Talk:Iranian Jews

famous persian jews?

Are Moshe Katzav, Shaul Mofaz and Dan Halutz considered to be "famous persian jews"?

I don't think Dan Halutz is even a Persian Jew. As for the other two, I'm not sure how much they emphasize their Persian roots. Basically, if you want to know if someone is a famous Persian Jew, first make sure he/she is famous. Then ask someone to write a paragraph about him/her. If the paragraph contains the words "Persian" or "Iranian" then that person could be famous Persian Jew. This is certainly the case for Ester. I don't know about Katzav or Mufaz. Aucaman 06:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Halutz is indeed of Iranian origin (both his parents were born in Iran), but he himself was born in Israel and I don't think he has any knowledge of the Persian language (Farsi). Both Moshe Katzav, the current president of Israel, and Shaul Mofaz, the former Chief of Staff of the IDF and the current minister of defense, were born in Iran and are fluent in the Farsi language. There was even a scandle around this during the funeral of Pope John Paul II, where Katzav claimed he spoke to Iranian President Mohammad Khatami in farsi during the occasion.

Are there really only 11,000 Jews remaining in Iran today?

I've heard the number was actually between 25,000 and 30,000. Have the number of Jews living in Iran diminished to only 11,000 in recent years?

The official number is 11,000 but the actual number might be closer to what you're suggesting. Most sources seem to say 11,000. I'm not sure where it's coming from. Aucaman 06:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info.

The new offical number is 25,000 roughtly as this number went up Iran's population went by an extra 10 million offical people. Sigh, don't you love it when people don't register with the government? ems 15:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh.

Criticisms of the Phrase

I removed the following paragraph:

It is strange how the Persian Jews are not accepted. Persians Jews have been in Iran for 2,700 years. That is 90 generations ago. In, addition, they have been in Iran over 1200 years before Islam ever exsisted. Yet, to lots of unaccepting Muslims, they are too different to be regular "Persians". They do not need any acceptance; all Jewish Persians are as Persian as Muslim Persians and Armenian Christan Persians. A simple practice of religion does not affect one's race, yet they are discriminated against.

That may be true, but I think it is irrelevant to a section titled "Criticisms of the Phrase" and its wording strikes me as somewhat patronizing (i.e., non-compliant with the non-POV policy).TheMcManusBro 15:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Persian who is non-religious. I have always felt that the Jews are different and they should leave Iran. Nobody had invited them to Iran in the first place. I have NEVER felt the same way about Armenians. I feel Armenians of Iran are just as Iranian as myself but Jews are different. Armenians contribute to the society. Jews network AGAINST the society. That's the difference. 69.105.39.132 09:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

69.105.39.132 how dare you make such statments. You know nothing about Iran and humnaity to make such disgusting statments. Shame on you for slandering fellow Iranians who are just as much Iranian as anyone else, if not more. They were there before the majority and may even have more archaic Iranian genes. You can not single out Jews or other groups like that. I wonder what you think of Zoroastrians. Shame on you! Readers these statments are made due to the actions of the Israeli government and its attacks on Iran. The funny thing is the majority of Iranians Jews are anti-Zionist. You can not equate Iranian Jews with Israel. The actions of the Israeli government are a vicitimizing force for Jews across the world.

69.105.39.132 a triat of Iranian culture has always been tolerance for thousands of years and respect. I see you are estranged from Iranian culture and values. How dare you write such anti-Iranian (yes it is anti-Iranian because it tears away at the fabrics of Iranian society which Iranian Jews are a part of) statments. 69.196.139.250 01:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hideous nonsense. Jews have been living in Iran longer than a lot of other Iranians. Armenians have only been living in (proper) Iran for the last 100-200 years. Not even comparable. Most Jews have been persecuted and discriminated against simply for political reasons that have very little to do with Iran or Persian Jews. The ones left in Iran (not that many) are kept in such horrible conditions that they can't even network against the country even if they wanted you. You're just giving into Islamic Republic's propaganda. Aucaman^Talk 13:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aucaman how dare you make information up! Armenians have been living in Iran for thousands of years. They are one of the original people and pre-Christian Armenian history is tied with Iran. They are one of the original Aryan peoples of the region. Your statment has no factual grounds. How dare. I constantly seeing you make statements that show how little you know on Iran. How dare you push such statments as fact. I AM WARNING YOU ON THIS ISSUE! 69.196.139.250 01:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly Armenians have been living in Iran as long as Persians. Armenia was a part of Iran or a vassla of Iran for much of its hisotry and the boundries are unclear. That is an incorect statment. Itranian Jews are an important part of Iranian history and society and any comments against them is an attack on all Iranians. Iranian Jews are also mostly anti-Zionist and against Israel. 69.196.139.250 01:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 not 1

I remember seeing a news peice on CNN that said there were TWO jews in Afghanistan, not one. I could be wrong seeing as how this was a couple of years ago, but if anyone has the time to track it down it might be worth looking into.

At least one has since died (it was in the news)... if not both of them... they were both quite elderly. Tomer ^talk 07:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Some recent edits have been rather disturbing:

Some here tend to think any Jew living in the Persian Empire is a Persian Jew. Unfortunately that's not true. For example Egypt used be part of the Persian Empire, so Egyptinan Jews are Persian Jews? That's why it's important to note that they must speak Persian to be Persian Jews.

Some also like to suggest that there has been substantial interbreeding between local Persians and Persian Jews, to the effect that one cannot tell the difference between Persian Jews and local Persians. This is also wrong. Although there has been interbreeding, most Persian Jews tend to have certain (linguistic as well as physical) characteristics that distinguishes them from the local populations. In beginning of the 20th century (parallel to the rise of Nazism in Germany), there was widespread Persian literature about these characteristics which classified Persian Jews as "Semites" and not "Aryans"--hence not "real Iranians". Aucaman^Talk 04:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are Persian Jews ethnically Semitic? Are they not Semitic? Has there been "substanstial interbreeding" ("intermarriage" would be a better choice of words) with non-Jews? Mass conversions of non-Jews to Judaism in previous eras? There is no evidence to back any of this up, and it's irrelevant either way. I am, however, curious about this allegedly "widespread" Persian literature classifying Persian Jews as Semites, which I personally find doubtful. There were a few Nazi sympathizers during the 1930s in Iran who bought into their racist propaganda, but they were most definitely fringe. SouthernComfort 15:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the page history, you'd see that people have been trying to add what I explained to be wrong information to the article. That's all I was trying to say. I'm not going to add any of the things I said to the article, so there's no point asking me for evidence. Those who add new information to the article are responsible for providing evidence. Aucaman^Talk 07:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No conversation about Jews that entails a discussion of "interbreeding" can be good... Tomer ^talk 01:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was one of my points.Aucaman^Talk 03:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This deals with Persian Jews but I will talk about all Iranian Jews. Let me tell you that there is marriage between Jewish Iranians and both Christian and Muslim Iranians. There have also been many Iranians who converted to Jews and many Jewish Iranians who converted to other religion. There are very few differeance and it is safe to say most Iranian Jews are identical to other Iranians. Another example would be Tats they are Aryan peoples who became Jews and are not Semetic of whole tribes of Kurds. Please do not try to create a Jewish race, because there are Jews from every race. Additionlly last time Iranians checked they never looked any Iranian Jews as different from other Iranians.

Well the use of the word "race" is controversial in any case. What you're saying is not relevant to this article. We're not having a discussion about a "Jewish race" - I'm not even sure what you're talking about. Aucaman^Talk 11:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the fact that some people incorrectly are trying to say that Iranian Jews are a different race beacause that is totally untrue. Jewish Iranians are as Iranian as anyother type of Iranian and most would die for Iran. User:Acuman has no idea what he is talking about. Persian Jews are just Persians that follow a Jewish faith. 69.196.139.250 01:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conversions during Parthian times

From time to time, there were cases were there would be converts to Judaism, most during the Parthian period.

This is apparently the claim the anon has been insisting upon. Any sources for this? SouthernComfort 01:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The History of the Jews of Iran" by Habib Levy.

Expansion required

This article barely has any information concerning the contemporary life of Persian Jews in Iran. ~~Also, why the inclusion of information and links to Jews in India and Pakistan? Are they related to Persian Jews?~~ The sentence about Aghanistan is also misleading - the vast majority of the Jewish community there fled due to the Soviet invasion (obviously along with many other Afghans). By the time of the Taliban, most were already gone. This same information was in the Afghanistan article until I corrected it with a link to a Washington Post article [1] (primarily revolving around the issue of the single Afghan Jew left there). SouthernComfort 01:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The community dated back 800 years and still numbered 5,000 in 1948, but most remaining families fled the violence and repression that followed the Soviet invasion of 1979. From the article linked above. SouthernComfort 01:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dzhidi

According to Ethnologue, there were 60,000 Dzhidi-speakers in Israel in 1995. [2]. Does anyone have more recent figures? Also, is the language taught in Israel as well? SouthernComfort 02:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't see this post. I remember I found a source saying there were 93,000 Persian Jews in Israel, so I was the who put in the 100,000 estimate (the source was at least 8 years old, so it's even a low estimate). I'll try to find that source and add it in within the next two days. Also, I think the number in the U.S. should be a little higher, but I didn't have to time to do any research on that.

As for the second question, I doubt Persian is taught in any Israeli high schools, but it's probably taught in many universities.

Aucaman^Talk 13:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source. Today's numbers are probably above 100,000, but they've been assimilated into the Israeli public. Aucaman^Talk 10:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forced conversions in Pakistan

What is the source of this information? SouthernComfort 02:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything, so I'm going to take it out. Aucaman^Talk 11:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a New Article called Iranian Jews that deals with Tats, Persian Jews, and othe Iranic Jews

An article should be started about Iranian Jews which mentions the historic relations of the Jewish faith with Iranic peoples and includes Persian Jews, Kurdish Jews, Tats, and Lori Jews amongst other Iranian people of Jewish faith.

There are no "Persian" Jews!

Jews and Persians are two different races and ethnicities of their own. The proper term is "Iranian Jews" not "Persian Jews". The article should be renamed to "Iranian Jews". --ManiF 02:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a neutrality or factuality dispute. Both terms are used, and referred to in the introduction. If you want to suggest an article name change, please provide Wikipedia policy reasons why it should be done. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that classfying people by "race" is highly subjective and usually not acceptable. See the race article for more information. Persian Jews speak Persian and share many other cultural traits associated with being Persian. Aucaman^Talk 03:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Aucaman's words, I have every right challenge the neutrality and factual accuracy of this article, and I have done that. Whatever you do, you're not supposed to take out this tag unless the dispute is solved. In this case, I consider the term "Persian Jews" contridictory and not factual. Th term "Iranian Jews" should be used. --ManiF 04:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you think Jews who live in Afghanistan are Iranian Jews? Aucaman^Talk 04:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are "Afghan Jews", they should have a section of their own. The term "Persian Jew" was coined when "Persia" was the official name of Iran and "Persian" the official nationality. The term "Persian Jew" has no relevance in modern times, the correct name is "Iranian Jew". --ManiF 04:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about Jews who spoke Persian. They don't necessarily have anything to do with modern country of Iran. Iran is a modern political term and has nothing to do with Jews living in the Persian Empire 1,000 or 2,000 years ago. Why do you want to call them Iranian? Aucaman^Talk 05:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you can change the title to "Persian-speaking Jews". The term "Persian Jew" was used to refer to the Jews who were citizens of Persia, it has no relevance in modern times. The correct terms would be "Iranian Jews" or "Persian-speaking Jews". But "Persian Jews" suggests ethnic and racial connections between Persians and Jews when there is none. In that context, a "Persian Jew" would be someone of mixed ethnicity. --ManiF 05:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know what you're talking about. Persian Jews are more than just Persian-speaking. Before the Islamic revolution they were involved in all sort of things Persian. There were Persian Jewish singers, composers, writers, linguists, musicians, etc. There were also Persian converts to Judaism--how can you say they're not Persian? Aucaman^Talk 11:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mani jan, they have been living in iran for almost 2700 years, that makes them more Iranian (Persian) than many of those other people who arrived much later (Turks,...). Needless to say their language is a mixture of Hebrew/Persian. Amir85 18:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Jewish singers, writers, musicians, etc are still identified as ethnically Jews not Persians. The fact remains that the term "Persian Jew" has no ethnic/racial meaning. Jews and Persians are two different ethnicities and races of their own. However, given the fact that the term "Persian Jew" is simply a noun and an alternative to "Iranian Jew", still in use since the time of "Persia" when "Persian" was also a nationality, I've decided to withdraw my objection. --ManiF 18:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya it is a fact that there exists ignorance on this issue. Iranian Jews are the same genetically and in all ways but religon as Iranian Muslims and Christians. The term Persian Jew is right because there are other non-Persian Jews, such as Kurdish Jews and Jewish Tats. A lot of these people were not Jewish faith Hebrew immigrants, but Iranian converts thousands of years ago. There were whole towns in Iran that converted or even provinces/principlaities in Kurdistan. The Jewish community in Iran is older than the Muslim community. What you are equating this to is a statment saying Zoroastrian Iranians are not really Iranian or an Iranian people or race. This is wrong. Iranian Jews are just Iranian as an other Iranian and I even upset to be talking about a widely understoood fact.

