page regarding this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azerbaijani_people#Problem_with_his_sentence

Notice how neither Grandmaster nor Tajik even bothered to comment on it. That section has been open for days, and both those users are watching the page. They have asserted complete control over the article by not participating in the discussions, yet reverting any changes that they don't like, even when they have had the ability to object. How is this fair? Its not. Now I would not make any edits before discussing the issues, but the problem is that they do not discuss any of the issues, they simply ignore them and use their influence to keep control.

• Now to the second point. The Turkic theory is a theory first brought up by pan-Turk historians not long ago. Almost no one outside the Turkish world acknowledges this theory, and historical facts, as well as DNA testing, have proven it wrong. Now a week ago, I started a section on the talk page discussing this issue. For days I waited and I got no response from them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azerbaijani_people#The_Turkish_Theory

And if you notice, I said that if no one objected to my claims, then I would add into the article that the Turkic theory has been proven mostly to be wrong. After that, I waited one more day, and still got no reply so I assumed that no one objected and made the change. Then all of a sudden, Grandmaster reverts it and tells me that I should not make such edits. So then I put a message on his talk page: Hello Grandmaster. I would like to inform you that i started a discussion about the theory, which everyone ignored (For reasons i dont know), so after waiting a day or two, i wrote down that if no one objected, i would assume that people agreed with me, and again i waited one more day just to make sure. then after that, i took action. if you would like to discuss the issue with me, we can here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azerbaijani_people#The_Turkish_Theory

Thanks.Khosrow II 15:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Finally after that he responded: You know the rules. Any edits to the article should be based on authoritative sources, and not personal interpretations. Grandmaster 07:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The irony is that later on in the very same article, it says that DNA testing has shown that Azari's are closer to Persians and other Iranic peoples than they are to Turks anywhere. Now please, tell, does this alone not prove the Turkic theory wrong? And he claims that I have POV issues, yet the article itself is contradictory, and that is what I was attempting to fix!

• Now I will get to the recent edits I made which resulted in me getting blocked for breaking the 3rr rule (which GM and Tajik requested of the admins). Again, as usual, before I made any changes, I created a section on the Talk page where we could discuss these issues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azerbaijani_people#The_Edits

Now let me tell you the changes I made, and you can tell me whether they are reasonable or not:

1. The article mentions that the Turks invaded the region from Turkmenistan. Turmenistan did not exist then, so I merely changed it to "from modern day Turkmenistan" (meaning the region of what is today Turkmenistan).
2. The article also states that the Turkic theory is based on the Azerbaijani language. Now, the Azerbaijani language was not always a Turkic dialect, so I again put "modern Azerbaijani language", because previous to that the Azerbaijani language was a Persian dialect.
3. The last change I made was inserting facts that disprove the Turkic theory into the article. For a theory, one must include evidence that both proves and disproves it am I correct? I also invited Grandmaster to insert anything that disproves the Caucasian theory or Iranian theory if he liked, since this is an academic source and the reader mush get as much information as we can give them.

Now please, tell me if I am a reasonable person or not. I created discussion sections, I waited for days, and then and only then, when no one objected, did I make any changes. I think it is unfair that people like Grandmaster and Tajik can have so much control over an article. Please talk to them, and tell them that they cannot do things like this, if you support what I'm saying here. I am looking forward to your response's.

I would again like to stress the fact that Grandmaster and Tajik did not participate in any of those discussions, never objected to anything when I waited for days for a response, and yet revert any changes immediatly, even after I waited for so long to discuss the issues before making any changes. I believe they are purposely not engaging, so that they can simply revert articles and use their influence, without ever having to face these issues, and keep the article the way they like it, not necessarily the way it should be.Khosrow II 20:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The information given in the

"... The transmission of Persian culture to Anatolia begun with the foundation of the Saljuq state in the 12th century and gained speed after the Mongol invasion of Persia in the 13th century. Many Persian scholars, writers, and poets fled to the empire of the Saljuqs of Rum, following the Mongol onslaught on the Iranian lands. These highly educated men played an important role in the revival of Persian culture and literature, which had begun already at the beginning of the 13th century. Subsequently, many works in Persian, dealing with history, literature, philosophy and Sufism, were produced in Anatolia in the 13th and 14th centuries. As a result, Persian became the language of instruction at several madrasas, and Persian words were often used for place-names, personal names, and occupational activities, as well as in certain religious, legal, and official records. As a result of those developments, in the 13th century, Anatolia was thus intensively influenced by Persian culture. Intellectual life developed very effectively in the cities, where scholars copied or created religious works. [...] Scholars of Persian origin who had emigrated to Anatolia continued their activities in the cities of their new home (Aya Sofya, no. 3605), and many of them stayed in contact with their native lands. Students of the scholars active in Anatolia generally consisted of youngsters from princely families and palace officials [...] During the period of the Anatolian beyliks, following the COLLAPSE of the Saljuq State in the 14th century, the Turkish language gained gradually in importance, and consequently the influence of Persian culture and language weakened in Anatolia to a certain degree. ..." "Persian Manuscripts in Ottoman and Modern Turkish lLibraries" by O.Özgündenli in Encyclopaedia Iranica

So, as opposed to the information in the article, the FALL of the Seljuq dynasty marked the Turkification of Anatolia and the improved the role of Turkish (because, unlike the Seljuq Sultans, the Turcoman "beyliqs" spoke Oghuz instead of Persian).

