Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:54, 10 May 2006

Iran NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Countries NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

Template:Past AID

Iran/Archive 10 has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Template:Todo priority

Archives
March 2003 – July 2005 February 2005 – November 2005 November 2005 – January 2006 January 2006 – April 2006

POV on recent events

Since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election, Iran has frequently been the target of verbal attacks by the United States. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's naturally outspoken nature has caused him to respond to this frequently by re-asserting that Iran's sovereignty is not dependent on the United States. Most recently, high level officials in the United States have even discussed violating Iran's territorial integrity by invading the nation over its nuclear ambitions. In a show of support, Russia and China currently oppose any military action against Iran and the United Nations has elected Iran to a vice-chair position on the U.N. Disarmament Commission. Iran claims that it was their sole right to develop nuclear technology on a "Peaceful scale". Although Iran had previously agreed to limit its activities to peaceful energy production, in response to the threat of invasion, Iran has recently announced that the nation is now researching the construction of a P2 centrifuge, one of the most important components in the purification of Uranium 235, the core of a nuclear bomb, and is mobilizing a large army in its own defense.

Please explain how this is neutral. It represents only the Iranian side of the facts, and does not even mention Ahmadinejad's remarks on Israel or the bomb which reflect a quite different course of events than is given above. I am taking suggestions on how to rewrite this paragraph to include both sides of the events. Wikiacc (?) 21:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

True, what do you suggest we change it to? -- - K a s h 22:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The easy thing is to just get rid of the section. -- Jeff3000 22:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you put yourselves in the position of a third-party observing the situation, and use the following as a basis for rephrasing with an extra reference:

"Since the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, there has been an increase in tensions between Iran and the United States, particularly with regard to the nuclear issue and the possibility of military action. However, military action is opposed by other members of the U. N. Security Council, in particular Russia and China. Significantly, Iran has recently been elected to the post of vice-chair on the U.N. Disarmament Commission. Iran claims the right to research nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it has signed.. Most recently, President Ahmadinejad announced that Iran is now researching the construction of a P2 centrifuge, which "American officials and inspectors say could speed Iran's path to developing a nuclear weapon."

Obviously it needs a little tweaking. Green Giant 23:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I like it, well done. -- - K a s h 23:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The changes to the paragraph say nothing about the United States and its unwarranted aggression. Namely, for almost a decade Bush and his administration have repeatedly verbally attacked Iran, calling them names like "an axis of evil". It is the policies of the United States and their posturing, not the offhand comments of Iran's hotheaded president, that have caused these tensions. Words like "pre-emptive strike", "all options being on the table", not to mention the fact that everything coming from the US government mirrors precisely what they said before they went into Iraq, would naturally put any nation into a defensive posture. The coming conflict has the potential to destabilize into a significant nuclear action, making it one of the most significant threats to Iran in fifty years. We owe it to each and every individual who is residing within that nation to present the facts- and that means including both comments regarding Mahmoud's posturing AND the hostile peacocking that the US has been bristling for years now. Never Cry Wolf 01:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The article should be a neutral presentation of the existing events. If you want to include words like "Bush and his administration have repeatedly verbally attacked Iran" then you need to find a verifiable source for this. We owe the citizens of Iran and the USA absolutely nothing of the kind being suggested. Present the facts with verifiable sources. Anything beyond this is entering original research territory. I am not saying that the paragraph changes I made are absolutely perfect but I tried writing it from a third-party perspective. Green Giant 02:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable source? Are you actually suggesting that you are not aware of the constant rhetoric being thrown out into the miasma by the administration of the US? Calling a sovereign nation "evil", let alone an entire "axis of evil", not to mention an "outpost of tyranny", has vowed , and, most frighteningly, Bush is actually planning on being the first world leader since WWII to [actually utilize nuclear weapons against the population of another nation! What we owe the citizens of Iran and the USA is the truth, presented with ALL the facts intact. Yes, these facts are, right now painting a very dismal picture of the US' role in Iran, but those ARE the facts. Never Cry Wolf 03:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This section is supposed to be about the history of Iran. It's not the place to complain about Bush or the US. Perhaps we need another page on Iran/US relations? At the very least the one-sidedness of the content should be cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attila226 (talk • contribs)

This section is about Iran- past and and present. Considering the ramifications that are occurring at this very moment, the threat of nuclear warfare against that nation is far more than "complaining about Bush". Certainly the events that are transpiring are possibily the most important thing that's happened to Iran itself since the Revolution in the 70s- most certainly as important as anything else mentioned in this article. Not to mention that, if the US DOES utilize a nuclear weapon, Iran would be only the third nation in history to actually have a nuclear device offensively used against it. To say that the ensuing conflict is merely "political views", or "complaining about someone" takes a far too simplistic perspective on the facts as they stand. Regarding the "one-sidedness", the problem is that the previous changes have taken it too far entirely, either completely removing any mention of the US' culpability in this (and thus attempting to make it appear as if Iran is acting out of only a desire for conquest), or have erased the article entirely. If you believe that a more neutral point of view, one that includes specific mention of US aggression against Iran, by all means, it should be welcomed. Never Cry Wolf 03:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out those links Never Cry Wolf, it is precisely what I mean't by verifiable sources. I wasn't suggesting at all that I am not aware of the events surrounding Bush and Iran but it is not good enough for an article for me or you to say we know this. It's necessary for us to show where we got this information. :P Green Giant 03:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You are quite welcome, Green Giant. I look forward to seeing what improvements that you can make to the article. You seem to have a knack for writing- a good quality for sure. It'll be interesting to see how the prior discussed paragraph turns out. Never Cry Wolf 04:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me, what is this "US aggression against Iran" that you speak of? Are there specific actions (not speculation) that have occurred that you can refer to? Do you have specific quotes from US government officials that you'd like to point us to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attila226 (talk • contribs)

I've inserted a slightly modified version of the paragraph in place of the one that Wikiacc objected to. As soon as we have consensus on the wording, feel free to replace the new paragraph. By the way Never Cry Wolf, I made some improvements in the lower parts of the article, especially references about a week ago - . The only change anyone objected to was the size of the Farsi script - which seemed a fair argument. Green Giant 23:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks good, Green Giant. While there doesn't seem to be mention of the US' plans to attack Iran with nuclear weapons in it, the new paragraph follows the NPOV rules to a tee. Honestly, I'm not sure how one can word "The US is planning on nuking Iran, making it an uninhabitable wasteland for half a century" without POV.. :/
Never Cry Wolf 01:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You could write that as "The Bush administration has raised the possibility of using nuclear weapons in any conflict with Iran"? Does anybody object to removing the big POV sticker now that the paragraph has changed? Green Giant 02:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove the tag. -- Jeff3000 02:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The picture

My input:

I personally think Ahmadinejad's picture doesnt belong on the front main page of Iran. It gives the impression to the reader that Iran is equivalent to ahmadinejad. And that is not right. I vote for it's removal.--Zereshk 02:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Photographs of George W. Bush appear twice on the United States of America article, and Bush certainly isn't the USA. I don't see how this case is any different; admittedly Bush has much more political power in the USA than Ahmadinejad has in Iran, but they're both key figures in international politics for their respective countries. Putting a photograph of an individual on a page about a country neither implies that the individual is the country nor implies that the individual is an utterly uncontroversial, unanimously-supported figure symbolizing all of the country's ideals and hopes and dreams. All it says is that the individual is a highly important political figure in the country in question, and that's certainly indisputable in the case of Ahmadinejad: the President of Iran is the highest directly-elected official in Iran. -Silence 02:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The photograph of George W. Bush does appear on the United States of America, but that's not the norm in all of the country-related articles. I personally don't think Ahmadinejad's photograph belongs on this article, as the article's focus is the country of Iran, not the current government. --ManiF 03:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The image of President Ahmadinejad is now next to the Politics section. He is effectively the chief spokesman of Iran, so I think an image of him is appropriate in the Politics section. Does that solve the objection? Green Giant 02:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere on the US page does Bush appear alone portrait style. His image apprears in a different context such as "Patriot act" or "No child left behind". The president has its own page. This image should be removed. The article is about a large autonomous country with millenia old history and sovereignty. Not about who leads it. I can bring other reasons why the image doesnt belong here.--Zereshk 03:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Article improvements