Persian Jews and all other Jewish Iranians are an important and integral part of Iran and "Iranianism." Persian Jews are ethnic Persians who are Jews. There are also Lori Jews and other Iranian people who are Jewish......... 69.196.139.250 01:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also user:Acuman you prove how little you know about Iran by stating that iran is a modern political term. Iran is one of the world's oldest entities and was called Iran from the beginning by the Aryans. Iranians never refered to Iran as Persia but always as Iran. 69.196.139.250 01:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying will offend many Persian Jews. Most of which never lived in Iran. You should know better than to start up with Persians - you never win :-( Boy, can they argue! Oh yeah, if any of them offer you food, say yes if you know whats good for you!

99.9% of them call themselves Persian not Iranian, it would be against all logic to do otherwise, this article is about them. ems 15:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is that comment addressed to. It can not be me, but I fail to understand and I must also correct you that a great number of Persian Jews live in Iran. Iran has one of the world's largest Jewsih populations and presently has the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East after Israel. 69.196.139.250 18:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Jews: Ethnicity or religious community

The article's wording makes it appear that Persian Jews are an ethnic group distinct from other Persians, rather than simply a religious community. What is the source for this claim? SouthernComfort 07:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think the article should be more inclusive and NPOV by changing the title to Judaism in Iran. In addition to my above point, the current article title suggests that Persian Jews are a distinct ethnicity. This is certainly controversial. SouthernComfort 07:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jews are an ethnic group. If you have a problem with that you should go to the article on Jews. I'm sure they'll give you a full explanation. Aucaman^Talk 11:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Where are your sources that claim they are an ethnic group? They're a religious community like the Zoroastrians. If a Persian converts to Judaism, that makes that person a Persian Jew. Therefore even the title of this article is POV since it is not inclusive of converts. SouthernComfort 02:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, we're talking about the Jews of Iran - not Jews of other backgrounds (Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Ethiopian, etc) or Jewish peoples in general. SouthernComfort 03:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a historical term. It has nothing to do with modern Persians or the country of Iran. The only reason they're called Persian Jews is because they lived under the Persian Empire (or they spoke Persian). For example, Mordechai, a Persian Jew, was a Benjamite - definitely not Persian. And by the way, most Jewish traditions don't accept converts, so I'm not sure which converts you're talking about. Judaism is more than just a religion. Persian Jews share the same roots, closely identify with one another, and they have their own culture and language. This is why they form an ethnic group. See the ethnic group article. Aucam an^Talk 06:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're dodging my question. Where are your sources that they are an ethnic group distinct from Persians? As far as anyone is concerned, they are Persians of Jewish religion. Please provide sources that state otherwise. SouthernComfort 07:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article on Mordechai does not identify him as a Persian Jew. How do you know that the Jews of Iran are descended from the ancient Jews who were freed by Cyrus? How do you know that they are not actually descended from later converts to Judaism? Sources please. SouthernComfort 07:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it is problematic, the historical information which does not directly relate to the Jews of Iran may be moved to a separate article, but I don't think its necessary at this point. SouthernComfort 07:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

Which part of this article is disputed and why? Aucam an^Talk 06:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is disputed is your claim that the Jews of Iran are an ethnic group. I've never heard of this before. Persian Jews are a religious community. SouthernComfort 07:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you've highlighted a potential POV problem with the article title, which is why I have suggested a move to Judaism in Iran or Iranian Jews or Jews of Iran. SouthernComfort 07:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already told you. Most Persian Jews don't live in Iran and have nothing to do with Iran. They're called Persian Jews because of historical reasons. They're no more Iranian than Americans are English. I've asked people involved in the creation of this article to come and tell you exactly where the sources are coming from. Aucam an^Talk 07:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most have nothing to do with Iran? Do you have a source for that? Obviously there are still many Jews in Iran - somewhere between 25,000 to 40,000. Are you downplaying their significance? BTW, Jews of Persian ancestry in Israel and Los Angeles may no longer have ties to Iran (speculative at best), but they are still of Persian ancestry. And again, you have not provided any sources for the claim that they are ethnically distinct from Persians aside from the issue of religion. For example, in Los Angeles, most Persian Jews are active in the Persian community and celebrate Norooz, right? SouthernComfort 07:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You also contradict yourself in your discussion above with Mani: You don't know what you're talking about. Persian Jews are more than just Persian-speaking. Before the Islamic revolution they were involved in all sort of things Persian. There were Persian Jewish singers, composers, writers, linguists, musicians, etc. There were also Persian converts to Judaism--how can you say they're not Persian? And yet now you claim they are only Persian-speaking and not ethnically Persian. Incredible. SouthernComfort 08:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I said is correct except that there are Persian converts to Judaism. Persian Jews are Persian, but you and I seem to have a different understanding of who a Persian is (IMO, there's no such thing as a "Persian race"; Persian is a cultural group). Aucam an^Talk 08:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is talking about a "Persian race"? See ethnic group. SouthernComfort 08:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it helps if you read some of the stuff you revert. Here. You're telling me Jews like Mordechai (a Benjamite!) are descendants of "Aryan tribes"??? Aucam an^Talk 08:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do you have a source for the claim that there were not any converts to Judaism? Otherwise, that's just a claim and we have no idea if the Jews of Iran are actually descended from the original Jewish exiles or later converts, and we don't know the pattern of conversion in later centuries up to the modern era. SouthernComfort 08:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one claiming him as a Persian Jew. I don't agree with his inclusion. He's a historical figure who may or may not have been Persian. Do you have a source? Because I don't know. SouthernComfort 08:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, his article doesn't claim him as Persian. SouthernComfort 08:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical figure? So historical figures are not supposed to have religions, cultures, or ethnicities? So Mordechai is not a Persian Jew? Maybe you should read the story of Purim? Was Esther a Persian Jew? Aucam an^Talk 08:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one connecting them to Persian (or more accurately, Iranian) Jews, not me. You're the one claiming that the Iranian Jews and those Jews of Iranian ancestry today are ethnically descended from those historical figures. Do you have a source for that? Also, you keep avoiding my other points. SouthernComfort 08:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doing anything. Every source that talks about Purim, Esther, and Mordechai identifies them as Persian Jews. And I did not write this article or come up with a definition for Persian Jews. In fact I'm just going to shut up and let those whose edits you just removed without much reason come here and give you an explanation for why Esther and Mordechai are Persian Jews and why the article is written the way it is. If you want sources you might want to read some of the stuff here before removing sourced information. Aucam an^Talk 09:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are. You're making a lot of controversial claims without any sources to back them up. I welcome the involvement of other editors because I would really like my concerns to be addressed by serious editors who can provide sources. In addition, I find it unusual that you routinely condemn what you perceive to be "racialism" and yet here you have no problem in promoting the idea that the Jews of Iran are an entirely different race or ethnicity. Isn't that "racialism"? As far as I know, there are no sources which suggest that the Jews of Iran and those of Persian ancestry are not ethnically Persian or ethnically different from other Persians in their respective areas (e.g. are Isfahani Jews ethnically different from other Isfahanis?). SouthernComfort 20:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=9814

Why are putting this in the middle of this section? Aucam an^Talk 04:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

When did I say Jews form a race? I said an ethnic group. An ethnic group is a group of people who identify close with another and share a common language and culture. Persian Jews form the best example of this. It's funny that you bring up Isfahani Jews because up until a 100 years ago they spoke a special dialect of Judeo-Persian that was totally incomprehensible to the local population of Isfahan. Aucam an^Talk 04:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but aside from their religion, how are Persian Jews ethnically different from other Persians? Zoroastrians also have their own distinct dialects and yet they are a religious community, not a distinct ethnic group. Similarly, Persian Jews are a religious community, not a distinct ethnic group. Before the Revolution, intermarriage between Persians of different religious backgrounds were not uncommon and it is only after the Revolution that those belonging to minority religions were forced to marry within their own communities unless they converted to Shi'a Islam. As I said, it all comes down to the issue of whether or not Persian Jews are ethnically distinct from other Persians. No sources have so far been provided to prove that they are a separate ethnicity. SouthernComfort 05:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Jews are distinct from other Persians in the same way Assyrians and Armenians are different. They have their own culture and different dialects. And stop making unsourced statements like "intermarriage between Persians of different religious backgrounds were not uncommon" in a closed society that has very limited tolerance of non-Muslims and has been active in their persecution. I will leave this alone for a few days until the original editors of the article come forward an answer some of your questions. Aucam an^Talk 06:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A "closed society" that has "very limited tolerance for non-Muslims"? You're talking about pre-revolutionary Iran? Where is your source for that contentious and incendiary claim? It sounds like a provocation to me, especially when you can't even distinguish between a government and the populace, and I have no idea what you have against the people of Iran, but such attitudes are not appropriate here on WP. As for Assyrians and Armenians, they are not Persians. Persian Jews, however, are simply Persians who are of the Jewish religion. And I would really like to know your source for claiming that Imperial-era Iran persecuted non-Muslims, and that people in Iran are not tolerant of non-Muslims. SouthernComfort 06:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Jews are NOT distinct from other Persians in the same way Baha'i Persians are not distinct from other Persians. Assyrians and Armenians are an ethnicity, "Persian Jews" or Iranian Jews are not an ethnicity. By the way, intermarriage between Persians of different religious backgrounds has always been common among secular Persians. --ManiF 06:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Jews before they became Persian Jews had a different background to the rest of Persia. And Judaism is not just a religion. ems 10:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, many would disagree with your statement that "Judaism is not just a religion". Regardless, the argument here is that there is no ethnicity named "Persian Jews". --ManiF 01:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you like online sources, take a look at this from Britannica Encyclopedia: "The Jews trace their heritage in Iran to the Babylonian Exile of the 6th century BC and, like the Armenians, have retained their ethnic, linguistic, and religious identity." Perhaps you should go argue with the editors of Britannica instead. What are you claiming and where are you sources? Aucam an^Talk 01:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sources is discussing Jews in Iran, it's talking about "Jews in Iran". The term "Persian Jew" is a contradiction in itself. --ManiF 02:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see it as a contradiction. It is common to classify Jews by where they live or have lived. Mizrahi Jews were once referred to as "Arab Jews" even though they were culturally, linguistically, and ethnically distinct from their Arab neighbors. Also in response to your claim about intermarriage, it has alwasy been a taboo among Jews in different places, however it did exist, but when it did the people would almost always leave their Jewish communities and for all intents and puposes they would cease being Jews. I find your insinuation that Judaism is just a religion to be quite clearly wrong.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ManiF. If they are called “Persian” then they can not be a different ethnic group and Persian Jews that I have seen, are indeed not different.( not anymore than Bahai Persians) If I am wrong, and you can prove it with source, then we should rename Persian with Iranian since it is impossible for someone to be Persians and yet a different ethnicity. I remember this was suggested a few weeks back and a certain editor got very upset and said that persian jews are much more than just persian speaking!! interesting how the argument has changed now.

