Jump to content

Talk:Iranian Americans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 74.96.254.213 (talk) at 22:05, 9 October 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Remarks by various anonymous editors

Here's a removed edit that needs to be tagged "original research". Iranians have came to America for over a century, but the main ethnicity are represented by Armenians who were Christians from the northwest end of the Persian Empire the predecessor of Iran.

Iranian immigration to the United States began in the late 19th century, a few thousand Iranian farm laborers invited by the US government arrived in the farming areas of Southern California and the Central valley of California. but ceased to a trickle by World War II. The current trend started in the 1950's but has been continuous since the 1980s for usually economic reasons and to study abroad in US colleges.

The number of Iranians living in the USA until the Islamic revolution of 1978-79 was scant, but no question about the Iranian community in Los Angeles by the time was established. The UCLA located in the western L.A. community of Westwood had attracted Iranian students, and they established what became widely known as "Tehrangeles". + 71.102.11.193 (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should add Shmuley Boteach To the list of influential Iranians. He is one of the most recognizable American Rabbi's in the world who just so happens to be an Iranian-American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.8.124 (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was forced to delete the nonsense that 880 billion dollars was created by Iranian Americans. I have no doubt their contributions have been immense, but I was unable to verify his claims through any other nonpartisan sources. The statement comes from a video lecture that is tenuous at best. Using that as proof is ridiculous no matter how well respected he may be. I have no doubt that Milani is a well regarded figure, but the citations need to come from a primary source-specifically a published MIT document stating this information. Otherwise, its hearsay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.182.98.216 (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have also deleted the nonsense about the number of physicians and professors in the US. This data is unimpressive as well. The figures themselves do not merit consideration as they are not of any significance. Even worse, the original author conflates their value by combining the MD professionals in the US who may or may not be practicing. Just because they received an MD does not actually mean they are practicing because the standards between the two countries are different.

Worse, the statement about professors includes part time ones as well. This is meaningless and adds no value. Its one thing to create a Wiki page as a factual site that also pays tribute to ones culture. Its entirely baseless to create an entire Wiki page solely for the advertisement of modest success as a real and significant one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.182.98.216 (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Removal & Deletions of Previously Sourced Material

An editor who has stumbled across this article has made deletions to material that had been previously sourced, or is sourced elsewhere in the article. This material needs to be re-sourced, and a "needed citation" tag placed on the paragraphs in the intern. The Scythian 23:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are several links that hold sources to either modify the paragraphs, or to be directly included within them[1][2][3] The Scythian 23:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added tags for requested citations. The Scythian 23:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content under discussion was originally deleted by an anon IP, 157.182.98.216, on 1 February; the deletions were explained by him in the talk page section directly above this. They were reverted today by another anon IP without discussion and with an edit summary indicating they were unexplained deletions, obviously not true. At the time of the original deletion,they had neither sources nor tags. Looking back a bit in the history, I find that in March 2010 (e.g. here), the major sections in question were sourced, to Torbat, Akbar E (Spring 2002). "The brain drain from Iran to the United States". Middle East Journal 56 (2): 272–295. I also note that entire sections were enclosed in quotation marks with a single citation at the end of each, which raises questions as to whether a copyright violation may have been (inadvertently) involved. At some point since then, both the quotation marks and the cites disappeared. There is also discussion, albeit somewhat vague, on the problem of inadequate sourcing earlier in this talk page.
Since I did truly "stumble upon" this article – following a possibly disruptive edit string – I'll merely call these points to your attention and trust that, since the issue now has the attention of an editor with experience on the article, it will be resolved. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sections will either be changed or deleted, dependent on what is "Googled" in the next few days. These paragraphs are actually rather new inclusions, considering the age of the article, and what is sourced may be better off "melted into" other sections. The Scythian 00:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian American and Persian American, put in the terminology

The US census only mentions Iranian Americans and comparing this article to other articles (Indian American, Azerbaijani American..) the issue of language/religion is mentioned later. The introduction is supposed to be short The intro is was a violation of synthesis as the only academic source in it mentions majority of Iranians use the term interchangeably in the only academic source that mentions "Iranian American" and "Persian American". If a source is going to talk about the similarity or difference of these two terms, it needs to mention both terms explicitly or else it is violation of synthesis. The source needs to mention both words. Since this is a complex matter, I have created a subsection where different opinions can be inserted (sourced of course) under terminology

There were two websites that were linked in the intro which does not even mention the term "Persian American" but ethnic Persian speakers (anything anyone concludes based on that is synthesis as it needs to mention "Persian American"). Persian American as much to do wih the fact that the country of Iran/Persia are used interchangeably. And it proably encompasses geography first. Given the complex matter, it is moved to the terminology section.