I've read this article thoroughly and it is a good article with a thorough overview of Iran, but there are some issues that need to be resolved. This is just a rough set of proposals:

1. The lead is good and should be left for the moment.
2. The naming dispute section is also good but does that image have to be there? Could it be moved down to the History section where it is more appropriate?
3. The main body of text is forced into awkward-looking shapes by the images being at left and right side. Choose one side and make all images stay that side.
4. The History section should be condensed to a summary of about five paragraphs without the two subheadings.
5. The Politics section has too many short subsections and should be condensed to five paragraphs covering the President, Executive, Legislature, Assembly of Experts plus Councils of Guardians and Expediency together and finally the Judiciary. The numerous subheadings are unnecessary and clutter the article up.
6. The Provinces section should be renamed to something like Provincial and Local Government and expanded to include the City and Village Councils paragraph from just above it. Expand on the Provinces, in prose format – explain for example how the provincial system has evolved over the years.
7. The Geography section is good, but the subheading for Climate should be removed and the subsection merged into the main section. Also a source for the Cradle of Humanity sentence should be added as it’s a fairly big claim.
8. The Economy section needs condensing to four paragraphs, images moved to one side and some sources for sentences like "Modern Iran has a solid middle class and a growing economy but continues to be plagued with high inflation and unemployment."
9. Condense Demographics to prose form without subsections and remove the gallery of cities to Commons. Instead a table will do the job of presenting populations better.
10. The Culture section is good but again some condensing wouldn’t go amiss especially with the one-sentence paragraphs.
11. To maintain NPOV, it’s necessary to discuss positive and negative aspects within the various sections, like communal/ethnic tensions, economic and political issues.
12. Wherever possible subheadings should be done away with.
13. Some new sections are needed especially concerning sports, wildlife and holidays.
14. There is no mention of the Bam earthquake – such a tragedy is worth noting.
15. More in-line citations is better – at least one for every possible controversial matter.

Once these are done, a peer-review would be a good idea and then I think Iran deserves to be a featured article. Green Giant 03:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for listing these suggestion Green Giant. I agree with almost all of them, especially with the removal of the subheadings; while it is not policy, but a guideline the Wikicountry project suggests that there should not be subheadings, and everything should be summarized, with a link to the main article where the topic should be discussed heaving. Specific suggestions to the above are

1. Leave the lead as is
2. Remove the picture, doesn't fit with section, and causes wierd shape of text
3. While I usually like images on the right, at times there might be a reason to have an image on the left. We shouldn't be too strict on this one
4. The History section before the Islamic revolution seems ok, the post islamic section could be shortened. I don't think the picture of Ahmadnijed belongs here. Other countries usually have the picture of the head of state in the politics section.
5. Some of the politics sections can be combined in a summary style paragraphs; right now there are two many subheadings. The city and village councils doesn't fit since this is about the government of Iran, not it's subsections.
6. Agree need some prose for the Province section. Not sure we need a city section. Previously I've argued for such inclusion on the Canada page, but I now see why it's not really needed.
7. Geography should be renamed Geography and Climate, and the sections merged. Too many images in this section.
8. I think the Economy section is ok. Images make the text look weird though.
9. I think the Demographics section is ok, and the subheadings can be appropriate here. Remove gallery of cities.
10. I don't think the persian text in the culture section is appropriate, as most people won't be able to read it. The english translations should be enough.
11. NPOV doesn't necessarily mean that criticisms need to be marked. Instead, as you note all aspects (positive and negative) should be noted, without noting them as postive/negative. The reader has to make their own decision, that is NPOV
12. Yes limit subheadings
13. sports should be placed into culture, holidays is recommened by the Country wikiproject, also might need a symbols section
14. Not sure we need the Bam earthquake in a summary article.
15. Need general references (aka Further reading) for non-controversial statements and inline notes for more controversial statments -- Jeff3000 03:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Foreign relations and military

We need a Foreign relations and military section. Maybe some of the content from the disputed paragraph can be moved into such a section. -- Jeff3000 00:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea, but where would you put it? Somewhere between History and Politics perhaps? Green Giant 01:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In Australia which is a featured article, the section is after the Provinces section, but I think it fits best after the Politics section like in Canada. -- Jeff3000 01:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it looks out of place after the States and Territories. Green Giant 01:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

We dont have room for it. As User:wikiacc will tell you, the whole effort was to trim down the page to guideline length, so that we can nominate it for feature status. Adding another section is basically reversing these efforts.--Zereshk 03:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Which guideline length is this? The 32KB one applied a long time ago when browsers couldn't handle such sizes. At the moment 39 KB is not that long - look at Pakistan which is 43 KB. By the way removing a citation request and saying read a history book is not acceptable. It's not the date of establishment the citaiton request was asking but the bit which said the world's first superpower. Green Giant 04:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont know. Wikiacc insists on the length. The article used to be much longer than this. It was trimmed over and over again for this very reason. I objected that it was ridiculous to have only 1-2 sentences span 1000 years in the history section. Nobody listened.--Zereshk 04:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well we cut Pakistan from about 60KB down to 43 KB and nobody objected to the size. Similarily Bangladesh is also 43 KB and not so long ago Kerala passed at about 70KB. The important thing is not the quantity but the quality. However, articles have to adhere to summary style. The whole history section should have about five paragraphs - Ancient history, Post-Islamic conquest, Pre-20th century, the reign of the Pahlavi's and the Islamic Republic. All the rest of the detail should go into History of Iran and any associated history articles. Green Giant 04:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Here I will have to disagree. If youre going to give a good representation of Iran, you have to represent what it really is, not how the media and current situation defines it. Adding sections about the military and the current politics at the expense of even further trimming the history section is just wrong. Iran's history is something one simply cannot summarize in such a short space. Between the Islamic Conquest and the 20th century Iran went through at least 15 major dynasties that had continental influences. And all that is wrapped up in a feeble 1.5 sentences. I find that totally inaccurate in the representation of Iran. For Iran and the Iranian identity, culture and history play extraordinarily large defining roles. Those should be properly reflected in proportion in this article.--Zereshk 16:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think length is an issue here, but more completeness. I think the page would still pass FAC if it had a longer length. The history section as it is ok, not great, but ok. I would remove the subsection headings though, to get the page more in summary style. -- Jeff3000 17:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Mahan Asemoon

The third image in the History section, the Mahan Asemoon is pretty but it's very small and cannot be expanded beyond 100px width. I suggest replacing it with something like the Shah Mosque image which is much larger and clearer. However as space is limited at the top, perhaps the new image can go into the Culture section? Green Giant 02:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think there are too many images on the page, and they are scrunched up together. I would favour the removal of the image. -- Jeff3000 02:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the Mahan Asemoon image and incorporated the caption into the main text. I agree there are too many images - dropping a couple of them would be good. Green Giant 02:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to remove an image, at least remove one that takes up a lot of space (like the president image). The very reason we put the Mahan dome image was that it was space efficient and aesthetic for the page layout, AND, that it was representative of Iran's Islamic past. I especially cropped the image to those proportions. Now we have 2 images of Iran's pre-Islamic past, and none of its post-Islamic past, which is not right. I'm putting the Mahan image back.

Second: The image of Azadi square has always been an image agreed upon by both royalist and post-revolutionary Iranians as the symbol to represent them politically. Now you have this president image messing things up. You are replacing an image everyone agrees on with one that people dont agree on, hence ignoring an established consensus.