Gol 19:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying that they are part of the persia ethnicity, plus your seeing persian Jews as similar is Original research at best. "Persian" Jews is just the common name, just like "arab Jews" was once the most common name for most Mizrahi Jews. There are plenty of names that are technically misnomers but we use them anywasy because thats what they are called.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONDING TO THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE

The numbers speak for themselves. Why do you think we have 100,000 Persian Jews in Israel and (at least) 45,000 Persian Jews in the United States, but only less than 30,000 in Iran? After all, based on what you're saying, they're Persian Jews, right?
You also might want to look into why some of the People now-know as Indian Jews (many of whom are of Middle Eastern background) left places like Iran and Iraq for the more toletant Indian subcontinent.
Read about events such as the "Allahdad" ("God's Gift") incident of 1839 where Jewish neighborhoods of Mashhad were attacked and the entire Jewish population of Mashhad was forcibly converted to Islam in a single day (Mach 27, 1839). These converts (known as Jadid Al-Islam, "New Muslims") have been the subject of a great number of studies. It turns out they have managed to keep their Jewish identity in private.
Some sources for you to look at:
- Read "The Jews of Persia, 1795-1940" by Walter Fischell (pp.119-160 outline the persecution of Persian Jews in pre-revolutionary Iran)
- For information on Mashhadi Jews and their persecution read "The Jews of Mashhad" by Azaria Levy (pp.3-20)
- For information about the details of the Allahdad incident read "Jadid Al-Islam" by Raphael Patai (starts p.249)
- Since you like online sources, take a look at this from Britannica Encyclopedia: "The Jews trace their heritage in Iran to the Babylonian Exile of the 6th century BC and, like the Armenians, have retained their ethnic, linguistic, and religious identity."
I know you're here to promote a positive image of Iran and Iranians, but unless you show at least a minimum degree of self-criticism and openmindedness, it's more likely to just backfire. The labeling of independent ethnic groups with ill-defined racial terms is not only incorrect and unscientific, but directly violates WP:V. You've done it enough times - both in this article and others.[3][4][5] And you're by no means a representative of the Iranian people here. Most Iranians don't subscrible to these empty racialist-nationalist views. (I see that the Iranians who wrote the History of Mashhad do not subscribe to your historical revisionist ideas where pre-revolutionary Iran is portrayed as some sort of paradise for Iran's religious minorities.) In fact, the term "Persian" is not even used by Iranians as an ethnic marker. As Iranians understand it, the term is only a linguistic term. Only these rich, young, and immature kids of Iranian descent in United States (most of whom have never even been to Iran and don't even speak Persian) call themselves "Persian" and that's because of messed up psychological/sociological reasons having more to do with the internal politics and history of United States than anything Iranian. Keep your POV out of Wikipedia or starting giving sources for your claims and help in writing articles from a NPOV. Aucam an^Talk 09:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly who are you responding to and who are you calling a "devils advocate"? Me? It would be appreciated if you stopped making these borderline personal attacks and making all these claims about me - you don't know a single thing about me and you have no right to put me down the way you are doing. I don't speak Persian and have never been to Iran, huh? LOL! Furthermore, on the one hand you claim that Iranians are not tolerant and yet on the other hand you also claim that Iranians don't buy into "racialist-nationalist views" (what "racial-nationalist" views exactly?). On the one hand you claim that you aren't "racialist" and yet you claim that Persian Jews are not Persian, only "Persian-speaking." On the one hand you demand sources in other Iranian articles, and yet here you are quite content to make all sorts of outrageous claims without providing sources. Considering the ArbCom that is at hand (and has not even started), I suggest you calm down, stop making personal attacks, stop creating problems when sources have been provided, and communicate properly, especially if you expect a serious response. SouthernComfort 11:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well those comments were not directed at you personally, but it looks like no matter what people say you always feel "offended".[6][7][8] Even when I ask people for sources you accuse me of being "rude and incivil" without any reason whatsoever. You might want to read the devil's advocate article for what it means and how it's used before throwing accusations (there's nothing offensive about the term). Yes Persian Jews are Persian, but our definition of "Persian" is not necessarily the same. I think of Persian as a heterogeneous linguistic/cultural group. You think of it as a racial/ethnic group. And as far as this article is concerned you have provided zero sources for you claims (whereas I've provided a number of sources for my claims), so stop accusing me of "creating problems when sources have been provided" when is exactly what you are doing. Aucam an^Talk 11:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been provided in the other articles that you have been disputing, and yet you continue to tag the article(s), ignore the sources and continue the dispute. And BTW, a cursory examination of this talk and my own comments reveals that your "devils advocate" comment was directed towards me - your comments are obviously directed towards an individual editor. Yes, I am offended. Just as you are offended when someone attacks you, especially without cause or makes an anti-Semitic remark. You continue to make false claims about me, such as that I think "Persian" is a racial term and that I am a "racialist-nationalist" or that I am here to promote an agenda (a positive image of Iran and Iranians) or that I "like" online sources (what is that supposed to mean exactly?) I have only stated that "Persian" is an ethnic group. As for sources here, you provided none up until this recent entry from Britannica and yet you do not even bother assuming good faith when you claim that you provide it because I "like" online sources. I could go on about how you ignore your own behavior and attitudes (especially in regards to rejection of sources) in other sources, and yet here you are quick to judge and condemn, even when I have only requested sources. I am simply appalled. SouthernComfort 12:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a talk page for discussing matters having to do with Persian Jews. I can give an explanation for every single statement I've made but not because you don't want to discuss the real issues. I said you "like online sources" because most of your sources appear to come from (ad hoc) Google searches. In fact you have provided no sources for your claims so far and I doubt Google would be of much help this time around. As you can see I had most of my sources ready before even coming here. As for saying you're here to promote a positive view of Iran and Iranians, I don't think there's anything offensive about that. In fact that's part of the reason I'm here. You're the one not assuming good faith, and I'm not going to feed your trolling from now on until you provide some real sources or I'm asked to give a formal explanation of my behavior here. Aucam an^Talk 12:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aucaman, perhaps you should read WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and tone down your aggressive behavior - you are driving away users who otherwise might be interested in joining the discussions. --ManiF 01:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second everyone here - Aucaman, please keep it WP:CIVIL --Kash 03:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, quite an overreaction to someone saying another person is trolling.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Race

I've read this whole stinking discussion page. It pains me to see so clearly that participants in this forum are not taking the time to read each other. Unless there is another article on Jews and Judaism in Persia (which would naturally contain sections on history, on culture, on expatriate/emmigrant Persian Jews etc.), then this is it; y'all best get it right. Contemporary science has cast great doubts on the 19th Century concept of Race. In the U.S., 'hispanic' is considered an 'ethnic group', members of which can identify themselves as 'white', 'black', 'native american' or 'mestizo' (mixed). The tie that binds is current culture and language, and not ancestry - though there is the assumption of nominal Spanish ancestry - a pure assumption if you've ever met Dominicans, or people from places like Uruapan, Mexico. For Persians who practice Judaism, I reckon much the same applies. The label 'ethnic group' cannot seriously be connected to Race except as an assumption of nominal descent from some ancestral Israelite. Thus, Jews in Persia could be Persian-descended (i.e., Aryan in the strict sense), Turk-descended, Mongol-descended etc.; much like any Shia Persian could so be. The unifying factor would be religion, culture, dialects - exactly as with 'hispanics' in the U.S. The proof of all this will be in the pudding: Don't tell me Woody Allen looks like a Persian Jew; don't even suggest that I can tell the difference between a Persian Jewish face and Persian Shia face. No one in his/her right mind could claim that Jews in any region of the world have maintained a genetically restricted identity demonstrated by a category of physical appearance. That is blatant anti-semitism (no less virulent for having been adopted by the Zionists as a pretext for Zionism - a rare form of ressentiment [yes, it's spelled like that]). The fact that Ashkenazis are European-featured, that Sephardis are Arab-featured, that the Falashas are black etc., gives the lie to the pipe-dream of Jewish racialism. So, let's get past the issue of what Persian Jews do or do not look like and get to the discussion of what it has meant, does mean, and shall mean to be identified as Jewish AND Persian. - black thorn of brethil 23:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but you have little idea of what you are talking about. Most contemporery science believes that almost all Jewish communities (Besides the Falashas who basically just decided they were Jewish 1200 years ago) have maintained a distinct ethnicity despite where they have gone. Modern genetic eveidence shows that Ashkenzi and Sephardi Jews show some European traits because the orginal populations consisted primarily of Jewish men (probably traders) and a mixture of a few Jewish women as well as local women from a lot of other areas (in the ensuing centuries of migration throughout Europe based upon various persecutions this got mixed up). For the most part Persian and Mizrahi Jews had more Jews in the original popualtion. The reason that it was relativiely rare for additional genetic material to be introduced was because of the tradional taboo of intermarriage, when Jews did intermarry they would pretty much leave the community without exception. This is also the reason why Jews have also suffered high rates of genetic diseases. Also, I would be careful about saying it is anti-semitic to say Jews are a race becasue today usually the opposite is true because people attempt to discredit Israel by suggesting that today's Jews couldn't be related to biblical Jews.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have enough of an idea, apparently. Inbred diseases aside, I'd like to see some contemporary science on the distinct ethnicity of world-wide Jewish communities. A tiny tag on the Y-gene is the sort of 'nominal' descendency I spoke of: it would be great to find some science that showed that 50% + 1 of genes in a given Jewish community were id'd as 'Israelite' and NOT local. I rather doubt you're going to be able to provide any evidence of such a 50% + 1 (not least because it doesn't exist - but this is an opinion). In the vacuum of such science, we are left with superficial evaluations, and appeals to tradition - in both cases, you lose: Of course, you know quite well that there are conditions laid out in the Torah and in Talmudic writings under which a person, family or community can become Jewish (the old 'three generations among us' rule being one). In different times and places, assimilation into Jewish communities was easier than it would be in, say, a Lubovitcher clan in Philadelphia today. Furthermore, you haven't explained why Sephardic Jews look like Arabs, Ashkenazi Jews look like Europeans, and Persian Jews look like Persians - and none of them look like each other. That is, you haven't explained how these disparate appearances are NOT from being majority local-blooded (if that makes sense). You seem to think that racializing the conversation is appropriate; it is up to you to produce photographs of Persian Jews exhibiting Classic Jewish Features (!!!Forgive me!!!) that distinguish them from other Persians. Again - you must prove to me that Woody Allen looks like a typical Persian Jew (!!!) and visa versa. If you can't (or won't) produce such evidence, then one must assume that there are no such features, no such comparisons possible, which speaks volumes on the question of the Persian-ness of Persian Jews. In the end, you're left with a puff a smoke and the dream of some 5000-year old unbroken chain. But you misunderstand - the chain isn't a blood chain, and it needs not be - God can raise descendants for Abraham from among the stones. black thorn of brethil 00:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Others have pointed out that genetic descent is not needed to substantiate the claim of the Jewish Homeland, though it is true that the questionable ancestry of Ashkenazi Jews has played into the hands of anti-semites (which is the height of irony, as it's use would prove that Ashkenazis are not semites, and therefore immune to the diatribes, accusations and slanders of the anti-semites!!!) - black thorn of brethil 00:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break, you say that I am being inappropriate by racializing the discussion (besides the fact that you brought it up) and the say stupid stuff like asking me to compare woody Allen to Persian Jews, I don't feel like I need to prove to you that what you are saying has little basis of fact, I will reference this study- [9] and I could reference many similar ones but I feel it would be a waste of time because you have already made up your mind to believe nonsense as evidenced by your long and pointless diatribes.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe, Moshe, Moshe! Thank you for your warm words. You ought not to feel like you need to prove anything: That would only deprive you of your contributions to Wikipedia, and it would become a humdrum, boring and academic realm based wholly on reality. You miss, among other things, my point - if Jewish communities around the world had always maintained an effective impermeability, then those communities would not appear so physically disparate. They do appear physically disparate; therefore they have not always been effectively impermeable. Please refute this if you would like certain elements of the article to stand.

Like Hispanics in the U.S., Jews today consist in local communities that have a nominal descent from a name-sake originator; the lion's share of their ethnicity is cultural/linguistic/religious. Persian Jews are Persian-blooded as well. Your 'evidence' kills you in the first sentence: "Some 3.5 million or 40 percent of Ashkenazi Jews are descended from just four “founding mothers” who lived in Europe 1,000 years ago." 40% is quite less than half. What of the other 5.25 million Ashkenazi Jews? Mostly eggplant, what? Furthermore, the article states that the Four Founding Mothers are likely of Middle-eastern origin (not certainly, not definitely, not even most probably). So, show me how you know the majority of Persian Jews are largely descended only from Israelites. Last but not least, I want you to look up the word 'irony'. See how it might apply to your attempt to establish your argument. Don't get discouraged: your energy is positive, if misdirected and defensive. Cheers. - black thorn of brethil 08:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you didn't read the entire article or look at its links. I'm not going to continue this silly argument. Your reasoning is based entirely on "what people look like" and does not even qualify as original research, the only person you cite is yourself and "yourself" only knows out to make baseless and ignorant claims.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liebe Moshe: Insults are not arguments, but I won't tattle on you yet. 40% is not half, 'low frequencies' are not encouraging, and there were no exterior links for that article. Phenomes are a critical element of biology, though I admit levelling the concept a bit for you (pointlessly, it seems). Nonetheless, if you must quit, then I hereby accept your unconditional surrender. At some point, the article will need revision based wholly on citation. Don't blow a gasket when it happens, or you might get banned. Cheers. - black thorn of brethil 17:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. How old are you? black thorn of brethil 17:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short response

I have to say I haven't read all the discussions here, but I can tell you're talking about race. No one is talking about race here. Read the article. Where's race being discussed? We're not talking about a Jewish race. We're talking about an ethnic group. Hopefully you know the difference between a race and an ethnic group? An ethnic group is a group of people who closely identify with one-another (sometimes through having common ancestors, but not necessarily so) and share a unique culture and language. Persian Jews definitely fall in this category. They identify closely with one another (for most of their history Persian Jews have been living in secluded "Jewish ghettos") and they most certainly share a unique culture and language. Questioning the ethnicity of Persian Jews is simply absurd. Let me also re-quote this sentence from Britannica Encyclopedia: "The Jews trace their heritage in Iran to the Babylonian Exile of the 6th century BC and, like the Armenians, have retained their ethnic, linguistic, and religious identity." Discussing "race" might not be appropriate here, but discussing ethnicity definitely is. Aucam an^Talk 18:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable claims

These new statements or "sections" added today by user Pecher are non-academic POVs that do not correspond to the alleged sources. See WP:VERIFY. Statements like "Jews couldn't go out in rain during Safavid era" are only unverifiable claims. I'm removing these statements until further verifiable sources have been presented. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a an editorial. --200.118.111.122 01:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that passage as well as various other ones from Pecher's original edits. Please do not revert the entire section though, as it helps the article by including the history of those periods as well.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the fact that there is no reason to delete the entire section, you are also deleting small grammtical and poor wording changes, desist. One more and you'll be breaking the 3RR.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did not remove that passage. But that doesn't matter as all these three new sections by user Pecher, in their entirely, are non-academic POVs and UNVERIFIABLE. Please do not add them back until you can comply with WP:VERIFY. One more and you'll be breaking the 3RR as well. --200.118.111.122 01:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I wouldn't be because I actually changed the passages, you just reverted the entire article including grammtical mistakes. And actually I did remove that passage right before you removed the entire thing. It is up to you to prove that the passages are different from the sources Pecher provdied.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, undoing another editor's edit is a revert and you have more than three reverts on this article. I'm sorry, but I can't let anyone inject POV into an article. This is an encyclopedia, not the Jerusalem Post. Read WP:VERIFY, the burden of proof is on you. --200.118.111.122 01:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I replaced the sections I removed passages that I felt were too POV, and it was thus not considered a revert, I have reported you for the 3RR violation.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore I found your claim that you have the book in your hand dubious at best, I can see you tried to say the same thing in other articles where you were involved in a dispute. When the book is properly cited you are not just allowed to claim you have read it and it's not true, then expect people to take your claim at face value.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 200...I've read 'Islam and Jews' and those new sections in question seem highly POV, selective and based on a lose interpretation of sources. It's wiki rule that content must be neutral and verifiable, so i think it's best to remove those new sections until someone can verify their authenticity or a new NPOV version has been proposed and written from scratch.