Besides that, the Britannica-source attached to that information (#21) does not support this claim at all. Britannica actually supports the view of the Iranica:

"... Persian cultural autonomy flourished in the Seljuq empire. Because the Turkish Seljuqs had no Islamic tradition or strong literary heritage of their own, they adopted the cultural language of their Persian instructors in Islam. Literary Persian thus spread to the whole of Iran, and the Arabic language disappeared in that country except in works of religious scholarship. ..." [2]

Tājik 01:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

when you post something in the urgnet issues section or other related sections, please point out what is wrong with the article. because what may seem wrong to someone may not seem wrong to some one else and this causes confusion. for example, there are some articles with "POV problems" that i dont even know what is POV about them...because they seem fine to me. Khosrow II 18:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we tried that, but an administrator deleted it, we still should describe the problem but better not mention any names. --Spahbod ☼ 02:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, please remove any article no longer under attack from the temporary issues list. --Spahbod ☼ 03:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"Make sure the article is protected on the correct version" is not an appropriate description, the purpose of the notice board is to notify people about an article in need of attention, not to make a judgment call on the content. Baba bahaneh nadid dast bazihaa ke bian behemon ang bezanan baz. ps. I made some changes to the page's format, please keep it neat and simple, one section is enough for urgent notices no matter what they are. Yadateon basheh yek seri bikar injaa doust darand bara Iraniha moshkel ijaad konand, siasat be kharj bedid vaa bahaneh alaki dasteshon nadid. --Mardavich 19:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Now i will not name any names or anything, because i know that is against the rules, but i will say that i am being unfairly persecuted because i am trying to up hold wikipedia's standards regarding the scytho-iranian theory. I have been threatened with getting permanently blocked. Ali, Arash, and Tajik know what the situation is. Khosrow II 03:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Being threatened by an user that is not an admin does not mean anything. Those warning signs which some users may have sent to your talk page is free for all to use, if you are sure about your sources just send back the warning sign to the user which sent you it. --Spahbod ☼ 12:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It was getting really long and a lot of the debates were getting old, so I archived it. What do you think? I forgot to ask lol. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 07:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, congrats to all who have contributed to the

A few days ago, I also nominated Iranian peoples for the "today's featured article": Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#Iranic_peoples

Please feel free to comment on it or to suggest a certain date for it.

Tājik 01:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

werent these articles already featured articles? im confused.Khosrow II 02:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"Today's featured articles" are featured articles that are shown on Wikipedia's main page. Today, for example, Wikipedia's main page article is

Azerbaijani people. Tājik

08:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

okKhosrow II 02:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Pan-Farsism - discussion page: [3]

Scytho-Iranian theory - discussion page: [4]

Khosrow II 17:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A pan-turkist user is trying to make controversy in:

thanks

I am watching those article, but school has started and I wont be here during the day to help you much.Khosrow II 02:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for standing up for the truth here: [[5]]

Apparantely this user does not desist and now claims Ossetic is not an Indo-European language! Please see

That is why I have complained against this user and ask you if you have time to also complain:

[[6]] [[7]] (one up). --Ali doostzadeh 01:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also look at for RV's done by pan-turkists on Scythians, Alans, and Ossetic people. --Ali doostzadeh 16:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

British troops are mobilizing on the Iranian border http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060830&articleId=3097

We should make a complete list of all Iran related articles because I dont know all of them, and I'm sure others dont know all of them either. We need to have this list, so we can keep track of them and make sure they are all being watched. We also need this so that we can make sure that there arent any articles out there that we dont know about. For example, the Rasulzadeh article was full of anti Iranian propaganda till I came across it and fixed it. I suggest we make the list on the Wiki Iran project page.Khosrow II 15:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Just work on and expand

List_of_Iran-related_topics and List_of_Persia-related_topics. --Mardavich

07:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with lists is that they can be difficult to maintain once they become large. A more decentralised solution is to consult and improve Category:Iran and Category:Persia. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of articles that are already found under these two categories. –jonsafari 18:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is appropriate. It's like me going to WikiProject Turkic and adding this same same note – "please post your opinion". If the article really should be deleted, then we will probably see mostly non-Iranians voting to delete it as well, right? IMO, posting this here is the equivalent of spamming multiple talk pages. —Khoikhoi 04:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The DYK section featured on the main page is always looking for interesting

Although it talks little about Iran it mentions some very important points relevant with Iran. There is also one interesting part about why and how tea was introduced to Iran/Persia

The War in Afghanistan: Drugs, Money Laundering and the Banking System http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061017&articleId=3516

That article is a total joke, that's the whole point. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 09:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

توران would be pronounced Turân, which is the name of an ancient peoples that the Iranians were at war with, according to the Shahnameh. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 09:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. István 14:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I just came across

Of the people you named, the only Armenian-Iranian is Andranik Teymourian. I'm not certain about Sebo Shahbazian, but the other ones are defiantly not Armenian. "Ian" originates from Persian, so a lot of Persians have "Ian" at the end of their family names too. --Mardavich 03:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am in the trial runs of the User:AlexNewArtBot (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/AlexNewArtBot). The bot analyzes the new articles for a day and puts suspected Iran-related articles into User:AlexNewArtBot/IranSearchResult, the articles are suppose to be manually put into the portal page and/or removed if irrelevant.