Please, if youre going to touch the main page, consult with the people who have spent many hours, if not days, and months, making it.--Zereshk 03:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't the space that was the issue but more the lack of detail. If you put it there for efificiency and aesthetics then that is not a good reason to keep it. The image hasn't been erased - it's still on the server. If there is a larger image that shows more of the dome, I would support it's inclusion but as it stands the image wasn't doing any justice to the article. On a sidenote, the image removals you've done were good but why do you feel a gallery is needed for population statistics when a table does the job? You'll find that most featured articles on countries (such as People's Republic of China) have tables and not galleries. The appropriate place for such galleries is Commons. Green Giant 04:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

An image representing the Islamic heritage of Iran is definitely needed. No question to that. Now, would you go with an image that takes up space and is not fitting to the format, or one that is spatially efficient in organization and aesthetics? We do in fact have an image of the same dome, in full, but I intentionally cropped it up to narrow proportions for this very article. I dont know why youre insisting on having big blocky images instead of a narrow slim one.

The US article has a gallery of cities. Almost every state in the US also has a gallery of cities. Texas has 2. But I have cleared up many redundant images from the article. I dont know why people are so persistent in getting rid of the gallery. It's a direct visual aid in presenting Iran.--Zereshk 04:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Where in the US article is the gallery and where are the 2 galleries in Texas? The largest cities are covered by a table and you'll note that neither the US article nor Texas is a featured article. Green Giant 04:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually Texas has 3 galleries: One for the Nat. Geography, One for the cities, and one for universities. The US also has the city pics. Would you rather have the images stacked up on top of eachother, instead of a neat gallery? If a gallery is not allowed inorder to obtain feature status, then why does WP allow galleries at all?--Zereshk 04:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

My objection is twofold. Firstly the data for the populations should be in a table format. Secondly I think galleries are frowned on because they break articles up when most people seem to prefer a continuous prose. I think the population should go into a table and then keep a couple of images but eight is too many and it won't pass FAC. As a part of the code, I think it's difficult to remove the galleries so they have pretty much left it. By the way it's nice to see that with a few edits we're back to square one. Have a look at other Featured articles, especially the more recent ones and decide for yourself whether Iran would pass with the way it is laid out? Green Giant 04:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I had already spotted the natural gallery but the cities and universities are just stacked on one another. Those aren't galleries, it's just people right aligning them - which is what I propose for all images on Iran except the ones in the infobox. Green Giant 05:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

So you WOULD rather have stacked up images on top of eachother than a gallery. I see. I dont think people here would agree with you on that It further clutters up everything.--Zereshk 05:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No I would rather the population data was in a table and that the images were all right-aligned. That way the text goes down the left and centre and the images go down the right side. I'm not suggesting piling the images togetehr at the start of the article or anything silly like that. Have a look at Pakistan and Bangladesh to see how the images are placed there. Green Giant 05:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I very much agree with Green Giant. Gallery pictures will not pass a FAC, especially for cities, which are not part of the Country Wikiproject. Secondly, I think images with a long aspect ratio do not look good when there are other images with a wide aspect ratio in the same section; it makes the section look weird. -- Jeff3000 12:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

How about if we trim the gallery to 4 instead of 8 cities (which I think will pass the FAC), and have a table with more cities (e.g. 10), plus information such as what provinces theyre in etc.? Compromise?--Zereshk 16:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think a gallery is the right way to show that information. If the images of the cities are important they should be put inline into the text of the article. Personally, I would also get rid of the table, the information about the size of the cities is not important enough for a "Summary style" article which countries should be (see the Country wikiproject). We should have short or medium-length sections with the most pertinent information with a main link to the articles with more information, like Cities of Iran; that page could have a gallery. I think Australia is a article to compare with. Imagine if we could get Iran to be a featured article, then people can really understand what Iran is with a neutral-POV (not from the media), but to do so, we have to structure it differently. -- Jeff3000 17:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your last sentence: from what Im observing, youre actually moving the opposite way, it seems to me. Youre advocating the removal of important information about Iran, merely because WP guidelines give it no particular consideration. I'm not against adding anything, but I am against trimming down sections like history, or not mentioning anything about the cities. How could one honestly have an article about Iran without, say, a depiction of Shiraz or Isfahan?--Zereshk 18:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think having pictures, or populations of those cities says anything about those cities, and doesn't add anything to the understanding of Iran. The reader sees a picture of Shiraz with a number, what do they learn? not much. Spending more effort on improving the history section, foreign relations, and the culture section is much more appropriate. -- 18:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What do they learn? They learn that Iran is a civilized nation. That it has cities. That it has culture. That it has an identity far more deeper than they every thought. As far as the American hoi polloi is concerned, eye-ran is a desert dwelling camel riding backwater country with mysoginist fiercely bearded men that want a nuclear bomb. It goes without saying how a simple image can easily reverse such stereotypes. Not everyone is aware of Iran's true image, like me and you.--Zereshk 20:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

So instead of pictures of mountains and deserts, use pictures of cities. Images are used to reinforce the written article, and a gallery does not do that. I'm sure the FAC will object to it. -- Jeff3000 20:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Deserts? There are no pictures of deserts, far as I can tell. I am willing to trim the gallery however. Or, I can forget about the gallery until the article is featured and passed, so that then we can actually add some real information to it and not sacrifice information for the sake of some suggested guidelines.--Zereshk 23:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your comment above means, but what is this real information you talk of? You do realise that featured status isn't just a troublesome sideshow :P Green Giant 23:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The Mahan pic

As for User:Green Giant and the Mahan picture, I'm not going to be too picky on it: As long as there are 2 pics in the history section, one for pre-Islamic Iran, and one for post-Islamic Iran. Post Islamic Iran must be somehow represented. The perseplois pic is fine. It represents Iran's pre-Islamic past. But we need one to represent the 1400 years that Iran went through. It could be a Qajar painting, or a portrait of Shah Abbas, like the one below, or an architectural masterpiece. Which one would you guys rather have? Shall we vote on this?--Zereshk 18:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm fine with any of these.--Zereshk 18:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not against the Mahan picture. What I want to see is a bigger more detailed picture showing the entire dome and not just part of it. I agree there should be a post-Islamic image in History but it needs to be more detailed. Green Giant 21:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You dont approve any of these either? Aww come one, What is up with this need for details of a dome, Im wondering? What would that prove? Detail is totally irrelevant here. The image is merely supposed to be a testament of sorts to Iran's post-Islamic heritage. Not a testament to doming craftsmanship.--Zereshk 23:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Imagine if you had the choice of two images of the United States Capitol with one showing a complete view from one side such as this image and the other showed about half of the dome. The first image would be betetr because it shows the whole thing in context, whereas the second image would be hard to place in context. Does that make any sense? If we do go for an image from the above four, I would be inclined to favour the Safavid portrait. Green Giant 23:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that page youre talking of would be about the US Capitol, not about the US. The Mahan mausoleum is merely a Sufi shrine that visually expresses the post-Islamic culture of Iran. Nothing more. That's why its entirety (unlike the US capitol) is not important. The glimpse of the blue sky, the blue dome, the adobe parts, all convey the meaning sufficiently.

At any rate it seems I cant get through to you on this matter. No problem. How about this picture of the same dome? The only reason I didnt use it earlier was because I know some people are going to make a fuss about its copyrights. If you want the full picture of the cropped dome, youll have to wait a month or so. I'd have to dig out the hard copy picture and scan it once again. I personally prefer this one because it is a visual eyepleaser.--Zereshk 23:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Oooo, this is a nice picture, I like it quite a lot. Let's put it in, and see if we can resolve the copyright later. -- Jeff3000 23:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

GG, what do you think?--Zereshk 23:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, should I crop that picture to remove one of the trees so that the Mosque can be bigger when inserted into the article? -- Jeff3000 23:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I only gave the Capitol as an example of how an image should be. not whether it is representative of the U.S. or not. Yes I like this bigger image, it is all I was proposing. Yes to tree removal. :) Green Giant 23:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh c'mmon guys, lets keep the trees (tears accumulating). They add a sepecial grace and ambience to the scene. Especially that we would lose part of the building as well. I wish I had done a better job on the resolution so that the snow capped mountains would also be visible in their full majesty.--Zereshk 23:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with it as is, but I was suggesting removing just one of the trees, there would be one left. What do you think? -- Jeff3000 00:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

How about if you cropped just enough of it so that the third cupola (seen peaking between the 2 trees) is still visible? Youd have to crop half of the first tree for that. Would that work?