That is silly. I removed the most POV passages and it is neccessary to include some of the history of those periods.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe, it must be beneath you to respond to such ridiculous claims, let alone to try to assuage them. Pecher ^Talk 21:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pecher's additions to the artcile - The new sections

Highly subjective and inappropriate for Wikipedia as it is, as pointed out by other users, loosely based on unverifiable sources. Currently, these new sections are in breach of WP:V, NPOV and WP:OR. I will try to trim/remove some of the controversial claims until sources have been legitimately referenced by citations that meet Verifiability standards as speculations has no place on Wikipedia. However, these new new sections (especially Safavids) need to be rewritten, as the basic interface is far away from being encyclopedic. --ManiF 21:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only person that said they weren't really in the source was a someone who claimed to have a copy of the book in his hand, however if you look at that user's contribution history you can see that in almost every conflict he was involved in, he claimed to have a copy of whichever book would prove him right in his hand. I think it is fair to say that everything that user said was dubious at best.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is please read WP:FAITH. Regardless of Verifiability issue, Pecher's "citations" are selective and the tone/language of Pecher's additions is highly subjective and does not meet NPOV requirements. --ManiF 01:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's exceptionally silly to attribute to an author undisputed statements of fact. It's like writing: "According to Copernicus, the Earth revolves around the Sun." Pecher ^Talk 21:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double attributions, like "Bernard Lewis reports that a traveller wrote," are follies squared. Pecher ^Talk 22:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem, your "fact" is actually an assertion by a writer. As sombody pointed out on your talk, "You are assuming that whatever some particular scholar has said is a fact. Instead of writing them as the opinion of some scholar he writes it as a fact." --ManiF 22:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the idea of WP:RS that material sourced to reliable sources (and Bernard Lewis and David Littman are reliable sources), there is no need to further qualify that material by further attributing it to the author. If the source is reliable, than material from it is not "an assertion by a writer", but something we can safely transport into an article. If the contrary were true, the whole Wikipedia would read like "A said X", e.g. the article on WWII would not say "In June 1941, Germany invaded the Soviet Union", but rather "according to Martin Gilbert, in June 1941, Germany invaded the Soviet Union", which is silly and unnecessary. The only exception to this rule occurs when there are several conflicting POVs; in this case, we must attribute each POV to its proponent(s). Otherwise, endless attributions of each and every sentence in every article will only disrupt the whole encyclopedia. Pecher ^Talk 22:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ManiF and Pecher - you are teetering on the verge of an edit war. One solution to the problem would be for Pecher to find more citations establishing his claims, which all would then need simple footnoting (multiple claims obviating ManiF's resistance, no?). Another solution would be for ManiF to find contra-citations to support his own unusual claim (that Pecher's source is suspect and needs special notation). As it stands, under normal circumstances a footnote requires no further elaboration. Insisting on further elaboration demands an explanation (i.e., it demands a reason one thinks the source is suspect and not typically citable). black thorn of brethil 22:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And in this case Pecher's sources are compltely reputable and reliable. The anons provided no proof that they didn't really appear in the book and really that anon's claims were extemely suspect and dubious.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I had promised earlier, I'm going to trim/remove some of the controversial claims until sources have been properly cited to suupot them. --ManiF 23:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parthia and Hellenism

Please study the era of Parthians a bit more, the statement you reverted here[10] is actually inaccurate. Parthians opposed Hellenism, and their official religion was actually Zoroastrianism, although they did not impose it upon others. You can do a quick study here[11].Zmmz 01:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I know quite a bit about the Parthians. I can see your reasoning of why the Parthians would be opposed to Hellenism, However like other states that broke off from the Seleucid Empire, the parthians actually ended up adopting many Hellenic traits. Just like the Hasmoneans who spent centuries fighting against Hellenic influence, when they regained their independence their civilization took on an undeniable Greek influence, today it is evident primarily through architecture. Also as I understand it Zorastrianism wasn't the offical rteligion of Parthia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand those are your views, but I needed some references to be provided to confirm your views. Certainly, Parthians who had adapted the Persian beliefs, opposed Hellenism, yet, naturally such influences spilled into the first few years of Parthian rule. But, originally Scythians rebelled against the Seleucids primarily due to such reasons. Under Mithradates II, Parthia finally officially broke away from Greek influences. Also, it was well known that Parthians were Zoroastrians, so your wording is inaccurate. Here is one more link for you to study[12], and I await your references.Zmmz 02:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the parthians did adapted persian culture and hated everything that Helleneism stood for, just like the Hasmoneans, but since their society had been run by greeks for hundreds of years part of Greek culture became persian culture, its called syncretism and is is quite common. They aren't merely my views.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source you provide shows that you misunderstand what I am saying. I am not suggesting that Greeks held any sway in the Parthian government, Parthia was completley independent. However I am saying that Parthian culture retained many greek influences.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hellenistic Seleucids were not exactly famous for religious toleration (see [13]). The Parthians, on the other hand, were. (see [14] and [15] - the latter, especially, explains how attaching "Hellenistic" to the Parthians is inappropriate). Zoroastrian and tolerant they were; thus 'secularism' warrants a revert (not to mention it makes more sense in the context of its sentence; i.e., as a contrast to the intolerant Sassanids, who were as affected by Hellenism as the Parthians). - black thorn of brethil 02:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Black why don't you leave this discussion up to the big boys.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe please refrain from incivilities here[16], and assume good faith about the other user. I agree with the other user--also I`m not sure what does Greek influence has anything to do with being inclined towards Hellenism? I feel secularism is a more appriopriate wording. By the way, the Parthians who in their native language were called Ashkanian, were Parni nomads that were a part of Scythians, also are from the same stalk that the Ashkenazi Jews come from, or at least they are related. I think this can be mentioned in the section as well.Zmmz 02:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem, Moses. Cite sources, maintain attitude of respect and community, don't confuse message w/messenger, stay on topic, prove point or move along. Also, Zmmz; be careful in editing discussion page not to delete previous comments. black thorn of brethil 02:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but the comment about ashkenazi Jews being related to sythians is pseudoscience. Also Black's argument makes absolutley no sense, he is trying to say that becasue the selucids were not religously tolerant and the the parthians were, then the parthians automatically couldn't be helenic, that doesn't follow any known logic. Also I deleted my last comment not Zmmz- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The logic is yours alone, Moshe. My argument is that the Sassanids were as Hellenistic as the Parthians, and that the contrast between the Parthians and the others (Sassanids AND Seleucids) was their tendency toward civil secularism. The sentence in which Zmmz used the word makes more sense as it was. black thorn of brethil 02:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I think the 'psuedoscience' Zmmz refers to is the fact of Kazar heritage for some Ashkenazi Jews. black thorn of brethil 02:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Parthians were a lot more secular than any other persian empire, but it is also widely considered that they were more Helenistic than any other Persian empire as well.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new Genetics research performed by Israeli scientists shows Ashkenazi Jews ancestry can be traced to peoples from the Near East, surely to Ashkanian and Sarmatians perhaps. But, my motto is such research should go through a more rigorous scrutiny before it can be submitted in an encyclopedia, so let’s leave that out for now. But when you say inclined towards Hellenism, it indicates favouring Hellenism, so the statement is inaccurate; any other suggestions? By the way, I did not erase any comments. Zmmz 02:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not such thing, they didn't favour Hellenism, their culture was simply Helenist influenced, I'll change it if you want but I don't think it is necessary.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought secularism was right on, but at least change it to something else other than inclined please.Zmmz 02:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence is misleading at best, who in language and religion were influenced by Hellenism. Parthians were not influenced by Hellenism in that respect, and they themselves adopted Persian/Aryan ways of religion, use of trousers as apparel for example etc. Please change it to something more accurate please.Zmmz 02:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful, the 3RR's have already been broken. It ought to be reverted to secularism, as that is most correct. black thorn of brethil 02:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is the first time I am having a discussion with you both, but both of you need to give each other the benefit of the doubt and compromise with each other more.Zmmz 03:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Moshe can come up with a source demonstrating the claim that the Parthians 'were more Helenistic [sic] than any other Persian empire', and unless Moshe can show why attaching the term 'secularism' to the Parthians as a way of contrasting them with the Sassanids is wrong, the revert will happen presently. black thorn of brethil 03:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe, do you agree with the use of secularism? Zmmz 03:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never disagreed with including a reference to the pathians being secular, I only disagreed with it if it was beign used to replace helenism. What you both fail to realize is that it is common knowledge among historians that the Parthians were helenistic, it is so engrained in my memory from various history books that it would be difficult to find one. If you insist however, I'm sure I can find something on the web.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where they inclined towards Hellenism, or did Hellenism spill into their first few years of rule? Also were they religiously influenced by Hellenism? Zmmz 03:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the following: "Iran during the Parthian Empire was marked by a growing regionalism in political and cultural affairs. A nobility with strong local bases became the backbone of the military. Aramaic, the common language of the realm, gradually was replaced by regional dialects after the 2nd century BC. The last century of Parthian rule tended to favor native as opposed to foreign beliefs and traditions —a reaction to the almost constant warfare with the Romans on their western flank and the Greeks and Bactrians on their eastern flank, as well as the religious inroads being made by Christian and Buddhist missionaries. These challenges stimulated the Parthians to begin collecting the largely oral Zoroastrian heritage as a defense mechanism." ([17]) AND "Aristocrats appointed as regents by the Parthian throne ruled the empire on the local level. In the first few centuries of their empire, this Parthian ruling class continued to observe many aspects of Hellenistic culture that had characterized the upper levels of society under the Greco-Bactrian kings. Greek inscriptions and Greek-style portraiture mark early Parthian coins, bearing witness to this "Hellenophilic" stage of the Parthian Empire. Later, the Parthian kings began to redefine themselves as the direct heirs of the Achaemenian Empire; Mithridates II (123-87 BCE) is believe to be the first Parthian ruler to use the old Achaemenian title "King of Kings" on his coins, rather than the corresponding Greek title. From this time on, Parthian culture developed as a synthesis of Greek and Achaemenian culture, with local Iranian patterns gradually supplanting Hellenistic elements." ([18]). Any comments? black thorn of brethil 03:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Hellenism wasn't just a spillover from the selucids, as the Parthians empire became weaker then the culture that later defined the Sassanids bagan to become dominant over the previously dominant Greco-Persian culture.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If by inclined, you mean they consciously chose to be Hellenistic, then I would say no, it propbably wasn't conscious, they simply had a Helenistic culture because they adapted the culture of their former rulers (which was already quite syncretic) to match local culture even more.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Hellenism served as an automatic bridge, and certain eraly years were very Hellenistic, but in terms of adapting a culture and religion, they adapted the Persians. Is that not correct?Zmmz 03:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well they adapted the persians and adapted the Greeks, it was syncretic. Thats basically what Hellenism is, Ptolmeties adapted Greek and Egyptian culture, Hasmoneans adapted Greek and Jewish culture, Greco-Bactrians adabpted Greek and Bactrian culture, there was even a Greco-indus culture on the northern Indian subcontinent. The question is whethor or not the Greek part of the culture was small enough to no longer be considered Hellenistic at all, and in the Parthian case it was until the very end when they could barely even be called an empire at all- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. Mithradates II, broke away with Hellenism residuals, and actually made the empire bigger and stronger than ever, which lasted for a few centuries. The Greeks themselves ruled for only a century.Zmmz 04:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I`m talking about only the Parthians. Aside from the coinage writings, do you have references that they wrote in Greek, and adapted the religion of Pagan Greece?Zmmz 04:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, the Parthian Empire represented the death of Hellenism in Persia. Therefore, it is wrong to say that they inclined toward Hellenism, that they cultivated Hellenism, that they were affected by syncretic entropy more than any of their neighbors: in fact, on all counts, it was the opposite. SEE OPS CITED ABOVE. In comparison to the Sassanids, the major difference as far as Persian Jews were concerned (which, I might remind, is the topic here) was that the Parthians were more secular-minded in government and law, whilst the Sassanids were rabid fundamentalists. Unless contravening sources are found, this discussion is about exhausted - almost. black thorn of brethil 04:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you misunderstand. I'm not saying the Greeks continued to rule them or anything, and when did I ever say they adapted the language and religion of anceint Greece?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That`s exactly the gist of the argument. Your statement clearly indicates they were influenced as such, when they were not; i.e., you said, who in language and religion were influenced by Hellenism. Zmmz 04:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the person that originally added that part, but it's true. They spoke an indo-Iranian language but their writing system was Greek. They primarily worshipped the cult of Mithra (The same Mithraism that later caught on with the romans), but their temples and really the way they worshipped was heavily influenced by Greek religion.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)-see this site for more [19][reply]