Searching through google books with much higher quality academic sources, there are a good number of academic books that use the term interchangeably. The lead should be simple and not have unrelated/contradictions and "often", "distinct" or "separate" are not in the source. See [1]. If there is a contrary viewpoint to these books, it needs to be mentioned alongside the books above in that terminology section, not in the opening paragraph but later on as the statements here. As far as I know the US census does not mention "Persian American" but "Iranian American". Also the ethno-religious diversity category I checked for other X-American articles and it is not the lead (e.g. Talysh is not mentioned in Azerbaijani American in the lead nor at all..nor is Kurdish.. or in Indian American Punjabi and Tamil is not mentioned in the lead). Also the lead should be short and that was put in its own section. If there is any other opinion now about religious, language or terminology of Persian-American/Iranian-American, since they are disputed items, they do not belong to the lead and now have their own section.--108.18.222.120 (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who wrote the above? Is it 108.18.222.120? The changes that were made [2] are simply massive. They were not discussed, and several sources, like US Marines manual, were removed without explanation (then user Scythian77 removed Jewish references without explanation), whole sections moved around, etc. It's OK to improve the article, but removing quality and reliable sources is not. I restored the last good version, but kept the new sources 108.18.222.120 placed in there (e.g., Nakamura, Darya) plus placed two other quality sources: Mehdi Mozorgmehr, The new Americans: a guide to immigration since 1965 // Mary C. Waters, Reed Ueda, Helen B. Marrow (eds.), Harvard University Press, 2007, p. 469 [3] and Elizabeth Chacko, Contemporary ethnic geographies in America // Ines M. Miyares, Christopher A. Airriess (eds.), Rowman & Littlefield, 2007, pp. 325-326 [4]. --Saygi1 (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I wrote it (Khdabandeh14) and I rather not log-in with my account while I am away. But I can, if needs to be, but I hope you are a reasonable guy. I also do not care about Azerbaijani-American but in the lead, it does not say "ethnic Turksih Azeri is distinct and separate from Azerbaijani" (note the bolded words). Please mind WP:LEAD, it is not a place to put disputed issues or ethnic sentences, specially in the first sentence. Same for example with Russin-American. The first sentence is meant to clarify the terminology Iranian American. As pe Perian-American, we disagree on the definitions and thus it needs its own terminology section. The US marine source you brought (whih has inaccuries) does not use the term "Persian-American" or "Iranian-American". So it is not related to the aricle. It is discussing the "Persian" linguistic group in Iran. Not Persian-American in the sense that the WP:RS sources I mentioned. Nothing about America, so nothing related to the article. Yes we all know not there Armeians in Turkey, Assyrians in Iran, or Lezgins in Azerbaijan, but this is not the article for that. Putting Persian from one source and adding to a American from another soure is core wikipedia violation, WP:synthesis. I also discussed the points in detail and stated why I removed synthesis sources (sources that do not discuss Iranians in America and do not use such terms as separate or distinct which needs to be quoted) 1) We can use my compromise version or go to mediation. I'll explain why my version is compormise. The reason I call my version compromise is that I moved Persian American to termiology and furthermore, I brought exact sources stating they are the same thing. You are taking the linguistic definition. Collions dictionary (2009) states under Persian:

  • — adj
  • 1. of or relating to ancient Persia or modern Iran, their inhabitants, or their languages

— n

  • 2. a native, citizen, or inhabitant of modern Iran; an Iranian
  • 3. a member of an Indo-European people of West Iranian speech who established a great empire in SW Asia in the 6th century bc
  • 4. Avestan Old Persian Pahlavi See also Farsi the language of Iran or Persia in any of its ancient or modern forms, belonging to the West Iranian branch of the Indo-European family