Also, could you save and upload it as something else, under another name? It would be great if we could keep this image as it is, since it is being used on other articles as well.--Zereshk 00:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, plz scroll downstairs and vote before you forget. thnx.--Zereshk 00:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

ok, I've cropped it, as so. I'm not sure which one I like better. -- Jeff3000 03:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Picture in `Name`, and `Geography and climate` sections

Please do not keep moving/deleting that pic around, and submit it under different sections; this will clutter the artcle. Discuss it with others before you keep moving the pic, or deleting it. Thank youZmmz 04:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why that image is important in the Name section? I think you need to sit back and take a good look at the article because it is definitely cluttered the way you have restored it to. I find it quite amusing that both Zmmz and Zereshk have each defended an image they have uploaded without explaining the relevance. The Mahan image is too small and the Persepolis statue image belongs in History. Green Giant 04:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I didnt upload the griffin image. And I didnt move it from the naming section to the history section either. But if Zmmz wants to keep it in the name section, at least it would be good if he put a relevant caption so that it wont be deleted or moved. As it stands, a Homa griffin has nothing to do with "Iran-Shahr" or "Iran vaej", or at least that's what people will be wondering.--Zereshk 04:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, Green giant, smaller is better. I dont think any guidelines actually prefer big blocky images instead. It takes longer to download on many remote browsers.--Zereshk 04:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

My problem with your image is that it doesn't show enough detail. It's like looking at only part of a person's face. You can't deduce what it is from only part of the image. Perhaps if you could upload the whole image and then force it to about 200px in the article. Articles look better if the images are the same width and the same side - just like the city images in Texas. Green Giant 05:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, agree with Green Giant, the picture doesn't fit in the Name section, should be in the history section if at all, and I really think there should be one picture from Iran's antiquity, not two. -- 12:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

As per the discussion here, I reworded the picture's caption with relevant information. --ManiF 13:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

But the caption has nothing to do with the picture, the picture is about Iran's history. -- Jeff3000 14:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

IMO, the picture of a griffin at Persepolis is irrelevant in the 'Name' section of this overview article, but perhaps more apt for another section (e.g., 'History'). In the 'Name' sxn, perhaps we can include a picture of an ancient inscription/translation (at Persepolis) or other script comparison instead? Or even one of the other images in the Iran naming dispute article, like the map (q.v. Canada's name#Name origin)? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, that Homa (please read Homa (mythology)) sculpture is considered one of the main symbols of ancient Persia in the Western perspective, as well as one of the national symbols in present-day Iran, and hence the explanation about the different names of the same country "Iran" and "Persia". --ManiF 14:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because it's an old and modern symbol (and that it existed when the country was called Iran and Persia) doesn't make it relevent to the Name section. I totally agree with E Pluribus Anthony that a better image would be ancient inscription/translation. The caption still doesn't fit the image; this image fits in the History section. -- Jeff3000 14:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I wont be too picky on this one as long as the caption is relevant. An inscription is good, but I dont know of any particular one. Maybe Jeff knows one. For this reason, I think a symbol can also suffice. The thing about Homa is, if youve noticed, is that it is the national symbol Iran's national Airline has chosen as well. So it's not that irrelevant.--Zereshk 16:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Others can be: as above, symbols are different from names. This is analogous to adding a picture of the maple leaf to Canada#Canada's name, kangaroos or koalas for Australia, or the adler or Weimer eagle for a naming sxn about Germany ... all of which make little sense. Why despoil a worthwhile picture by including it in a section for which it has little relevance? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, a symbol of a country has very little to do with it's name. It's better that there be no picture associated with a section, than a wrong picture. If the picture is important enough it should be moved into another section. -- Jeff3000 17:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont think we can totally dismiss any connection between the name of Iran and its symbolism. Contrary to Canada or Australia, Iran's name has much to do with ancient symbolism. Iran's name literally means "Land of the Aryan", which comes from Zoroastrian concepts. So should we have a Zoroastrian picture? Maybe of Farvahar? Aryan itself means noble. Nobleness is defined by Farvahar as "good deed, good thoughts, good words". These are all related and conceptually intertwined.

I dont know, E Pluribus. Do you have a better image in mind, or are you just against any image for that section?--Zereshk 17:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing connections: in this instance, though, the griffin is hardly relevant and a grand leap for the usual visitor. As I've indicated above, I opt for a relevant, better picture where the connection to the name is clear and – in absence of that – none. Including one of Zoroaster or the like is a possibility but might be too esoteric; perhaps better is Jeff3000's suggestion below or the map in the subarticle (given the roots of Iran/Persia (Persis)/Aryan (Ariana) and the country's location). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the currency picture (and it's associated caption) from the Iran naming dispute article would be a better choice, and give the reader a quick idea about what the section is about. -- Jeff3000 17:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean the Erathostenes map? Fine with me. I dont know, Im not too preferential on this one way or the other. Lets see what others say.--Zereshk 17:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No, this one -- Jeff3000 17:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes: the map, which I prefer: harks of references in antiquity. The caption can be tweaked, though. I'm also fine with including the currency pic, but I think it more highlights the dispute of the name, not necessarily its etymology.  :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The map is fine by me as well. -- Jeff3000 17:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Im fine with either, as long as there is a befitting image. I'd go for the map though. But Im sure Zmmz and ManiF and others would want to give some input here.--Zereshk 17:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think map is very relevant. -- - K a s h 23:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the image is a major symbol, it blends to the section/next section nicely, and it also shows a slice of the biggest tourist attraction in Iran. Plus, it is aestethically appealing. Zmmz 23:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The image in the `Geography and climate` section is also important, since it shows the snow filled mountains of Tehran, and many do not know Iran has the four seasons. Zmmz 23:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Culture Section

Needs to be checked for NPOV. The whole section sounds like it's been copied from a web-page of the Iranian Ministry of Tourism, if there's such a thing.

Half of it (including the Persian verses and their translations) was edited by me. The other half, people just kept adding in until it took the form it currently has.--Zereshk 16:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

User:Zmmz, you have effectively reverted most of the edits I and Jeff3000 made without explaining the rationale. Your edit summaries should be civil and should not include comments like "do not keep moving/deleing picfs on your own, it is becoming disruptive" especially when addressed to other editors. That is not an acceptable tone to use in edit summaries and I would appreciate you explaining on the talkpage why you feel other editors cannot make changes without requiring your express typed permission? In case you are not aware, I recommend reading the guidelines on explaining reverts and edit summaries. You ask for discussion before changes but did you read the suggestions we made for Article Improvement? The very least you could do is to comment about the suggestions if you feel so strongly about the changes. This article will not pass FAC until and unless each of the editors fully appreciates the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:What is a featured article. It would help enormously if you could take the time out to read the featured articles on countries like Australia, China, Pakistan and Bangladesh, especially the last two because they have only recently passed FAC. Note the criticisms and comments made on their candidacies and let's apply the ideas here. Green Giant 23:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stay calm, and civil. Regardless of if it is ammusing to you that Zereshk and I defend pics, you cannot keeping deleting pictures on your own, then expect others to accept it. People work hard to gwet these images released, and if you have a personal preference, then you should come in the discussion page, talk about it, and reach a consensus with others. If you keep reverting others`s original work, they will revert it back. Thank youZmmz 23:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to read through any of my talkpage comments and come back and tell me I don't stay clam and civil. The reason I found it amusing is that in each case the only person to defend the image was the uploader. I didn't think I would have to remind an accomplished editor that Misplaced Pages is not about getting images released but about trying to write first-class articles. Before you accuse myself or Jeff of vandalism I suggest everybody freezes on the revert war and instead scroll up, read the suggested improvements and make a constructive comment as to how the article can be improved. Green Giant 23:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Images