Parthians were Zoroastrians, and the discussion is about they being inclined to use Hellenism. I`m going to go ahead and write a compromise. That sentence is eminently misleading as it stands.Zmmz 04:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've about turned this discussion page into a chat room. Let's summarize - Moshe, you have an argument, but you cite no sources. Zmmz and Black - you have arguments AND you cite (multiple) sources. That's all that can be said, unless there is something new.black thorn of brethil 04:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did just cite a source, and your sources don't support your conclusion. The reason I keep arguing about this is because every single classical Historian agrees with me, both of you continue to argue a conclusion that has no base- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, a non-academic website sponsored by coin collectors is a bit .... spurious. Please cite sentences you draw upon for support. Please comment on sentences noted above upon which I drew for support. black thorn of brethil 04:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? its not like he is a sacajawea coin collector, the site focuses on coins from different empires and civilizations as do many historians because they are usually the best preserved written evidence. Look I have to go for about an hour, you just keep asking to repeat things I already have, so to save me some time why don't you go back and read what I already have written. Go find an administrator that you trust that specialized in classical history and ask him if the Parthians were heavily influenced by helenistic culture and he'll give you the same conclusion I did. Until you do that do not revert my edit again.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Moshe please stay calm, and civil. The concern is with the following statement, who in language and religion were influenced by Hellenism, which is inaccurate or misleading.Zmmz 04:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said it is accurate, their writing system was greek [20], and the cult worship of Mithra was similar to the cult worship in the greek city states.[21]. Once again there is the source, now please change it back because I do not wish to break the 3RR. I don't know how else to explain it to you.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mithraism was an ancient Persian cult, but also as I understand it their official religion was Zoroastrianism. Please let the statement stand, because it is more relevant and not misleading the reader. Provide some valid sources about Parthians being influenced by Hellenism`s religious vice, and then we can discuss the matter further. I`m awaiting the sources. ThanksZmmz 05:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at my previous comment the source is there. And no, you're mistaken Zorastrianism was not the offical religion of Parthia. There is nothing misleading about the previous statement. It is compleley accurate, I have no idea what your motivation is for removing any reference to Parthia being influenced by Helenism but it is becoming increasingly annoying in the face of contradicting evidence- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way your passage doesn't even make much snese it it's context, secular just means not religious, in the paragraph it is referring to persian culture. I will allow the removal of the refernce to relgion for the sake of compromise but it is ridiculous to not even mention helenism as that is what primarily distinguished the parthians from otehr Iranian empires.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parthians in the early years spoke both Greek and Persian/Parthian[22]. Their religion was indeed Mithraism and Zoroastrianism, but I don`t see how Mithraism was inspired by Hellenism, in fact it may be the other way around. In all Parthians were anti-Hellenism, so your statement was a bit unclear.Zmmz 05:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you are mistaken. The primary religion was mithraism (although Zorastrianism was practiced, it was not the official religion like you suggest) which originated in the 1st or 2nd century BC, people worshiped in a way that is considered similar to the Greeks, in that it was a form of cult worship. Your comment about the Parthins being anti-helenist illustrates your lack of knowledge in this area, They fought many wars with various Hellenistic civilizations but they were heavily influenced by the Greeks themselves. I tire of explaining how because I have done it many times above and provided sources for what I am saying. I find it infuriating that you are being so recalcitrant, instead of following a coherant arguemnt you have said the same thing over and over again occasionally with something completly unrelated as well (Like Ashkenazi Jews being descended from Iranians).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay calm and civil. There is no doubt Hellenism spilled over into the early Parthian era, but what I meant was the movement towards anti-Hellenism was a conscious one sprung by the Arsacid dynasty, so your statement was misleading a bit. Zmmz 06:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they did make a conscious movement towards anti-Hellenism it doesn't mean that they were not influnced by Hellenism, they still wrote in Greek, built Greek, architecture, had cult worship in the greek style, etc. I don't understand why you won't at the very least write that that the parthians were influenced by Hellenism, it is universally accepted by experts, furthermore your replacemnt doe not make any sense Secularism refers to the goverment being seperated from religion, but the context is talking about persian culture, how would inclined towards secularism make sense in that context.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zmmz, I reverted your edit because I don't understand what "inclined toward secularism" would mean in this context, and as it's disputed, a source needs to be cited after the sentence, not just on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem, but I replaced that with inclined towards Hellenism because that particular dynasty was somewhat anti-Hellenistic. Also, because that section mentions the zeal of the Sassanid conservatism about religion, and in contrast Parthians are well known for their secularism, I thought the replacement was more relevant to that sentence. Moshe seemed very frustrated though; I did not want to get inbetween him and user Black`s ongoings. Anyway, it`s all fine with me. Zmmz 06:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the form of Mithraism practiced in Parthia was very different from the Mithraic cult of Rome. Two very different religions with very different practices and beliefs, and David Ulansey's [23] work is very useful for this area of study. SouthernComfort 13:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I rewrote the initial portion of Sassanid section to include the concerns of Hellenistic influence on Parthia and the distinction between Parthians and Sassanids w/respect to religious freedom. I also added web citations (from academic websites only) to back up each claim. black thorn of brethil 21:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Quotation from Sassanid Priest

Moshe: explain your actions. Are you saying that 1. the question of religious tolerance in Sassanid Persia is not relevant to this article/section? 2. the quote provided did not pertain to religious tolerance in Sassanid Perisa? 3. the quote provide was illegitimate? 4. something else? black thorn of brethil 23:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Something else. We have already included references to the Sassanids being intolerant, a Zorastrian preist talking about how bad other religions is is unneccesary and innappropriate hyperbole.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate, if you will, on the overabundant references to Sassanid intolerance. The quote was not of a Zoroastrian priest knocking other religions per se, but rather simply declaiming the imposition of the supression of other religions. Your interpretation is pure POV, and I am getting fed up with your unwillingness to acknowledge the distinction. How many edits is that for you on 29 March? Couldn't wait 15 minutes to reset your clock? black thorn of brethil 23:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break, ther eis nothing POV about it, if anything it is against my usual POV, The guy is talking about idolotry, it is clearly hyperbole. We have already mentioned that the Sassanids became increasingly intolerant. By the way you actually had more reverts than I did yesterday, I only had two real ones.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration? BTW - yesterday is still today (for a few more seconds, at any rate). black thorn of brethil 23:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but its been more than 24 hours since my last revert. I'm fine with finding what other people think about the quote if you are.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Next steps? black thorn of brethil 00:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well arbitration is the last step, so right now we should just ask an admin about his thoughts .- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. black thorn of brethil 00:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In meantime, the deletion has been restored until reason has been established for its removal. black thorn of brethil 00:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you mean a reason like it being ridiculous hyperbole?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

inclusion of quote by Zorastrian priest

Black, I have notified a few neutral admins and asked them to give their opinons, until it is resolved it is customary to kinda go half way between each other, so I reinserted part of the quote, you can add a little more if you think my selection didn't catch the jist of what he was saying, but please don't re-add it in its entireity until we can get the thoughts of others.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe, per our external correspondence I recommend the following: "In an inscription from time of King Bahram II (276-293 CE), a Zoroastrian priest went so far as to declare that under Sassanid rule all other religions in the empire (from a list including Judaism, Christianity etc.) had been 'smashed'." Followed by citation. black thorn of brethil 07:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, 'claim' is better than 'declare': so amended. black thorn of brethil 07:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of citation

Moshe,

Repeatedly deleting the citation only promotes the idea that youre trying to hide something.

Are you? Are you trying to demonize Iran?

I dont know why youre so desperately persisting on this. It's not going to hurt anyone if the citation is mentioned. Please restore it back and keep everyone happy.--Zereshk 05:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um no, it was taken from a reliable and reputable source. It is properly referenced in the article, it is ridiculous to mention who said it every paragraph. I'm sorry but apparently you do not understand wikipedia very well. In the future please assume good faith.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of attacking me, listen to what I have to say. Im not contending the sources. All Im saying is that the article as it currently stands is:

entirely based on Littman and Bernard Lewis. Therefore it cannot be presented as a universal view, which is what youre doing. At least you can point it out in the text by citing the authors of the claims.
the author(s) of the article seem to have selectively quoted sources only where Iran has usurped the rights of the Persian Jews. Im not sure if that is the purpose of the article. For example, the article says nothing of where in Iran they live (it doesnt even mention Shiraz, which has a large Jewish population), their major synygogues, their Jewish education, major Jewish shrines, customs, etc. For example, nothing is even mentioned of Daniel's shrine or Esther's shrine in Iran. The article is merely a demonization of Iran and Iranians because of its mistreatment of Jews. I dont think even Jewish Iranians would like their country Iran to be represented as such. We have Jewish editors from Iran passionately contributing to Iran's history articles here on WP.--Zereshk 21:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I was not attacking you, everything I said was within the range of civility, while your previous post was basically just a bunch of unfounded accusations against me. Secondly, Your argument does not make any sense, probably anything in even a normal encyclopedia isn't the universal view, but when everything is properly cited there is no reason to say who said what, unless the source wasn't known to be reliable. Thirdly, if your so concerned that the Iranian Jewish culture is not adaquetly shown in the article then why don't you add something.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if nothing else, your tone is highly hostile and unprofessional. You can start by calming down.
Now, if the article is not meant to be as universal and impartial as can be, then we should change the article's title to Bernard Lewis and David Littman on Persian Jews.
Furthermore, my contributions will only come once youve de-politicized this article, which you stubbornly refuse to do so. As for me, I am the creator of the Iran-Israeli relations as well as several hundred other articles. I have already contributed much. Nowhere in the Iran-Israeli relations article do we bash Israelis or Iranians. The article is as professional and universally accepted as can be. But I cannot contribute on a page where people hijack the page for political reasons, like you have done so. If you want my services, then de-politicize the article.--Zereshk 01:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well friend, you certianly have a flair for the dramatic. I would like you to point out my "hostile and unprofessional tone" in any of the responces I have posted towards your accusations. Furthermore, I would like you to notify me just exactly how I have "politized" the article. I will not answer your second point because I already several other times both above and below this post.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mizrahi Jews