The list of rules are in User:AlexNewArtBot/Iran the first pattern between the slashes on each line is the pattern that should be present in the article to trigger the rule (note the case insensitive match. The other patterns on the same line are suppose to inhibit the rule. E.g. for the Russian board /florida/ inhibits /petersburg/ rule as the article is most probably about the American city. If you are reasonably familiar with the regular expressions and know what you are doing, you can edit the rules straight away, but better ask me. In the Russian board I had to remove some rules: e.g. there are a lot of non-Russians named Vladimir and Chita, so I had to remove the names of the cities or have to much false positive. If you are interested why an article went to the list there is log on the User:AlexNewArtBot/IranLog explaining the rule that sent an article to the searchresults (if the log is cleared try to look into the history of the log).

That is all. Any suggestions are welcome. Alex Bakharev 20:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please check the following articles and their discussion pages:

Ahem! - improved. The Behnam 05:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder to people that there are some articles which use the term "Middle East" as an ethnic group, when such ethnic group does not exist. All real sources use this as a geographic term, so please, if you come across an article which uses the inappropriate and ambiguous term "Middle Easterner" (especially in relation to non-Arab peoples) please correct it. Unfortunately there are many ignorant people who want to claim that "Middle Easterner" is the same as "European" or "Asian" which is 100% not true and no good sources back this up. So we should do our best to correct this prejudice and ignorance. See also

Hello guys. Please see this discussion at ANI. It has been found that User:ParthianShot had been uploading a lot of copyvio images from a website called cais-soas.com. Further investigation shows that the website may not be holding the original rights to those images or articles. So it is advised not to use the website as a primary source for the article for the same reason that we don't use any other encyclopedia as a source. Material from the website should definitely not be copied verbatim and images from there should not be uploaded by anyone. The website is linked 507 times from wikipedia. Please go through the articles which reference the website and discover the actual sources. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I rooted most of those out not too long ago. Thanks for the notice - it is very important that that site not be used on Wikipedia. The Behnam 05:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

pretty sure this article about a supposed iranian ethnic group is a hoax, nothing in the refs or anything on google started by an spa (Simon 5767 (talk · contribs)) etc. cld someone here pls check it in case i'm missing variant spellings or something like that? thx  ⇒ bsnowball  13:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello folks,

If you're interested in joining the Wikipedia meet-up, please join our discussion. You can register for the Open Source Summit here. If you would like some assistance with local accomodations, you may email User:Bentong Isles.

The Philippine Wikipedia Community

I chanced on this noticeboard after commenting on this famous Iran hostage crisis photo that some allege was Ahmadinejad used as "fair use" and evidently in a few articles. I don't have time to figure out image policy or if it's POV uses so thought I'd mention it here for you all. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a constant edit war in the article

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_9#Category:Transportation_in_Iran TruckCard (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please we need the help of someone who knows Farsi/Persian!

The article Wolf attack doesn’t know very much at all about the phenomenon of wolf attacks in Iran/Persia, historically nor in modern times.

We are beginning to learn much more about wolf attacks in such places as Russia and India, but we are still missing what Farsi-language experts have to say about the matter, but none of us can read papers like these: THESE CLICK HERE. If you can read Farsi/Persian well enough to read that and would like to help, please let us know on the talk page of the article Wolf attack or for the re-write in production see here.

For example, is it true, and has been claimed that:

"...for a millennia people have reported wolves attacking and killing humans. In winter, when starving wolves grow bold, they have been known to enter towns and kill people in daylight on the streets. Apparently, in Iran, there are many cases of wolves running off with small children. There is also a story of a mounted and armed policeman (gendarme) being followed by 3 wolves. In time he had to get off his horse to attend to nature’s call, leaving his rifle in the scabbard. A later reconstruction at the scene of the gnawed bones and wolf tracks indicated that the horse had bolted and left the man defenseless, whereupon he was killed and eaten."

This claim was cited to a book entitled "Big Game Animals of Iran (Persia)" by a "Rashid Jamsheed", who supposedly was a great conservationist and a U.S.-trained biologist and the game director for Iran. We can't use these claims to fact any more and therefore will be practically ignorant about it, except a few attacks in the last few years, that is all, as this book is lost.

Chrisrus (talk) 05:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

(timestamp may not be accurate) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Believer (talk • contribs) 15:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)