Zmmz has reverted much of the image work of Zereshk, and I have gone back to Zereshk's edits. I think the article is much improved the way Zereshk has modified it. There were too many images. -- Jeff3000 23:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I was posting this as GreenGiant posted the above, I agree with what GreenGiant said above. -- Jeff3000 23:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Same here, I agree with Jeff's revert. Green Giant 23:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

So it's me, Green Giant, and Zereshk who believe his edits in moving/removing the images is appropriate. There are too many images in the article, and they are all important, but decisions have to be made to remove some of them. -- Jeff3000 23:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, but others don`t agree with your personal taste, or other. So please do not delete other people`s hard work on your own, and discuss it thoroughly first, or set-up a straw poll. Thank youZmmz 23:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This page is not owned by you Zmmz. I believe Zereshk's edits were hard work, and by your edits you deleted his work. But really wikipedia doesn't work that way, and if some of your edits were removed, you shouldn't take it personally, we are all working to make this article better. -- Jeff3000 23:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken; I was not the one that deleted Zereshk`s works. You need to set up a straw poll, instead of, deleting stuff. Thank youZmmz 23:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't make straw polls for every edit. How many straw polls have you seen on Misplaced Pages. The point is that most editors believe Zereshk's edits were appropriate. -- Jeff3000 23:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Zmmz, if and when Iran makes it to featured status, you can demand that no major changes be made without consensus. However, as it is a FACfailed, this article is open to positive changes by anyone. There is a "straw poll" of sorts above - make some comments on improvements instead of backing into a corner. Green Giant 23:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the problem seems to be on this page, it needs to be solved here. Jeff3000 and Zmmz, I'm warning both of you to stop this edit war and do not violate WP:3RR. 3RR is not an entitlment to revert three times. Don't edit war. Use the talk page. Pepsidrinka 23:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You , I ,or Jeff3000 cannot delete others` hard works, then expect them to let it be. Please stay calm, civil and try not to monopolize articles. Instead, before you delete pics, come and set up a straw poll. If you delete pics and ask later, how can others know which pic you are talking about? So, put the pic back, while I set up a poll.Zmmz 23:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Pepsidrinka warn users on their talk page please; not here please.Zmmz 23:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Zmmz, please explain why the griffin image is relevant to the Name section. Is it not more appropriate in the History section? Green Giant 23:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Please also explain why three images are good in the Geography section? If we were to remove one, would you have a preference? Green Giant 00:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Zmmz, no I need not warn editors on their talk page. Seeing how you've been blocked for 3RR in the past and I am aware that Jeff3000 is aware of WP:3RR, I was merely making it known to everyone to this article, and you two specifically, that edit warring is unacceptable that the 3RR is considered policy and a blockable offense. Frankly, a 3RR block is not dependent on the user being warned of his impending violation on his/her talk page. Pepsidrinka 00:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I asked you before, please review the 3RR warning policies on the 3RR page; that is the standard procedure, and I am aware of 3RR very well. Please don`t use the discussion page to talk to another person; go to their talk page, instead. ThanksZmmz 21:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote on images

Vote on the Tochal picture in the `Climate` section

• Keep- The image in the `Geography and climate` section is also important, since it shows the snow filled mountains of Tehran, and many do not know Iran has the four seasons. Thank youZmmz 00:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove - Too many images. -- Jeff3000 00:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - This is the wrong question to ask. I don't think anybody else is personally opposed to that image but the section is simply not long enough to warrant three images. There is already an excellent image of a mountain, why do we need two images of mountains? The rationale for showing four seasons would presumably be extended to having four images each showing a season? Green Giant 00:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge (!): I suggest that inorder to resolve this issue, we put ONE image of Mount Damavand that is both appealing and has snow on it, to hit two birds with one stone. The current Mt Damavand image isnt that great. I propose this one (seen to the right) for example. What do you say Zmmz?--Zereshk 00:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- As per Zmmz. --ManiF 01:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - good idea. Change my vote to merge as per Zereshk. Green Giant 00:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - sounds good, merge as per Zereshk. -- Jeff3000 00:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Note: the Tochal picture shows snow, as well as the the Telecabin, in Tehran, and from experience I can tell that many are surprised that both exit in Tehran, or even Iran. So, it is more useful than just a boring pic of a mountain.Zmmz 00:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

As per the discussion here, I replaced the picture of Damavand in summer with a picture of Damavand in winter to show diversity of climate in Iran. --ManiF 02:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

All, how about if we agree to my suggestion for the pic here for the geo section, and instead have the snow/tochal/ski pic of Zmmz used as the image of the new section on sports that GG, ManiF, et al have been talking about?--Zereshk 17:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This pic hits three birds with half a stone; so there is no need for extra sections. But, you guys do what you want.Zmmz 20:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This time i vote for zereshk's picture above, not the one that exists on the page now. --Darkred 09:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote on picture in the `Naming` section

For the naming section we can only have one image. Which would you prefer?

This vote will be held for three days (until thursday the 27th). (agree?)

• Keep Homa- I think the image is a major symbol, it blends to the next section nicely, and it also shows a slice of the biggest tourist attraction in Iran. Plus, it is aestethically appealing.Zmmz 00:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• I'd go for the map, since it actually has the name "Iriana" on it. Though the other two are good too.--Zereshk 00:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Map - Map makes a lot of sense in naming section -- Jeff3000 00:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Move down to History - The straw polls are asking the wrong questions. All that is needed is for someone (it doesn't have to be Zmmz) to give a rationale for keeping the griffin image in the Name section and why it wouldn't be better in the History section. Green Giant 00:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• On the issue of which image, I too would prefer the map on the same grounds as Zereshk. Green Giant 00:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• I prefer the map – ideal treatment of names for the locality in antiquity and modernity. The bill note is a secondary choice but more exemplifies the modern naming dispute, not etymology per se. Effectively, the Homa is non sequitur and doesn't belong in the sxn but might elsewhere (e.g., 'History'). And as discussed above, I've made this change (to the map, w/caption) ... but I will support whatever a consensus might. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• map ..It's the name of the article we are talking here. But I like the homa pic, perhaps should use it in the history or something. -- - K a s h 00:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

We can definitely use it on other articles indeed.--Zereshk 00:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• map. Siddiqui 01:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Homa- As per my earlier explanation. --ManiF 01:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Homa- In my opinion the first image of an important page like this should not be so ugly, the map pic belongs to a name of iran page for example --Darkred 09:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• No image necessary. The page looks much, much, much, much better without any image cluttering things up in that section. The beginning of the article is both more balanced and more elegant without any of the images, and anyone who's interested in the name controversy can easily follow the link and see all three of the above images!! The "Homa" image is not directly relevant to the naming section, and, if it's included at all, it should be moved to the "history" section, where there is both more room for it (the last three paragraphs are currently unillustrated) and infinitely more relevance. The map, too, is a very poor choice for inclusion in the "naming" section, because although it doesn't have the problem of not being relevant to the section in question (indeed, it's very relevant to the issue), it still has the same problem of cluttering the page up too much and "smushing" the text into an extremely narrow margin (mainly because the "country template" for Iran extends all the way through the "name" section, which is only a problem if we add an image to that section; the same problem would occur if we tried to add another image to the upper-left corner of the lead paragraphs!), and it additionally has a third problem which doesn't exist for the homa image: it's completely impossible to see at the small sizes required for this article! What's the point of including a map if it not only causes layout problems, but if the text that makes the map relevant isn't even visible at the small sizes it's required at! The map should be reserved for daughter articles like Iran naming dispute; I removed it from History of Persia for the same reason a while ago, and the article is infinitely better off for it. Overindulgence in images can very easily bloat and bury an article on such a broad topic as "Iran" if we are not extremely careful to be very selective and to allow images to be used on daughter articles like Iran naming dispute without them having to occur here too. Although I'm a big fan of images, the key to using them effectively is to balance them with the text: because "name" is so short and is already accompanied by the bottom of the template, adding an image would completely unbalance the section and make it a pain, rather than a pleasure, to read. Moreover, expanding the section would be completely unnecessary (we have a whole extra article for that!), so the ideal solution is to simply leave the text be and not have an image. What's so awful about that? It completely solves all the problems and arguments regarding the matter, and has the added benefit of improving the article's flow, cohesion, symmetry, and balance, allowing the text room to breathe. The simplest solution is sometimes the best: let the text speak for itself in cases such as this, and you'll find that it words ring out much louder and clearer than if a fancy, pretty image were awkwardly shoved into its midst.