Issues of Mizrahi Jews are appropriate in the article on Mizrahi Jews, but not here. Pecher ^Talk 06:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as 'Mizrahi' denotes a broader group containing Persian Jews, your point seems correct. However, a discussion of how expatriate Persian Jews are living today is quite appropriate and specific to this article (and not as such appropriate for the Mizrahi article). If Persian Jews in Israel share the experiences of Mizrahi Jews in general, then your wholesale deletion was unwarranted. I suspect that something ought to be reverted containing the important information on how Persian Jews are experiencing life in Israel today. The article simply is not complete w/o it. black thorn of brethil 07:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section Pecher deleted is very well sourced and the sources are all Israeli. I have restored it as it clearly relates to Persian Jews (as they are classified as Mizrahim). SouthernComfort 08:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that information about Persian Jews in Israel is germane for this article, but the sources must talk specifically about Persian Jews. The editor who inserted the paragraph made two original research conclusions: 1) that what is true for Mizrahi Jews in general is true for Persian Jews in particular and 2) that the situation of Persian Jews in Israel is not significantly better than in Iran (!). Also, the paragraph represents opinions as facts, so instead of "charges of discrimination", we have "discrimination". We could talk about discrimination of Mizrahi Jews, if there was academic research substantiating the charges of discrimination with evidence; otherwise, journalistic and other opinions are just isolated claims. Basically, the problems with this paragraph are a corollary of a failure to do adequate research before editing. The consequence is that editors do not use reputable academic sources, but rely instead on googling something on the Internet. Pecher ^Talk 08:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completly agree with Pecher, the paragraph makes assertions completly unsupported by the sources, thus constitutes original research. Also I should remind you that just because a source is Israeli doesn't mean it is automatically pro-Israel, and in fact your first source from the Pinhas Sapir center is actually just an editorial paper, its isn't official or anything, and does not fill the WP:RS requirement.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. Look at Moshe Katsav - "Persian Jew" does not seem to be an official classification in Israel. Jews of Persian origin are classed as Mizrahim, so the articles are valid (also see WP:V). Also, you have stated Bernard Lewis' claims (some of them quite absurd, like Jews not being allowed to go out when its raining?) as facts instead of disambiguating that they are his claims. SouthernComfort 08:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the point of providing sources, Bernard Lewis is considerd a reputable and reliable source, the comments taken from him are adaquately referenced as per wikipedia policy, therefore it is unneccesary to include a passage stating that he said it in every single paragraph. Although I don't think we should include the particular sentence about not being able to go out in the rain since it is unneccesary hyperbole.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibition on not going out in the rain is not a hyperbole, but an unfortunate reality, supported by accounts of many European travellers, not only the one quoted in the article. Pecher ^Talk 08:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it isn't true, I actually think it is, but I don't think we should use the most dramatic examples.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But why? I see no reason to strike it out of the article: if some material is sourced and germane, it should stay. Pecher ^Talk 08:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the issue is not Bernard Lewis, but those claims which cannot be found in other sources, such as Jews not being allowed to go out when its raining for fear of contaminating the Muslim populace. I mean, come on. If he's relating the accounts of a European traveller, that should be clarified. It should not be presented as fact unless you have a number of other secondary sources that can substantiate such claims. SouthernComfort 08:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW, we are not discussing removal of the material in question. We are discussing presentation of said material. SouthernComfort 08:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It should not be presented as fact unless you have a number of other secondary sources that can substantiate such claims." Nonsense, we already have two independent secondary sources talking about it. In fact, per WP:V even one relaible sources is sufficient. Pecher ^Talk 09:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that we aren't talking about removing it. I would support saying that a European traveler was the one who saw that the Jews weren't allowed to go in the rain, but we aren't going to be saying accoring to Littman, or Bernard Lewis every single paragraph, thats just not how wikipedia works. Also there are very few sources available for the period we are talking about, so it is really doesn't make sense to suggest we have to find another one, probably the only other sources possible would be the ones Littman or Lewis used for their work, which would kinda defeat the purpose.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are lots of sources from the mid-19th century onwards when Europeans began visiting Persia and when diplomatic ties were established, although admittedly not many primary sources from the prior periods. Anyway, Lewis and Littman are probably knowledgeable enough to know what they are talking about. Pecher ^Talk 09:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide the relevant quotes from Lewis and Littman, so that we know who or what they are referencing? Otherwise, those controversial bits will have to be disambiguated as such, "According to Lewis ..." and "According to Littman ..." That doesn't need to be done with every single issue - I think only this one bit regarding the issue of Jews going out in the rain needs to be clarified (and expanded). SouthernComfort 10:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THe discussion seems to have veered away from the original issue of Persian/Mizrahi Jews. Pecher ^Talk 10:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete the paragraph in question until we have thoroughly discussed this issue and come to some agreement. Zereshk should be involved in this discussion as well, since he contributed that paragraph. At any rate, we need to balance the modern situation of Persian Jews in both Iran and Israel since apparently it is not just in Iran where there are problems (and thus not a one-sided issue). SouthernComfort 10:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But we shouldn't balance them at the expense of actual fact, which is what that paragraph does.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THere is little, if anything, to "thoroughly discuss" in that paragraph. All the sourced material are random claims that Mizrahi Jews are discriminated in Israel. None of the quotes is factual or comes from a reliable academic source, or discusses issues specific to Persian Jews in Israel. Furthermore, I think it is a misguided idea that a discussion of mistreatment of Jews in Iran must be somehow "balanced" by allegations against Israel. Pecher ^Talk 12:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So all of a sudden Haaretz is no longer a reliable source? Are you serious? Please see WP:V - there is nothing wrong with referencing legitimate newspapers and journalistic sources SouthernComfort 12:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for this comment, "I think it is a misguided idea that a discussion of mistreatment of Jews in Iran must be somehow "balanced" by allegations against Israel." I have never said that. What I did say was that the situation of Persian Jews in Iran and Israel should be balanced. Both countries are important and relevant to this article. SouthernComfort 12:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, in addition to Haaretz, one of the other links is to an academic paper. That inclusion is also warranted. SouthernComfort 12:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Academically sound sources that could be cited in defense of the claim that Mizrahi Israelis (specifically, Iranian-descended Jews) have not always been well-received by the Ashkenazi who hold more power (whether in America or Israel):

1. Sabar, Shalom (1951 - ). "Esther's Children: A Portrait of Iranian Jews (review)" Jewish Quarterly Review - Volume 95, Number 2, Spring 2005, pp. 384-389. University of Pennsylvania Press.

2. Soomekh, Saba. Tehrangeles: Capital, Culture, and Faith among Iranian Jews. (essay presented to the Religious Pluralism in Southern California Conference). UC Santa Barbara. May 9, 2003.

3. Wasserstein, Bernard. Evolving Jewish Ethnicities or Jewish Ethnicity: End of the Road? (paper presented to Conference on Contextualizing Ethnicity: Discussions across Disciplines, Center for the International Study of Ethnicity). North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. 1 March 2003

4. Jewish Women 2000: Conference Papers from the HRIJW International Scholarly Exchanges 1997-1998. Hadassah Research Institute, Brandeis University. Waltham MA. 2000. (In particular, see the essays "Iranian Jewish Diaspora Women", by G.B., and "Iranian Jewish Women Discover the Power of Words", by Farideh Dayanim Goldin.)

Cheers. black thorn of brethil 20:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I ought to make it clear again that each of the above sources discusses the difficulties had by Iranian Jews in assimilating w/in largely Ashkenazi communities in the U.S. and Israel - up to and including discrimination, cultural suppression etc. black thorn of brethil 20:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purim

I added a few lines about Purim. It is an important Jewish celebration directly related to the history of Jews in Persia during the Achaemenid period.Heja Helweda 21:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pecher's edits and sources

Pecher has not clearly identified the sources he is using. For such contentious claims that Reza Shah sympathized with Nazi Germany, the author and his work should be clearly identified so that opposing references can be provided to counter such claims. SouthernComfort 21:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this book from Abbas Milani [24] (The Persian Sphinx) offers a well-sourced history of the situation between Reza Shah and Nazi Germany. I don't have it on hand at the moment but I'll try to visit the library when I have a chance. I'm not sure if Elton Daniel's "History of Iran" also covers this material. SouthernComfort 22:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that removing sourced material because "you don't think so" is a violation of WP:OR. The editor who inserted "fact" templates all over the article, sometimes right before the references, may also want to consider the appropriateness of such actions. Pecher ^Talk 07:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding selective materials, highlighting negative stories, mostly rumors and urban legends, that you can't even verfy, based on an Author's opinions, is a violation of WP:NPOV. --ManiF 07:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Shah supported Nazi Germany is not really that contentious, it verges on common knowledge among world war II historians.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the justification used by the British invade Iran during WW2. It's not a fact, unless you have a citation of Reza Shah saying that he supports Nazi Germany. --ManiF 07:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is provided inline. Pecher ^Talk 07:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

This article is on Persian Jews, an ethnic group. It should discuss their history, culture, status, and language. Comparative studies (as with Zoroastrianism, for example) and other irrelevant details should probably be put in a different article (Judaism in Iran or History of Judaism in Iran depending how you write it). Aucam an^Talk 07:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of selective material that are POV, not encyclopedic, and mostly irrelevant have been added to the article over the last few days. They should all be moved to a different article. --ManiF 07:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but how could the history, culture, and status of Persian Jews be irrelevent to an article on Persian Jews, this article is already overly focused on Persia instead of the Jews residing there.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

article is inaccurate and politcally charged

The article is inaccurate because of the following:

It censors out the plight of Persian (among Mizrahi) Jews in Israel. I provided several sources pointing to that fact, all Jewish sources, including quotes by Israel's PM, and a leading Israeli sociologist. All were deleted by User:Pecher et al under various pretexts. More sources that have been ignored in this context:
1. Sabar, Shalom (1951 - ). "Esther's Children: A Portrait of Iranian Jews (review)" Jewish Quarterly Review - Volume 95, Number 2, Spring 2005, pp. 384-389. University of Pennsylvania Press.
2. Soomekh, Saba. Tehrangeles: Capital, Culture, and Faith among Iranian Jews. (essay presented to the Religious Pluralism in Southern California Conference). UC Santa Barbara. May 9, 2003.
3. Wasserstein, Bernard. Evolving Jewish Ethnicities or Jewish Ethnicity: End of the Road? (paper presented to Conference on Contextualizing Ethnicity: Discussions across Disciplines, Center for the International Study of Ethnicity). North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. 1 March 2003
4. Jewish Women 2000: Conference Papers from the HRIJW International Scholarly Exchanges 1997-1998. Hadassah Research Institute, Brandeis University. Waltham MA. 2000. (In particular, see the essays "Iranian Jewish Diaspora Women", by G.B., and "Iranian Jewish Women Discover the Power of Words", by Farideh Dayanim Goldin.)
The article heavily relies on Bernard Lewis as an objective source. Reputable scholar? Yes. However I dont think it's a good idea to shut out other sources and exclusively focus on Lewis et al, because Lewis is a known anti-Iranian writer: i.e. he is not objective. People who consider Lewis as so are not far and few in numbers: (e.g. 1) (e.g. 2) Many secular Iranians even admit to the "political agenda of the likes of Bernard Lewis" [25]. His son is director for AIPAC's powerful "opposition research section", and he himself is considered as an intellectual icon by the Bush/Cheney team (remember Bush's "Lewis doctrine"?). Couldnt you make this article a bit less politically charged? Let us improve the article by including in other sources, diversifying the POV, and de-politicizing it.--Zereshk 22:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've said this before, just becasue a writer is Jewish or Israeli doesn't mean they are automatically pro-Israel. Also you are mistaken, Bernard Lewis is not known as a anti-Iranian writer by anyone that can be considerd neutral and unbiased. You are attempting to poison the well by mentioning a somwhat dubious connention to AIPAC- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

being "pro-Israel" is not a bad thing like you are implying as my claim. I grew up with many Jews and Israelis. They are pretty decent and very respectable people. The problematic people are the ones who keep seeking confrontation on their behalf, such as their European and American backers like Ledeen, Daniel Pipes, and of course Bernard Lewis (inventor of "clash of civilization" doctrine), etc.--Zereshk 02:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me one neutral website to actually back up your claims.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP bans original research: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Therefore it shouldnt be anyone's concern whether or not a source is neutral. Let the reader decide what is neutral, not you. My job is done here.--Zereshk 05:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree with Zereshk. The article is written from the point of view of persecution on racial grounds, presenting the view of Bernard Lewis as mere fact, stressing and highlighting certain negative stories, to vilify the Muslim populace. It simply doesn't comply with NPOV. --ManiF 06:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. SouthernComfort 06:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find reputable and reliable sources to counteract Lewss and Littman then put them in the article, but it doesn't make any sense to just to say that a particular person said something just becasue you disagree with his conclusions.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguating who wrote what is necessary when adding conflicting sources and multiple POVs. SouthernComfort 07:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would be one thing if it was a sibngle source with a history of bias in the given area, it is another when the claim is backed up by multiple sources that are considered both unbiased and reliable. You haven't even included any references to counter the claims so it is not neccessary to argue about it yet.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What multiple sources? Most of these so-called 'facts' are based on either Lewis or Littman's account of historical events that took place centuries ago. The main problem, however, is that the article is presenting the view of Lewis or Littman as mere fact, selectively stressing and highlighting certain events, intentionally in an effort to push a certain POV. --ManiF 10:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Lewis is the inventor of "clash of civilization" doctrine???? Maybe you're confusing him with Samuel Huntington the author of "Clash of Civilizations"??

And no, unlike Huntington, Lewis is not a political scientist and most of the things he says are pretty much facts. You might say that he's biased or that he doesn't present both sides of the story - but if that's your claim you're more than welcome to present the other side of the story.

And some of the quotes from news channels were taken out because they don't belong here. This is an article about Persian Jews, not an article in Wikinews. It's the equivalent of me going to the Persian people article and adding in the latest news about the earthquake in Iran - trying to make a point about how poor the people there are. Aucam an^Talk 07:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Lewis is a political figure [26] and whatever he says are not "pretty much facts". Many of his "facts" are not universally accepted and controversial. --ManiF 10:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a feeble attempt at poisoning the well. Bernard Lewis is one of the most authoritative scholars of the Middle East, if not the most authoritative living scholar. Pecher ^Talk 10:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"... if not the most authoritative living scholar." You can't be serious. That is strictly your opinion and I daresay most historians would have a wonderful laugh at such a bold and preposterous claim. Certainly gave me a chuckle. That's what we need around here, a slight bit of subtle comedic jest. Now, let's be a bit more serious, shall we? SouthernComfort 10:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This opinion is not as uncommon as you might think [27]. However, the key issue here is that no evidence has been provided that could disqualify Lewis as a reliable source per WP:RS. Pecher ^Talk 10:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea and you have obviously shown yourself to be just an expert on proper referencing.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Lewis is definitely not "the most authoritative living scholar". That's a different debate though. As I earlier stated, my problem is not necessarily about Bernard Lewis' views and facts, it is about the selective representation of them, used to promote a certain POV. --ManiF 10:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you see that a representation is "selective", you're always welcome to add what you think was omitted. You and some other editors, however, proceeded to delete or qualify any material you dislike. Pecher ^Talk 11:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I find it excessively odd how you guys have progressed through contradictory accusations and arguments.-

1. First you guys all agreed that what was referenced wasn't really in the book, and the writer obviously just made it up (of course it was *our* responsibility to prove this wasn't true.)