So whether we take definitions 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 is arbitrary and does not belong to lead. The most important thing to note is how google books /scholars (not websites using sythensis) use the term "Persian-American".. that is the definition for wikipedia and everything else does not count for this article. Actually the term "Iranian" can also be taken as ethno-linguistic (Iranian languages) or the country or even people outside of Irn and etc. The context makes thing clear. I broght my sources:

  • Fereshteh Haeri Darya, "Second-generation Iranian-Americans: The relationship between ethnic identity, acculturation, and psychological well-being" Capella University, ProQuest, 2007 pp 3-4: "According to previous studies, the prescence of heterogeneity is evident among Iranian immigrants (also known as Persians -- Iran was known as Persia until 1935)
  • Racial and Ethnic Relations in America, Carl Leon Bankston,"Therefore, Turkish and Iranian (Persian) Americans, who are Muslims but not ethnically Arabs, are often mistakenly ..",Salem Press, 2000
  • Raymond M. Nakamura,"Iranian/Persian Americans The flow of Iranian citizens into the United States began in 1979, during and after the Islamic Revolution."Raymond M. Nakamura -"Health in America: A multicutral perspective" , Kendal Hub 2003.

Three WP:RS sources stating they are exactly the same, yet I did not put it in the lead. So these many sources use them equivalently, however you have not brought a source that says "Persian-Americans" and "Iranian-Americans" are "disinct and separate", and which uses "sometimes" or etc.. You only brought one source (that has a relationship to the article since it is about Iranians in America):

  • Maryam Daha, Contextual Factors Contributing to Ethnic Identity Development of Second-Generation Iranian American Adolescents, Journal of Adolescent Research September 2011 vol. 26 no. 5 543-569: "the majority of the participants self-identified themselves as Persian instead of Iranian, due to the stereotypes and negative portrayals of Iranians in the media and politics. Adolescents from Jewish and Baha’i faiths asserted their religious identity more than their ethnic identity.".

Be that it may, given the sources which state the terms are equivalent and the dictionary definition, I have not mentioned it in the lead. Rather I have put things in the terminology section where WP:RS sources (which must use the term Persian-American and Iranian-American) are used. Furthermore, I mentioned that not all Iranin-Americns are from a native Persian speaking background (which is different than Persia/Iran geographics). So all possible viewpoints are given, despite the fact that the sources I have state unequivocally they are equivalent, and none of your sources (which do not use Persian-American) state they are "distinct and separate". Furthermore, WP:LEAD is the most important consideration here, and it should be clear and concise. The "hyphenated-American" argument also is based upon most common usage in google books/scholars (scholarly sources) and not any uniformity.

So I think the terminology section is a good place to discuss equivalence or an sources (which use Persian-American) that mentions "distic and separate". However, we cannot mention one source as fact and the others as "sometimes". So I hope when you have sources for "Persian-American" that also sates variety of different opinions, those sources use "Perian-American".

I am not interested in being active in wikipedia. I am not even interested in Azerbaijani-American. (Azerbaijani-American where many biased sources are quoted as the opinions of newspapers. Or some of the organizations quoted or the general director and etc. are based: [5] (see wikileaks and also note the part about anectodal and lobbyist organizations, which mentions: " There are few Azerbaijanis in the U.S., largely students or other temporary workers") and this makes the number 400,000 is unreal, contrasting with few. It is like quoting the president of Haiti and then stating it is the opinion of CNN! (crossed out as it is not related)