OK guys. Im tired. Im retiring for the night. I have a seminar to give tomorrow. Happy constructive negotiating. Keep kewl, y'all.--Zereshk 00:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote summary/result

As of this note, the above vote has yielded the following assertions from 10 editors:

• 6 votes (5 at a mere cursory glance) prefer including the map image
• 3 votes prefer including the Homa (griffin) image
• 1 vote for not including any image

Various users support including the Homa image elsewhere in the article, while minor varied support has been expressed about including the bill note.

Thus, the map seems to be the choice of a majority and, arguably a consensus of editors. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

sub-section in culture

What do you guys think of a sub-section in culture about sports in Iran explaining Iranians' passion for wrestling, football, skiing and etc? --ManiF 02:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)\

All for it (though I'm not sure we need the actual subsection title). Sports are an important part of the country. -- Jeff3000 02:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. I suggested covering sports in the Talk:Iran#Article improvements above but it seems to have become lost in the middle of the talkpage. Green Giant 02:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Do it, and put the Tochal skiing picture there, so that Zmmz will also be happy, and so that we can have the previous problem (in the geo section) solved.--Zereshk 17:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Source provided for Cradle of Humanity

Thank you for so promptly providing a source ManiF, but I hate to be the bearer of bad news. That link is to a page which does indeed talk about the Cradle of Humanity but it cites the Misplaced Pages article Cradle of Humanity which unfortunately does not possess a single citation itself - which means at the moment the Cradle of Humanity is a personal point of view. We need a more verifiable source than one which relies on Misplaced Pages itself. Thanks. Green Giant 02:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't realize the source was a mirror of wiki. I'll find a better source but the statement makes sense to me considering how Middle East region is regarded as the Cradle of civilization. --ManiF 02:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank for removing the link. Looking at that sentence I think it would be better placed in History rather than Geography. It looks out of place in a paragraph which talks about plains, rivers, coastlines and climate. Green Giant 03:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to find a source for the quote, and searching journals through my university's website, but it seems that most references for "cradle of humanity" come up for Africa. Is there another term that is used, maybe "cradle of civilization" -- Jeff3000 03:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Searching for "cradle of civilization" and Iran, I found the following reference from Forbes magazine in 1983:

"Rumors abound that oil will drop to $15 per barrel, but 7 factors will probably keep that from happening. These are: 1. Too many powerful parties, including the USSR, are interested in protecting the price. 2. The massive oil inventory decumulation should be over. 3. Economic recovery is here, so the demand for oil supplies will increase. 4. The pricearnings multiples on the oils are low historically and in relation to the existing market multiple. 5. Dividend yields are usually high, and generally secure. 6. Most institutional investors underown stocks. In other words, the oils are sold out. 7. The possibility of war among the countries in the "cradle of civilization" - Iran, Iraq, and Syria - will probably boost the price of oil. Investors could profit if they treated the international oils as bond substitutes and refiners arketers as commodity plays. Oils which should yield good returns are: 1. Exxon, 2. Pennzoil, 3. Quaker State, 4. Texaco, and 5. Amerada Hess."

(Brown, Ann C. Forbes , vol.131, no.7, pp.208, 1983) (emphasis added) -- Jeff3000 03:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Overnight changes

Perhaps I'm missing something here. Overnight changes have been made which have changed things back to previous versions. I can understand the images and things like that, but what concerns me is that the changes include removal of a citation request for Cradle of Humanity which ManiF at least made an effort to address, slight rewrites of two sentences in Demographics, and a grammar mistake in the History section. If you are going to change things back, at least check what you are changing back. If I didn't have faith in huan nature, I'd be tempted to think some people are blindly reverting without assuming good faith. Green Giant 13:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

E Pluribus Anthony restored the Name section changes, and I have put back the new photo of the Mosque, as well as restoring your work to the Politics section, and put back the fact tag. I assume that the reversion was done to restore the picture of the president, and he didn't look that much more work had been done. -- Jeff3000 13:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm unsure what happened there: I only restored those tidbits (upfront) that I've dealt with recently. Perhaps User:Never Cry Wolf inadvertently restored a cached or otherwise halluncinatory version of the article? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for putting back the uncontroversial changes, I would have done so myself but I've been at work all day. Green Giant 22:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened, but I tried to move the Cradle of Humanity line from Geography to History and for some bizarre reason a whole bunch of other changes took place at the same time including a reversing of the provincial wikilinks which I had fixed just minutes earlier to avoid redirects. I reverted myself and tried to move the line again and it worked. :) Green Giant 03:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You noticed that too? The only changes I had made were supposed to involve the image of Mahmoud, but for some reason it changed a part of the page back to a cached version. Strange... Never Cry Wolf 07:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Iran: The Logic of Deterrence" http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_04_10/cover.html

Changes needed

Zereshk asks in an edit summary "(→Politics - Why was this merged into the intro? The "Supreme Leader" has his own separate office and place in politics.)". Another eidt summary states "(→Parliament - The parliament has a title, similar to the Bundestag, Duma, Congress, Diet, etc...)".

The simple answer is that further up the talkpage I made a list of suggestions for improving the article. The FAC failed eight months ago and it shouldn't take that long to get improvements made. Earlier edit summaries accused me of engaging in edit wars and making changes without discussing them on the talkpage. It is remarkable that people ask these questions in edit summaries and yet only one editor (Jeff) has actually responded to my suggestions. I would appreciate it if you guys would look at the suggesions and make some responses before you make edit summary comments like that.

Just so we are clear, I don't think subheadings are a good idea as they fragment sections. The Politics section should really be a Government section and needs a paragraph on each of the main components of government. The City and Village Councils could move down to major cities which could become a section on it's own. As for the gallery zereshk, even the USA article you cited doesn't have the cities in a gallery. The images are stacked up on the right-hand side and the section has some prose about the cities. Green Giant 12:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we should get rid of most of the subsection headings. The politics section has way too many subsections. I've expanded the cities section, and if you put the village and council sections into it, then there could be two images beside the prose, and we can get rid of the gallery. Since pictures of Tehran is already in other places in the article, we'd only be losing one image. -- Jeff3000 13:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm begining to think that making this article featured is a bad idea. Making it featured at the cost of taking out info? That's just not a good idea; squeezing all the politics section into one "government" prose is absurd, because Iran doesnt have a clearly defined "government". Unlike other coutries, in Iran, state and church are one. The supreme religious leader can veto the entire cabinet. The clerics ("council of guardians") can dismiss the parliament's decisions or its elections, if they so wish.

That's why none of the editors involved in the feature article drive of this article are actually Iranian. To the latter, this feature article drive business is becoming actually counterproductive. Erase this, to make it featured. Erase that, to make it featured. Is this what we really want? As for myself, Im not so sure. I'd rather see an article that is comprehensive and informative (like the United States), rather than have a canned featured article for a day on the main page.