2. Then you suggested that Lewis and Littman's name had to be mentioned everytime there was an assertion that you didn't agree with.

3. Now you are suggesting that the editor selectively edited the material to only show our POV.

The only thing all of these arguements have in common is they are not backed up by any sources, and they don't make any sense.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the ad hominems, who are we guys? Different people have found different numerous, serious problems with the article. --ManiF 11:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explain to me how that is ad hominid, I never once referred to any personal characteristics. By "you guys" I meant you (ManiF), Southern Comfort, and Zeresh, I have never seen you once disagree with one another so I believe it was justified to group you together in this case.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"numerous, serious problems" is the same old weasel wording that obfuscates the absence of any meaningful argument. Not a single editor from the above mentioned group ever presented a single specific problem and backed up his arguments with sources. Pecher ^Talk 12:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget the anon, you know that one that "had the book in his hand".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's ad hominid, you both are grouping people, dismissing them, instead of addressing their specific concerns. I, for one, have, on more than one occasion, expressed my specific concern about the selective representation of "facts", to promote a certain POV. --ManiF 12:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the both of you stop lumping all of us into one group and stop making accusations, particularly against me. It's getting rather old and tiresome. I have made my points very clear, that controversial claims made by Lewis and Littman should be clarified as being their claims so that opposing references can be added. The site Pecher just cited as a source for his claim that Lewis is the "most authoritative" is a GeoCities page. That doesn't instill much confidence. You want to include Lewis and Littman? That's fine, but you cannot state their claims as fact when opposing sources disagree with them. SouthernComfort 12:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Had you bothered to read the article, you would have noticed that it is a reproduction of an entry in Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing written by Martin Kramer, himself a notable scholar. Pecher ^Talk 14:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's another problem, many of Bernard Lewis's claims such as the one about meaning and implications of "ritual purity in Islam" are not universally accepted among scholars. --ManiF 12:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger problem is that you have never quoted scholars who do not accept this thesis. Pecher ^Talk 14:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Fazel Lankarani specifically states that the concept of "ritual purity in Islam" doesn't apply to Jews and Christians. Bernard Lewis's view of the matter is by no means a universal opinion. --ManiF 14:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the source? Pecher ^Talk 15:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fazel Lankarani says that "Murtad (apostate) is Najis; but the people of the Book such as Jews and Christians are Paak." [28] --ManiF 18:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is sad to see that Pecher asks for the source again. We have already had a discussion on the mediation page of the dhimmi article and there I gave him the link from official website of Grand Ayatollah Fazel Lankarani(he later removed grand ayatollah from the beginning of his article :D See history page of that article. This can be questioned since we have articles like "saint something"; Fazel Lankarani is usually called by Grand Ayatollah in Iran. But since there were much more issues to discuss I neglected this one.).Here is the link from the official website of Lankarani: [29] We discussed this issue a lot(we discussed the opinion of other scholars for example; you can find them all on the mediation page there) I will report this on that mediation page and will ask for his response. --Aminz 18:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only editor here, and ManiF made the statement above without providing sources so that other editors could not check it. Generally, it was a bad idea for ManiF to claim something first, and then run to you, Aminz, to ask for sources. We have already discussed that issue at lengths elsewhere. The essence of the argument is that that Lanakrani is the only known modern Shi'a jurist who believes that Jews and Christians are clean; Khomeini and al-Sistani think otherwise. In addition, we need to check whether he says the same in the original, Arabic version of his book. There is no evidence that any notable Shi'a jurist in the past said that Jews and Christians are clean. Pecher ^Talk 19:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I have already told him about this. The point is that he has trust in me. But I am pretty sure that he already knew that the idea of uncleanness of people of the book is not universal. After all, he is Persian. The reason I told him about this before was that I saw he wrote about this in one of his edit summaries. But if you just wanted let other editors know about this, it makes sense that you asked for source. I should repeat my answer to your above argument again. Scholars such as Ayatullah Khui and Sistani have deemed the matter as an obligatory precautionary measure. "obligatory precautionary measure" (ehtiyate vajeb) is technical term which means that one can always revert the matter back to another scholar who allows the People of the Book to be considered Paak. Lankarani has a fixed view but Khui and Sistani have not found enough evidence to forbid it, so the declared it as an obligatory precautionary measure(which does not mean that it is obligatory but it is only recommended). [30] --Aminz 22:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Aucaman and Pecher have been taking the issue of "ritual purity" completely out of context and violating the WP:POINT guideline as a result. SouthernComfort 12:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This link should be added once the article is unprotected: Tehran Jewish Committee Letter of complaint concerning Iranian media [31] SouthernComfort 13:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are clearly misrepresenting what I stated. I wrote the arguments that the three of you attempted to make, which clearly contradicting themselves, since all of you agreed with all three then it was reasonable of me to state it as I did. There is nothing ad hominid about it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have stated my viewpoint very clearly, several times in fact, that claims made by Lewis and Littman should not be stated as fact, and that opposing references should be added. I find it interesting that you oppose this. SouthernComfort 15:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're not responsible for adding references to your claims. You can't just sit back and tag articles POV and then expect other people to find opposing (nonexistent) references. Historically Jews and other non-Muslims in Iran have been categorized as najis and this is basically a fact. If you want to refute it you should provide historical sources that say otherwise. Aucam an^Talk 20:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can, because I have offered opposing references, which I have included in the article. And there are more to add, much more. However, I find your accusation interesting considering that you have been tagging other articles without so much as offering any opposing sources at all, as well as taking sources out of context, violating WP:POINT. I could go on and on, but I've answered these continual queries from day one. SouthernComfort 04:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When did we say you couldn't add opposing references, on the contrary we have encouraged you to, but instead you have just made unsourced and contradictory claims.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish ethnicity or Persian ethnicity?

Ok so i see that you all are arguing over this. First off, Jews aren't an ethnic group. Jews are a religious group with the majority decsended from the ancient Israelites. MANY TIMES i have come in and edited this page but some loser keeps coming and deleting the FACTS. In parthian times in iran there were MASSIVE conversions to judaism. THAT IS A FACT. I have included that a million times but but loser who is ignorant thinks that persian jews are just israelites living in iran with the persian culture. WRONG. A lot of persian jews are racially indo-iranian like all others.

And we are expected to take your word for this without a single source?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Go read a book. Maybe "The History of the Jews of Iran" by Habib Levy might help you. In Parthian times there was SO much religious freedom that cities of Zoroastrians would convert to Judaism.

I'm sorry but I found that claim dubious at best, since besides the book you mention there is no evidence to corroborate your claim. Besides, the Pathians' primary religion was mithraism, it wasn't until the Sassanids that Zorastrianism once again become the more widely practiced religion.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. But hear me out I am not feeding you nonsense. There are lots of Persian Jews that are descendants of converts. I'm reading out of that book I listed. Thats all the proof you need. Do not be a jerk and say thats not good enough. For gods sake ITS IN A BOOK.

Do not respond

Please see WP:SIGN. Also see WP:NPA and WP:V. I don't think anything you say deserves a response. There's no such thing as an "Indo-Iranian race". Not sure where this is coming from. Indo-Iranian is linguistic group and people of the same linguistic group can be of different races. (you're telling me that African Americans are Caucasoid because they speak English?) Definitely does not deserve a response. Aucam an^Talk 06:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please don't get confused. Indo-Iranian refers to 'Aryan' if you didn't know. I apologize for my use of words.

Actually, Aucaman, you are wrong. Click on the link on placed yourself. Click on "Indo-Iranian". It takes you to the Aryans, as said above by the other user.

Generally "Aryan" is used for Proto-Indo-Iranians, not modern Iranians. Also please sign your posts in the future.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Jews are Generally Ethnic Persians

Persian Jews are ethnic Persians and have as equal a right to all Persian heritage as Persian Muslims, Persian Christians, and Persians of other religions. 69.196.139.250 01:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if once this was true, it is not after the Islamic revolution. Who is the guarantor of the "equal rights", Ahmadinejad? Khomeini? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khomeini and/or Ahmadinejad never could or will ever be bale to change people and their heritage. Politics has nothing to do with the discussion here. --ManiF 02:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Take a look at this from Britannica Encyclopedia: "The Jews trace their heritage in Iran to the Babylonian Exile of the 6th century BC and, like the Armenians, have retained their ethnic, linguistic, and religious identity." End of discussion. See WP:V. Aucam an^Talk 02:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how you don't oppose this from the same article: The Persians, Kurds, and speakers of other Indo-European languages in Iran are descendants of the Aryan tribes that began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the 2nd millennium BC. Oh, wait a minute. You do oppose that. But not the other bit. Okay. SouthernComfort 04:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SouthernComfort raises a good point Aucaman, if that Britannica article is the ultimate authority, then why are you disputing and opposing its content on another page? --ManiF 04:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're telling me that the Armenian-Iranians are also "descendants of Aryans" because they speak an Indo-European language and live in Iran???? You also might want to note that Persian Jews have historically spoken Hebrew (and Aramaic for Kurdish Jews), both of which are not Indo-European languages. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. We're not talking about Persians here. We're talking about Jews. They're called Persian Jews because they lived under the Persian Empire, not because they're Persian. Same goes with Ashkenazim and Sephardim. Russian Jews are called Ashkenazi but they're clearly not from Germany (Ashkenaz means Germany). We're not talking about "Persians, Kurds, and speakers of other Indo-European languages in Iran" - we're talking about Persian Jews, Jews who have historically lived under the Persian Empire. Get your facts straight. Aucam an^Talk 04:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article already discusses Armenians in another paragraph, I just think you should be consistent in what you consider an ultimate authority that would bring an end to the discussion. If one paragraph of that Britannica article is a mere fact; so is the rest of it. --ManiF 04:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All that, and you didn't even answer the question. SouthernComfort 04:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already answered all your questions. Your quote from Britannica is not talking about Persian Jews. My quote is. Armenians, Jews, and Assyrians in Iran are seperate ethnic groups that have very little to do with the Persians except for living in the same land (often in secluded neighborhoods). Aucam an^Talk 05:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you have not answered the question. You accept the Britannica entry for this article, but not in others. Please explain. SouthernComfort 08:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Britannica entry says nothing about your latter claim, that Persians have nothing to do with Persians aside from the land. That is ridiculous and you need to provide a source if you intend to include that in the article. SouthernComfort 08:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aucaman! So you're telling me that every last Kurdish Jew is a descendant of an Israelite JUST because the majority of Jews are? Well, I once read in the article Kurdish Jews that they are a type of Iranian Jew like Persian Jews. And if I'm not mistaking, I also read that the Kurdish Jews are descended from the gentile Kurds that converted to Judaism in the 1st century BC.

And why are you under the impression that every last Jew is a pure blood Israelite like the word CONVERSION never existed? Like it or not, many NON-Semitic ethnic/racial groups have had massive conversions to Judaism, mainly before Jesus' time. And don't ask for a source either, I'm not trying to put it on this website...before it starts an uproar amgonst people that believe all Jews are descended from the ancient Hebrews, no exceptions.

Thats called a straw man buddy, Im not saying there wasn't a few single conversions, but it was hardly the massive conversions to judaism like you suggest. There wasn't any reason, Jews didn't proselthize and that last time it was a state religion was with the hasmoneans.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Jews, Kurdish Jews, Berber Jews, (a portion of) Persian Jews, Bene Israel, and Bene Ephraim simply converted to Judaism.

There is only one claim that can be made here: Persian Jews have a tradition of being descended from the most ancient Jews. Everything else is unsubstantiated, extrapolated and inferred w/o basis. There is no science on the question of Persian Jewish heritage. To establish anything else, contributors to this article must demonstrate verifiable sources of information. - black thorn of brethil 02:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will never find this information in an American source. I have found out that Americans are ignorant of this certain fact. During Parthian times, there was a lot of religious freedom. So much that people were going and becoming Jews. As a result, CITIES of converted Jews came about, with NO roots from the ancient Hebrews. I'm not trying to put that in this site because I cannot prove it online - I read it in a book. And everyone I have told on Wikipedia thought I was ignorant and lying. What I have told you is a fact.