But bringing this simple issue to mediation (lack of sources using Persian-American that mentions "distinct and separate" (synthesis as the sources do not use American), ignoring the geographical equivalence (many sources here the dictionary definition above being one of them) and also ignoring the sources that use them equivalently in the lead, then mediation result is clear and if there is mediation, I would put Persian-American as equivalent (based on the google books using them equivalently which is what wikipedia cares about and also my preferred geographical basis). Because there are variety of definitions for "Persian" (geographic, ethnic etc.), and what concerns use here is how google books/scholars use "Persian-American". However, given there is a difference of opinion, I have moved it to the terminology section given different viewpoints (which would be the worst case result of mediation). That is more than a compromise else the above source are sufficient (given they use Persian-American and are not synthesis) to establish equivalency as the primary definition. And wikipedia cares about what is the common usage, and not what different users feel is correct. Also the MIT survey is metioned but it is not WP:LEAD, as Lead should be short. Preferablly two/three sentences actually.. --108.18.222.120 (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC) I should also mention that the sources I brought explicitly state they are the same, and one cannot use "some" to qualify these sources without a teritary source. And specially one cannot use these sources to claim "distinct and separate". If we were going to go like this (synthesis and putting our own, original research), then the US marine source on Azeris (or similar websites or google books which describe various minorities) can for example be used in Azerbaijani American to claim it is different than ethnic Azeri Turkish Americans (in the first sentence), and put it in the first sentence. Overall, Wikipedia works with the common definition in scholarly books and more importantly WP:LEAD must be followed. Some points might be important for various users but WP:LEAD requires a concensus, and the current version is very fair in this article. Checking google books, the primary definition of Iranian American is for sure from Iran (and not Iranian linguistic) and similarly primary definition of Persian-American is geographical and also the fact that most Iranian Americans use Persia and Iran equivalently (and these sources use the equivalently). As someone said: "Thus, whatever rationale allows that page -- Armenian American, as well as Iranian American, to exist without problems and without user .... making extensive changes, the very same rationale and rule applies to Azerbaijani Americans.". And the current version (despite serious disagreements where even controversial sources-see wikileaks/etc.) violates most rules of wikipedia including synthesis and false attribution. Thus if we are going to mediation, then we need to bring that article in the same mention, however I think it is best to not waste time. I think it is clear my sources are brought, and there is absolutly no justificaton for changing what those sources say, which is not "distinct and separate" (which is not lead material). Based on the google books results the primary definition of Persian-American (for whatever reason, a good majority of Iranians in the West prefer Persian and good majority of sources use it, whatever the background as the issue is more geographica/historical than linguistic) And I have no responsibility for any other user. But the current version of that page (at least at the time of this message) has even removed the tags. --108.18.222.120 (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saygi1, all the explanation are given above.. you have no source to use "distinct and separate" or else the same will be applied to Azerbaijani-Americans" "Ethnic Azeri Turks are distinct and separate from Azerbaijani..". Stop using the WP:synthesis and furthermore, my sources use them equivalently. You cannot use "sometimes". Google books also gets more hits for Persian Jews than Iranian Jews. So the two terms are used equivalently per geographica/historical reasons. That is why the terminology section clear this issue up and differeniates linguistic from historical/geographic. You cannot impose your preferred definition in the intro by synthesis, when all the sources I brought use hem as equivalent. Per lead, if something needs explanation, then it should be in the body. Thanks. --108.18.222.120 (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


the difference between "Persian-American" and "Iranian-American" exists, and it is shown in the scholarly sources, for example, in this source I've included before, by an Iranian academic: Mehdi Bozorgmehr, The new Americans: a guide to immigration since 1965 // Mary C. Waters, Reed Ueda, Helen B. Marrow (eds.), Harvard University Press, 2007, p. 469 [6] and also more indirectly here: Elizabeth Chacko, Contemporary ethnic geographies in America // Ines M. Miyares, Christopher A. Airriess (eds.), Rowman & Littlefield, 2007, pp. 325-326 [7] --Saygi1 (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have brought four academic sources using them the same using them equivalently. You need to bring exact quotes, and then it is discussed in the terminology section without any intrepretation. We cannot highlight one intrepretation at the cost of others. Your second source is not talking about "ethnic Persian" as language but about ethnic Iranians (whatever they maybe) using Persian (without any indicator for linguistic or geograpical reason). Your first source exactly states what I state: "Iranian immigrants are sometimes reffered to by other as Persian, since "Iran" and Persia are used interchangeably in the US". It just says label Iranian is more inclusive. Note the word he uses is "more inclusive" rather than the "distinct" and "separate" which you have synthesized. So this is one source and it is good for the terminology section. Also we can do the same in Azerbaijani-American:"Azerbaijani American is distinct and separate from ethnic Azeris". Also again if a source is not using "Persian-American" or "Iranian-American" than it is not valid (e.g. sources talking about people in Iran without any relationship to US citizens" --108.18.222.120 (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have those quotes at your disposal from my previous post, they are both recent and from high-quality sources like Harvard University. For example: "The label "Iranian" is more inclusive, however, because "Persian" excludes non-Persian religious and ethnic minorities from Iran. Since Iran is the largest Shia Muslim country in the world, many assme that all Iranian immigrants are Muslim. Despite IRan's relative religious homogeneity (about 98 percent of its population in 1976 was Muslim), the full spectrum of its religious minorities is represented in relatively large numbers in the U.S. These include Christian Armenians and Assyrians, Baha'is, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Sunni Kurds." (Mehdi Bozorgmehr, The new Americans: a guide to immigration since 1965 // Mary C. Waters, Reed Ueda, Helen B. Marrow (eds.), Harvard University Press, 2007, p. 469 [8])