Just my opinion.--Zereshk 17:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

And I dont understand this resilient persistence in removing the gallery in favor of piling up images. The latter highly disrupts the flow of the prose whereas a gallery is a crisp and clean way of making a befitting page. And it's only 4 images. Why do away with a visual table (aka gallery) of cities? I suppose we're trying to convey the idea that Iran has no big beautiful cities, and that people do indeed live in desert mud huts next to camels, guns, and barrels of oil, as the popular perception goes.--Zereshk 17:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think your making a lot of assumptions here so I'll put it simply. I find it unacceptable that the Iran article is not a featured article. Considering that it has not been nominated again since August last year is a crying shame. Attempting to conform to a few guidelines is not that difficult. It has to do with a lot more than just being on the front page for a day. Let's put it this way - when uninformed readers look at the article, wouldn't it be nice for them to have an article of a high standard? Quoting from Misplaced Pages:What is a featured article, the article has to be:

1. "well written" and "comprehensive" - at the moment all it needs is a tidy up of grammar/spelling, and maybe a couple of new sections like Holidays, Sports, Wildlife etc.
2. "factually accurate" - there is a decent References section which I fixed more than a week ago to ensure this isn't a stumbling block.
3. "neutral" - we tackled this just a few days ago, when the post-revolution history was rewritten from a third-party perspective so there are no lines like "Iran has frequently been the target of verbal attacks by the United States". Manif made a decent attempt to address the "Cradle of Humanity" problem.
4. "stable" - this is only possible if everybody refrains from reverting everything without calm clear discussion. If you see another editor has made changes, compare the versions to see what the changes are and check talkpage to see if they've mentioned anything

Other things that need covering are:

1. a concise lead section, summarising the entire topic and preparing readers for a higher level of detail in the subsequent sections - this is pretty much ready and won't need major overhauls
2. a proper system of hierarchical headings - the section headings are fine with the exception of Politics, which should really be renamed as Government
3. a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents - the TOC is longer than needed because there are more subsections than there should be.
4. Images where appropriate, with succinct captions - this means don't overload the article with images and don't write short essays in the captions. For example in the name section, the caption on the image should say what the image is, but leave the explanation for the main body of text
5. All images should have acceptable copyright status - if you have an image you wish to use, be absolutely certain that the owner of the image has given clear permission. Zmmz has solved his particular problems with image copyrights by forwarding the relevant emails to "permissions@wikimedia.org" and by posting a note on "Misplaced Pages:Successful requests for permission.
6. Appropriate length and tight focus on the main topic without unnecessary detail - the article is not too long and it won't matter if a few KB are added to it
7. Usage of summary style to cover sub-topics that have 'daughter' articles - this is the main reason I wanted the History section shorter

Featured article does not mean taking out info - in fact quite the opposite. The main Iran article should be a summary of numerous "daughter articles" like History of Iran and Geography of Iran. In the Politics section what is needed is a well-written continuous prose, not single-sentence paragraphs with subheadings like Expediency Council. All of the information should stay but lets get rid of the subsections and instead write a continuous set of five or six paragraphs and three or four relevant images. It doesn't matter if Iran doesn't have a clearly defined "government" as the prose should be written in such a way as the reader understands that there is more than just a President, cabinet, legislature and judiciary. The "state and church unity" can be emphasised without subsections.

You should also avoid suggesting that we "non-Iranians" are being counterproductive - driving for FA status is positive and it is being done on hundreds of articles right now. The United States article you hold up as an example was a failed featured article candidate in 2004 and has not still not resolved the biggest problem - references. Look at the bottom of the page and there are seven notes under References of which only five link to an external source. It amazes me that some editors still do not understand why we need sources. To the uninformed reader most of the United States article could be completely made up and they would never know. To give an example of this kind of thing, I recently came across a new editor who insisted on inserting an estimated population in the Karachi infobox based on the fact that somewhere further down another editor had added an unsourced figure. It took him a little while to come round to the idea that that figure could be inaccurate and made up.

How exactly does the gallery not disrupt the flow of text? Even in the United States article, the population data is in a table and the city images are at the right hand side, piled on top of each other. We are not trying to do away with beautiful city images and we would rather that uninformed readers could read about Iran and realise it isn't just "desert mud huts next to camels, guns, and barrels of oil". If we could add extend the Major Cities section and a new section or two, there would be room for all the images, even the one Manif added to Economy. Instead of worrying about all this, you could make suggestions for improvements and assume good faith when us "non-Iranians" want to help. At the moment there is a pointless and wasteful war going on in Middle Eastern articles with people forgetting that the whole point was to write first-class articles. So let's work together to put Iran in the top division of articles (thats less than 1,000 articles at the moment out of more than a million). Green Giant 21:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree fullheartedly with GreenGiant, especially noting that we're not taking out info, but moving to the relevent subarticles, which is the best way to organize the information, so tha the reader who is interested gets the info he needs without getting tired, and cutting out. -- Jeff3000 00:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I give up fullheartedly. You can erase all of the article to a stub, so that it can be featured, if that's what WP policies require for featured status. Good luck.--Zereshk 04:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Main article template and images

I agree with Zereshk's and GreenGiant's edits to move the images above the main template in the wikisource. The doesn't effect the main templates text location, but reduces the whitespace, and allows for better flow of text. Darkred has reverted those edits, and I am in favour of putting them back. -- Jeff3000 02:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all Zereshk did no such edit, second green and i have come to an agreement of what to do about this, you can read it here: --Darkred 03:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk did perform such edits, please see , and , and GreenGiant has not come to an agreement, he notes he doesn't want to get into a revert war, but still believes there is a reduction in whitespace. I don't want to get into a revert war either, but three editors believe those edits are appropriate. -- Jeff3000 03:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Zereshks edit in link one was the same thing i did with the images, greengiant as i showed you in the link did agree that the images should be in the line with the first sentence of the content itself not with a reference to another article. Furthermore i realy don't understand what the argument is here? As greengiant suggested if you want to help keep this article clean, provide more information so the whitespaces can be wiped out, do not ingage in editwars as i seen you and greengiant have been doing in this article againt zereshk and zmmz. --Darkred 05:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's clear this up. I understood your logic Darkred, but I agree with Jeff that the {{main}} template isn't affected by the images being above it. I am certain we all agree that the large amount of whitespace below Economy is not a good thing. The solutions are:

1. Add extra content to Economy
2. Move one of the images to somewhere else in the article
3. Remove one of the images

I am going to try to go for option 1, but I don't think we should rule out the other options immediately. As for the edit wars, it should be noted that the proposed changes are still sitting up there near the top of the talkpage and not one editor (barring Jeff) has taken the time to comment. As I said on Darkred's talkpage, I don't engage in edit wars but on the other hand I don't appreciate people making grand gestures in edit summaries but not bothering to check if anyone has tried to discuss changes. It's called common courtesy and I haven't seen too much of it on here recently. As for Jeff, at least he went through my suggestions and commented on them. I don't think he can be accused of negativity when he was defending another editor's good faith contributions.

On a sidenote, I hope Zmmz won't be gone on a wikibreak for too long because despite the disagreements it's good to have critical reviews. Green Giant 13:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This has been going on long enough

First of all how come you are so eager to take out the images from economy section, as you did from the city gallery? With an excuse to clean it up! Second, it is obvious that neither you or jeff are iranian or have any academic knowledge about iran. So why is it that you keep editing, and are so concerend about this article? --Darkred 01:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

1. I refer you to the edit I made under Talk:Iran#Changes needed and to Misplaced Pages:What is a featured article - Style Manual point d):

(d) Images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. (including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article).

To look at how much some editors have defended particular images, you have to wonder what their motivation is for keeping the images other than they look nice. Example: the Griffin image looked nice but was it appropriate in the name section? Specifically in the Economy section, there needs to be either more content or fewer images.

2. I think you misunderstand what Misplaced Pages is about. There are no restrictions based on an editor's nationality, religion or academic qualifications. Anyone can edit any article they wish as long as rules are obeyed (vandalism etc). I can't speak for Jeff's nationality but is it particularly important that we are not Iranians? I am not French, Indian or Pakistani but I have contributed significantly to the articles on Paris, Pakistan, India and South India which you can check here -> . I edit these and other articles simply because I have an interest in other parts of the world than my own. Green Giant 01:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Did i say you can't edit or wikipedia does not allow that. No i did not, i said why edit something you have no good knowledge about. Why not leave that to the ones that have academic knowledge or have experince about the subject.