p. 475: "Of all Persian holidays, Now Rus is the only one that is observed by all Iranian Americans, regardless of religious and ethnic background." (Mehdi Bozorgmehr, The new Americans: a guide to immigration since 1965 // Mary C. Waters, Reed Ueda, Helen B. Marrow (eds.), Harvard University Press, 2007, p. 469 [9]) --Saygi1 (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will include them in the terminology section and the rest inthe religious/ethnic groups. But the terminology of Persian-American is complicated to explain, and there is no reason the term is to be described in the first sentence by using our own wroing --108.18.222.120 (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC) Besides the geographic reason, you have self-identification reason, and political reasons and etc. Edward E. Curtis, IV, "Encyclopedia of Muslim-American History: Volume 1, Infobase Publishing, 2010. pg 277: "Those who wish to disassociate themselves from the Islamic government of Iran are more likely to call themselves Persians than Iranians".. I will include this plus the sources you mentioned in the terminology section.. and the religion one in the ethnic groups/religiou section. thanks--108.18.222.120 (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another one that also shows that the labels that are used interchangeably: The American ethnic cookbook for students By Mark Zanger [10]. Despite calling "Persian-Americans (Iranians)", the author then proceeds to say that Jews are also included in that. There are also these works [11] and [12] which I cited before. I have nothing against rewriting the article, but not like Scythian does it, or some others, who simply remove reliable sources they don't like and write non-neutral wording. This article was created long before me, I only added mostly new sources to it, not re-written it. --Saygi1 (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am going to include these sources. As I noted in Collins 2010 English dictionary Persian has variety of meaning..

  • 1. of or relating to ancient Persia or modern Iran, their inhabitants, or their languages

— n

  • 2. a native, citizen, or inhabitant of modern Iran; an Iranian

For example I myself identify as Persian American despite partial Kurdish and Shomali (which is more Middle Persian) background. Terms like Persian/Iranian/Russian/Turkish/Azerbaijani have multiple meanings and sometimes it is confusing. There is no "correct" definition (some have a preference for one or another) and that is why I made the terminology section. I will also include the minority religions which is definitely not the same percentage as hat in Iran (99% Muslim). --108.18.222.120 (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dispute tags

Since we have a dispute about the article, and the neutrality of the sources, I've included the two dispute tags into the article. Some editors here just removed a lot of sourced information - and that's a dispute - whilst others either use non-neutral sources or wording. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a dispute since the terminology section covers both viewpoints. If there is a difference of opinion on terminology it doesn't belong to the lead. --108.18.222.120 (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that it is being removed and challenged by user Scythian, hence a dispute. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay let me see what is being removed. My dispute was more about the lead, and the wording "distinct and separate" which in those soures (4 of them at least) are used equivalently. Note I have mentioned not all Iranian immigrants are from Persian speaking background (e.g. Armenians, Assyrians, Azeris, ..etc.). So give me a second and I will fix it. Note I think it is best not to agigate and that is why I ceased my involvement in the other article. It is best we all be logical and stick to sources. thanks--108.18.222.120 (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you completely, and invite same attitude from everyone on all articles. All these articles about ethnic Americans should be consistent with each other and abide by similar standards. --Saygi1 (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am going to include these sources. As I noted in Collins 2010 English dictionary Persian has variety of meaning..

  • 1. of or relating to ancient Persia or modern Iran, their inhabitants, or their languages

— n

  • 2. a native, citizen, or inhabitant of modern Iran; an Iranian

For example I myself identify as Persian American despite partial Kurdish and Shomali (which is more Middle Persian) background. Terms like Persian/Iranian/Russian/Turkish/Azerbaijani have multiple meanings and sometimes it is confusing. Context usually makes it crealy. There is no "correct" definition (some have a preference for one or another definition) and that is why I made the terminology section. I will also include the minority religions which is definitely not the same percentage as hat in Iran (99% Muslim). Let me go through the sources.. My main concern was the lead and also giving preference to one definition using our own wordings.. I think the usage "more inclusive" by Bozormehr is correct. --108.18.222.120 (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC) I do have my own quarrels with "Azerbaijani-American" but as I said, I am not going to bother.. --108.18.222.120 (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC) About consistency,... I think we need to simply follow google books/scholar sources , and if there is contradictions in them, move them to the body. For example, "Iranian" itself has several meaning (linguistic, country of Iran and etc.). But "Iranian American" for example does not mean Ossetians (out of context).. usually the way the sources use the term is the best way to proceed. But I am not concerned about other ethnic X-American articles and wikipedia is more about reflecting sources using the term, then having consistency. --108.18.222.120 (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I added all the sources previously except those that were not relavent to Iranian-American/Persian-American or other X-Americans. The religions section re-includes the Mobashar and Niloufar source. The Fox news source is also in there with the 10-20% but with attribution to fox news since the credibility of that organization was in dispute (although tey lack credibility for most stuff in my opinion, the 10% is a possibility although not sure about 20%). Zanger was also put and so was Bozorgmehr (and directly quoted on "more inclusive). I hope now the edit warring on the page stops from all sides. What is the correct definition for wikipedia has to do what is most cited, and nothing more. So if a group is overwhmingly called Martian-American rather than less cited such as X-american by reliable sources,it is good enough for wikipedia. The lead needs to be short and clean , as in any other article, and anything that has multiple viewpoints (like percentage of religious minorities or the wide and intricate definition used for Iranian/Persian) in their own section. I thank everyone whose intent was to participate in improving this article. Everyone should mind the lead section,.. it is not a place to impose one definition or one source, and it is not the place to discuss everything.. that is why there is the body. --108.18.222.120 (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will study the revisions. Meanwhile, I don't know who questions the credibility of FOX? It's one of Top 5 U.S. national media organizations, #1 in terms of ratings and viewership ("the big winner, as usual, was Fox News, which continued to dominate ratings. The network beat MSNBC and CNN combined with 2.071 million total viewers, and had nine of the top ten cable news shows.")[13], and while many question its credibility, many others question, for example, The New York Times' credibility, CNN, or even PBS. See, for example, this poll: "The poll finds that among GOPers, 24% think Fox is “extremely reliable,” and 41% think Fox is “reliable.” That’s a total of 65% of Republicans who see Fox as reliable or very much so."[14] As long as Fox is a major source of information and accepted and watched widely - which it is - it has more than enough right to be featured here or anywhere in Wikipedia. Also, I really doubt anyone can disagree that there is a difference between Iranian vs. Persian, and consequently, Iranian-American vs. Persian-American. The trend towards "Persian-American" by non-Persian Iranians is very well explained in the cited works, and if not explained in the article, it should. These are two different terms, and no one in the scholarly word ever claimed that these two are exactly the same or should be same. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FOX news, Republicans and etc.,US national media or any media... their reliably depends on the story. Popular polls do not play a role for wikipedia, but rather if a story of theirs is cited by numerous scholars, etc.. it gives it more weight. I believe the story about Iranian Jews is reliable enough as I see no controversial item in it and no need to discuss the reliability of the news source, if we attribute it. About difference between "Iranian and Persian".. it depends on the context, history book, and many factors. The dictionary terms I quoted above show much overlap as well as possible difference. It is arbitrary as both terms have been used since ancient times in various contexs. That is why I quoted the Collins-Harper dictionary to show. As far as google books/scholars (scholarl sources), it seems they are used often to be the same and interchangeably. Some books say Iranian-American is more inclusive as well while others use them exactly the same. Various reasons are given, so all of that is mentioned in the terminology. What matters for wikipedia is how these exact words "I-American/P_Americans" are used in google books/scholars. For example, when writing ancient history (say 800 A.D.), Iranian is used more often in the ethno-linguistic sense, but that is not relavent to this article. Whether one says they are different or the same, depends on the definition used from the four definitons of the dictionary above and the context where such books are used. Current lead pointing to this section is good rather than bringing that whole section in the forefront. Also the terminology section simply shows the various opinions about the usage of this term without taking a possesion (as it is arbitrary how people or scholars want to use multi-valued terms) which is the essense of a neutral encyclopaedia.--108.18.222.120 (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marmulak please use talkpage. That section requires the details that are there. I cleaned up the grammar for that part. Thank you. --108.18.222.120 (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Marmulak, your last change is good enough with me although I prefer my longer version. I am not going to get 3rr+ , but I think now the article has a clean lead, and that terminology section and reference it to clears up the various overlapping/differing definitions. I prefer the overlapping definition and some might prefer differing definition, it is important to note the viewpoint of the scholarl sources which the terminology section shows. However, I do believe the Collins Harper dictionary is useful tool in show the variety of overlaping/differing definitions for these multiple-meaing ancient terms. Thank you.