However i don't see why the images in the economy section do not belong there, they are perfect.

I believe making a featured article takes more than deleting images to achieve it. Like you suggested yourself and i agreed with you, your than welcome to add more material to the economy section to delete whitespace. --Darkred 02:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't intending to offend you, but when I have edited some articles, I have been asked the same question - if you're not from here, why are you editing this article? The reasoning is always to suggest that the article is not open to outsiders, because "the media doesn't tell the real truth about this place". I don't know what gives you the impression that I have no knowledge of Iran, but academic knowledge of a topic isn't a prerequisite in Misplaced Pages. What is needed is the ability to edit, to utilise sources, upload images and follow rules such as copyright tags and Misplaced Pages:No original research.

As for the Economy section, I am working on extra content but it may take me all weekend. Green Giant 03:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Green Giant has put a lot of effort into improving this article. If you spend time reading Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, you will see that Green Giant has been almost a perfect Wikipedian, discussing changes, not reverting, .... I believe, through my experience editing the Canada article, and looking at Featured article nominations for other counties, that his edits have lead to the article being made much superiour. Just a note, I am Iranian. -- Jeff3000 04:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Green giant i am not offended . I don't have academic knowledge about iran either, but if someone have academic knowledge about a certain subject it is best to leave most of the providing of material and utilising of sources at their hands. Hence zereshk whom i believe is qualified for the task, and it seems has done so for a long time in wikipedia. As jeff says you have done a great job cleaning other articles, and i know you have similar goals for this article. However it is important that we don't get in the way, and discuss the matter before changing everything ourselfs. Furthermore i don't think there is any need for discussing this subject any further, because it think that we understand eachother well. --Darkred 04:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I concur that Green Giant has done some great editing work. The editing aspect can be done by anyone I'd say. As for expertise on Iran, much of the information, since it has to be verifiable, can be retrieved from academic sources anyway which makes editing the article a job many people can do. Tombseye 07:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Can't really find citation for Iran being a Cradle of Humanity

Now Cradle of Civilization usually refers to the earliest civilizations of Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus, and China, but other than that, there isn't any mention of Iran which has contributed other things such as being the world's first multinational empire that encompassed much of the known ancient world. Plus, it's badly worded. Tombseye 07:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think one of the major theories of CoH said that it is in Iran, sadly I can't remember his name but it was only a year or two ago and I read about his published work in a newspaper. -- - K a s h 08:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I looked at the article and it doesn't cite anything. I replaced it with some interesting stuff on pre-historic Iran that I think warrants inclusion though. Tombseye 09:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting but I think we can definately improve on that, the fact that civilization from nearly 8000 years ago existed in Iran, (and not only they existed!, but they were civilized!) and they used to make wine, etc.. I think we should mention that -- - K a s h 09:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned question

The page says the Bush Administration has revealed plans for nuclear strikes. After reading the cited article, it seems the press was responsible for the revelation, not the Administration. I'm new, any advice on changing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.128.251 (talk • contribs)

How exactly do you mean the press was responsible for the revelation? Green Giant 01:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Elective monarchy

There were a couple of references to Iran being an elective monarchy but these are gone now. There is still one hidden link though behind the "power to dismiss and replace the Supreme Leader at any time". I'm not entirely convinced by the arguments given on the elective monarchy article that Iran fits such a description. The other states mentioned as modern elective monarchies (barring Samoa and Vatican City) are all constitutional monarchies. However, Iran is defined as a constitutional republic with an indirectly-elected Supreme Leader (for life) and a directly-elected President but this doesn't necessarily mean it is a monarchy. Anyway the article lacks sources and citations so I've placed an appropriate tag there and an appropriate on here until someone rustles up a source for Iran being an elective monarchy. Green Giant 02:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Iran a secular democracy??

So up until the coup in 1953, supported by the British and US (in which the US mostly funded and planned it), Iran was essentially a secular democracy in the first place! It's amazing how ignorant we are about our own histories, and so naive to think that the Americans have a plan to "bring democracy to the Middle-East."

Now I understand where the anger stems from. Amazing to think that they should put someone in charge, who has been accused of being a nazi collaborater, in control of a country and be responsible for the worst human atrocities in the country in the time he ruled.

Had this not have happened, the Islamic Revolution may not have been necessary, Iran would already have a healthy secular democracy, and we could have been living relatively harmoniously now... Some how I think that with the current American foreign policy, we could be seeing a few more 'revolutions' - An uncomfortable thought..

R.A Uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.133.205 (talk • contribs)

Sports?

Should there be a sports section. Many countries have this section. We should also add a military section. Im new, so I was just wondering.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.185.170 (talk • contribs)

The see also section has a link to the 'Sports In Iran' article. Ashmoo 04:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes there should be a sports section but no there shouldn't be a military section, because it is something worth examining on a separate daughter article. BY the way, think about starting an account - it is far easier to edit with than without one. :) Green Giant 23:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, especially since the World Cup is coming up, there should be a section with emphasis on football as well as wrestling and skiing to show the popularity and diversity of sports in Iran. If someone takes the time to prepare such section, I will provide two appropriate pictures for the section. --ManiF 23:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

For the sports section I wrote an article in a bit of time. Please edit and once it is good we shall hopefully add this to the page.

Many kinds of sports are practiced in Iran, both traditional and modern. Some sports, such as figure skating or professional dancing, are in conflict with Islamic Sharia law and therefore not practiced by Iranian athletes. The most popular sports in Iran are football (soccer), weightlifting, skiing, martial arts and wrestling. Iran also hosts and participate in major international sporting events to this day. For example, Tehran was the first city in the Middle East to host the Asian summer games in 1974. Football in Iran has become increasingly popular in Iran. The Iranian national football team is usually in the top 20 of the world and has qualified for 3 world cups. In weight lifting Hossein Reza Zadeh has made the world records in the Olympics and Is known as the worlds strongest man. Due to the low cost and the great benefits for the individual, martial arts have exploded in popularity in Iran in the past 20 years. Varzesh-e Pahlavani wrestling, commonly practiced in gymnasia called Zurkhaneh, is a century-old tradition in Persia. But also Greco-Roman, and particularly Freestyle Wrestling is incredibly popular in Iran, often even referred to as its national sport. With a history of great wrestlers, such as Gholamreza Takhti, and considerable success in Olympic and World Championships, Iran is considered among the elite nations in the sport (along with the US and CIS states).KingKongIran 05:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

We need something better. I don't like that paragraph, it's too general and it's also factually inaccurate as skating or professional dancing are practiced in Iran by men or women only. --ManiF 22:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Formatting problem with images

There's a problem with the image in the "Name" section. The image is formatted on the left side of the page, but when the menu is displayed, the table on the right hand side of the page, which has the statistics, extends down into the "Name" section, in a way that causes the picture to obscure some of the text in the first paragraph (at least with my browser, Safari on MacOS X). If I try to move the picture to the right, the text is not obscured, but if I hide the main menu, the picture moves into the "History" section, where it is not intended to be.

I do not know how to fix this problem. I hope that someone more knowledgeable than I can fix it. Bill Jefferys 22:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's just fine in Firefox, and I can't test it in Safari (I'm on Windows). --Jeff3000 22:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

the return of banned users

• Note: User:Gadolam is suspected of being Aucaman's sockpuppet. Aucaman has been banned from Iranian articles permanently by ArbCom. Please monitor. --anon observer

1. Template:En icon International, CNSNews.com. "Iran Elected to UN Disarmament Commission". Retrieved 2006-04-22.
2. Template:En icon World News website, BBC. ""Iran breaks seals at nuclear site"". Retrieved 2006-04-22.
3. Template:En icon Special Report, New York Times. "New worry rises after Iran claims nuclear steps". Retrieved 2006-04-20.

• NA-Class Iran pages
• NA-importance Iran pages
• WikiProject Iran articles
• NA-Class country pages
• WikiProject Countries articles
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Undated GA templates
• Good articles without topic parameter
• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)