Marmulak, I do not think there is a doubt about majority of Iranian Americans being from a Muslim background (although the percentage is lower than Iran). Wether the majority is practicing is a different issue. --108.18.222.120 (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Putting a lot of "according to" phrases in a paragraph is not good writing. The article needs to be succinct and well-written to be featured. Collins Harper dictionary could indeed be a useful source, but the quote from it didn't really make much sense. Majority of Iranian-Americans have identified themselves as non-Muslim, that's a fact. I don't exactly know what "of Muslim-background" means, religion is not biologically inherited and cannot be called "background"! -- Regards, Marmoulak (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I will just make a small sentence about the dictionary giving variety including overlapping definitions. This way it shows some clarity...About "Muslim background" it means simply that. It is not contradictatory to non-practicing/practicing. It just means that on their Iranian identity card, they have Muslim..--108.18.222.120 (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non-practicing/practicing only applies to those who believe in the religion but do not actively practice it. Whereas those who identify themselves as non-Muslim, do not believe in Islam in the first place. I think that is an important distinction that needs to be noted. Regards -- Marmoulak (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the dispute tag removed again and several sources along the way, plus the scholarly explanation from Dr. Bozorgmehr? --Saygi1 (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Sayig1 , do not add your own wording to the article. There is no source that uses "distinct and separate" for "Iranian-Americans". Dr. Bozorgmehr mentions it is more inclusive which is mentioned in the terminology section. The terminology section describes these issues in detail. If a source does not mention "Iranian-American" or "Persian American" it is not relavent. The current wording in the introduction was put by yourself after the arguments above. If he disagrees, please propose new wording based on sources that use the terms "Persian-American"/"Iranian-American". I believe the terminology section describes the issue very well and contains both viewpoint. Based on the sources, Persian-American is often interchangeably used with Iranian-American (whatever definition once takes), however some scholars believe Iranian-American is more exclusive. We do not do synthesis in Wikipedia. --74.96.254.213 (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Foxnews about Iranian-Jewish American was reinserted.
  • Dr. Bozorgmehr is mentioned as a source. I do not have a problem with his expansion.
  • Synthesis statements and statements not in sources (which do not discuss Persian-American/Iranian-American) were removed. Keeping WP:LEAD in mind, the terminology section describes the issue in detail. Users putting words like "Distinct and separate", etc. need to have the sources stating the exact same statement with regards Persian-American/Iranian-American. Giving links to random websites which do not even use the terminology Persian-American is violation of OR. Furthermore, the lead section needs to be short and if there are indeed such a sources, they need to be put in the terminology section. However, as shown by the academic sources, these overlap greatly and are not mutually exclusive depending on various definitions. Everything that was necessary has been said above. The way things are going on in wikipedia, it seems another arbcomm is necessary with permanent admin oversight on all Azerbaijani-X (Iran, Armenia..etc) related articles much like Russian Wikipedia. I urge admins to look at this methodology as a lot of articles in Russian wikipedia have now been solved thanks to multiple admins. I hope usrs in English wikipedia are wise enough not to get to that point but it might be necessary for the future. --74.96.254.213 (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.isgmit.org/projects-storage/census/Factsheet.pdf
  2. ^ http://isgmit.org/projects-storage/IranianAcademia/ir-academia.pdf
  3. ^ http://www.iama.org/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iranian_Americans&oldid=454775933"