If it it fact why can you not provide a single source? and why does it contradict every single written record of the subject?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, it sure is fun finding citations for you people. For an academic descripton of mass conversions to Judaism in Ancient Iran, see [32] (esp chapter 4 - "The Babylonian Captivity and its Consequences"; see chapter 18 for an interesting look at how early Christians felt threatened by those tempting them to convert to Judaism, such that Contantine [or his son Constantius] made actual laws forbidding Jews to try and convert Christians, forbidding Christians to marry Jews etc. - which would be bizarre if the same Jewish rules pertained then as do now for conversion to Judaism). I am writing an email to this professor to ask for reputable sources claiming mass conversions (or at least significant conversions) of Ancient and Classical Iranians to Judaism. - black thorn of brethil 04:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg! I told you I read that in a book (as in NOT ON THE WEB). Thats why I can't give you a source. The book was "The History of the Jews of Iran" by Habib Levy. Thats all I can tell you. And what on earth does it contradict? Conversions to Judaism in Iran before Jesus? That doesn't seem too much like an unlikely event, even though I read it in a book. 69.235.239.168 05:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one thing it contradicts Habib Levy himself. I found a little tidbit of info and realized you probably misinterpreted what Levy was saying. What he was writing about was the conversion of Jews to Bahaism, not conversion of gentiles to Jews. Please see this page for more info- [33]- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am speaking of conversions thousands of years ago. Bahaiism is a clearly new thing. Persian Jews are the same as Persian Muslims and Christians in all ways but religon and slightly different cultures. The term Persian Jew is right because there are other non-Persian Jews, such as Kurdish Jews and Tat Jews. A lot of these people were not Jewish faith Hebrew immigrants, but Iranian converts thousands of years ago. There were whole towns in Iran that converted or even provinces/principlaities in Kurdistan. Iranian Jews are just Iranian as an other Iranian. I am upset to be talking about a widely known fact.

The book is called "Comprehensive History of the Jews of Iran" by Habib Levy (1896-1984), Maza Publishers 1999. There is a chapter on the wholesale conversion of the Khazar nation, which might be what the anon contributor is thinking of. I have not read the book, but there is talk of Levy claiming that the Kurds and others are actually the remnants of the lost Ten Tribes (making, one assumes, their conversion more a return). This would emasculate the conversion scenario with respect to its relevance to this article, unless there are further remarks about conversions of Persians not so descended. The anon contributor best go and find the book, find the passages, and quote them. "I read it in a book" just won't do. black thorn of brethil 08:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "I read it in a book" will do because I am not trying to prove anything. I am not trying to put that on the website. So why bother?

And I know what you mean. Israelites and Kurds somewhere along the way lived in areas very close to each other. Refer to Kurds and look under "Kurds and Jews" for more information.

Lewis and "Clash of civilization"

It even says on the Wikipedia entry for Bernard Lewis:

"Lewis coined the term "clash of civilizations" to describe the relations between the Muslim world and the West in a 1990 issue of the Atlantic Monthly."

What a shame. You guys (Pecher, Moshe) could have avoided this mess by simply adding the names of Lewis and Littman to parts of the article. Now how hard was that?

User:Aminz and User:ManiF, Thanx for the info. The Lankarani link was very enlightening.--Zereshk 08:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gerneally you should never cite another wikipedia article, it doesn't prove anything.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From a logical point of view, this issue is altogether irrelevant to the content of this article. Ah, sorry, I forgot: some editors here are trying to poison the well. Pecher ^Talk 10:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yawn...--Zereshk 11:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes your right, it is easier to act arrogant than it is to actually address another person's argument.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we've been addressing your points for quite awhile now. You continue to ignore them, and no one is in the mood to talk to a brick wall. It gets tiresome after awhile, and that you cannot see the bias in wanting to present Lewis and Littman's claims as "fact" is very sad and disheartening. SouthernComfort 04:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EXACTLY. It's turned into a one way discourse. And that's sad.--Zereshk 21:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Few Subtle Hints

1. Buruma, Ian. "Lost in Translation: the two minds of Bernard Lewis". The New Yorker. 14JUN04. (A critique of Lewis that raises questions about his impartiality and about his drifting from academic historian to political commentator; important considerations if Lewis' claims are to be cited.)

2. The term is AD HOMINEM, not 'hominid'! One who commits the ad hominem fallacy is 'attacking the man and not the argument'. Don't confuse the message with the messenger, and please don't confuse your spelling.

3. There is one study that claims Cohenite Jews (of Sephardic and Ashkenazi communities) have maintained a high level of impermeable paternal descent, while Levite Jews (same communities) have not (the Khazar thing pops up yet again!) The study is here: [34].

4. There is another study (by the same researchers) that claims 40% of Ashkenazi Jews (that is, 3.5 million out of 8.75 million total) are descended from four women living in Europe around 1000 A.D. The maternal ancestry of the other 60% was not provided by the press release. Nor did the press release provide details on the ancestry of the four women, though it did say that they are 'likely of Middle-eastern origin'. Whether this last bit comes from the study is not said. The study has not yet been published (you have to be a suscriber to the American Journal of Human Genetics to get it early online). The press release for the study (but not the study itself) is here: [35]

5. What the above-mentioned studies would have to do with Persian Jews is anybody's guess. Perhaps there is an attempt to apply evidence of Ashkenazi descent to the Persian situation. If so, that would be strange. No science has been given to date to support any claims made about the genetic history of Persian Jews. There has been (one) source cited to show that today's Persian Jews maintain a tradition of Biblical descent. Both points must be made unless further information can be gotten.

6. Don't forget the academic sources cited above that claim Persian Jews have been discriminated against by Ashkenazi Jews. These need to be included in the article, along with the info (same articles) that the situation for Persian Jews has improved in recent years.

7. The word "Aryan" has been used by certain peoples of Central Asia for millenia. The ancestors of the Brahmans and Zoroastrians shared a common origin, familial and linguistic. The old Persians called themselves 'Arya', hence 'Iran' (land of the Aryans). For an etymology: Iran from Iranian eran, from Avestan gen. pl. airyanam. The name is a tribal-cultural name, and refers to the areas in which the Aryans lived, and the language they spoke, regardless of who was ruling at the time. There never was a time when the inhabitants did not call themselves 'Arya' and their home 'Iran'. The name was formalized as the State name in 1935 by Reza Shah. For other eras, dynastic names are used by historians (Parthia etc.), though the kings of those dynasties referred to themselves with the title 'King of the Aryans'. What is clear is that Iranians have always called themselves and their language 'Aryan' and they have always called their land 'Iran' (land of the Arya). It is not a modern invention attached (!!!!) to the Nazi co-option of the term 'Aryan' in the early 20th century. Also, the name 'Persia' is from the Iranian province of 'Fars'. See [36] and [37]

8. Mithraism as practiced in Parthian Iran was a form of Zoroastrianism. In fact, it was the Zoroastrian reorganization that elevated Mithras from a lower level in the Aryan pantheon to being second only to Ahura Mazda (the Creator). In this sense, Mithraism stands to Zoroastrianism as Methodism stands to Christianity. It was only in the Western world (i.e., Rome and her colonies) that Mithraism mixed with Greco-Roman mystery-religions and became the secret soldier's cult. Thus, it is not correct to equate Zoroastrian Mithraism with the later non-Zoroastrian Mithraism of the Roman Legions. At the end of the day, this last point is the least relevant - it's here only to stop people from pontificating and deflecting. black thorn of brethil 10:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

This is not an article on Bernard Lewis. We're using his writing. If you have specific problems with certain passages, you should mention the passages. If Lewis is saying something that you believe is false, you should provide sources that oppose his point of view.
Not sure what you're talking about.
Not relevant to this article.
Not relevant to this article.
Which two points are you referring to and where's the evidence for the second point?
As long as you've got sources that talk about Persian Jews specifically. I also don't see any sources "above".
Not relevant to this article.
Not relevant to this article.

In the future please put different concerns in different sections - it's hard to address all of them in the same section. Aucam an^Talk 17:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Aucaman on all points. Let's discuss the article, not some extraneous subjects, like who thinks what about Bernard Lewis; obviously, Lewis is not a greenbuck, and there will always be people who have an adverse opinion about him. That alone does not cast any doubt over his writings as reliable sources. Pecher ^Talk 19:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, addressing the points above in one go didn't seem too hard for Aucaman, so I think I'll keep my own style. If you have concerns with this, see the format of his remarks in the section 'Responding to the Devil's Advocate' above. "People who live in glass houses...." At any rate, none of the issues I raised immediately above are extraneous subjects. Rather, they are all quite germane to this talk page:

1. If Bernard Lewis is cited as a source for a piece of information, and if that piece of information is controversial and can be gotten nowhere else, then it is also appropriate to cite the contentious nature of Lewis as a source. If a source's general objectivity has been called into question by his/her peers, then it is appropriate to note it whenever one references the source - but ESPECIALLY when the point being made is controversial.

2. You must read the talk page to understand most (if not all) of the points I made immediately above. Someone (ahem) introduced the ad hominem fallacy to the discussion, but it deteriorated shortly thereafter and became a street-level insult poorly wielded.

3. thru 5. When one reads the talk page, one finds that the question of familial descent for Persian Jews has been introduced and hotly debated. Furthermore, one finds that recent evidence concerning the familial descent of Ashkenazi Jews has been introduced to the talk page to support certain claims about Persian Jews. Re-reading my point 5 above, we see that I claim that 1) no science has been brought forward that defines or describes the descent of Persian Jews and 2) one source has been cited showing that the Persian Jewish community has, by tradition, maintained the claim of familial descent. If the question of familial descent is to be part of the article, both these points (points 1) and 2), that I just re-introduced to you, here, in this paragraph) belong in the article.

6. You must look to see. There are 4 reputable academic sources quoted above in the talk page that describe the unfortunate welcome in both Israel and the U.S that the Persian Jewish community has had from their Ashkenazi brethren. These 4 sources are quoted in the talk page twice - once in 'Mizrahi Jews' section, and once in the 'Article is inaccurate and politcally charged' section. These sources speak only of Jews who come from (or descend from) Jewish communities in Persia/Iran.

7. This point was made to clear up any useless chatter (sprinkled throughout the talk page) about the use of the term 'Aryan', which is today only appropriate of peoples living in and around Iran. 'Iran' (Land of the Aryans) is the only appropriate name for the continuity that has been the Iranian community for the last several thousand years. 'Persia' is a remnant imperial designation (as would be Parthia etc.). The relevance to this discussion comes from the question of which terms will be used in the article.

8. Again (sigh), read the talk page. The question of the nature of Parthian religion was introduced (it was important to the [short] discussion of how Jews were treated under Parthian Zoroastrian rule, and how this changed when they fell under Sassanid Zoroastrian rule). My remarks simply clarified the issue. black thorn of brethil 20:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond only to the Lewis portion, for I have neither time, nor desire to read everything else. The piece of information in question is "controversial" for a couple of Wikipedia editors only; there is no evidence that it is controversial among academics. Those editors, however, are not sufficiently notable for their opinions to be able to call into question a work by a renowned scholar. Pecher ^Talk 20:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Places to look for information on the controversial nature of Bernard Lewis and his work: [38], [39], [40] (this article only mentions Lewis, but in a very ... relevant ... light), [41], [42], [43], [44] (again, in a passing but important mention).

A little reading will show how the entire work of Bernard Lewis has been called into question by Edward Said and his followers. According to the sources here listed, Said's view (that Lewis et al have done all their histories and analyses through the chauvanistic eye of the West, and that thus their conclusions are suspect) is the predominant view of history departments today. Furthermore, many sources accuse Lewis of having a political, anti-islamic agenda that colors all his works. The whole point here is that Lewis is a controversial figure, and that the entire basis for his works has been called into question, so much so that Lewis and the few remaining 'Princeton' crowd are considered on the academic fringe - history dinosaurs, so to speak. All this goes toward making the argument that utilizing Lewis as one's sole source opens one's assertions to criticism and debate.black thorn of brethil 21:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, this is not really relevant to this article. Unless you have some very specific concerns, there's no reason to engage in poisoning the well. Aucaman^Talk 21:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns listed above are quite specific. Simply saying that they are not is wishful thinking (and I mean this in the full sense of the word 'wishful'). What has been established here, in the talk pages, is that assertions by Lewis are open to criticism, both in particular and in general. But 'in general' is enough. If the man is held by a respectable element of scholars to have (over his entire career) produced questionable analyses of Islamic societies, then any citation of his experiences with said societies is suspect to that very degree. The original [see far far above] criticisms of those disputing the legitimacy of including Lewis as an ultimate source are hereby rendered invalid. The references provided immediately above establish the questionability of citing Lewis without proviso. The relevance to this article of established criticisms of Lewis is self evident - they bring into question his findings, which findings are cited as the basis for certain assertions made in the article. Ugly things happen. Unfortunate circumstances apply. It is left to us to deal fairly with them. Lewis is not an incontrovertible source of knowledge on any aspect of 'Persian' Jewry. End of story. black thorn of brethil 05:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the nature of science that everything is open to criticism. By that logic, we could disqualify any source. Fortunately, we have WP:RS saying which sources qualify as reliable and which do not. Lewis's works obviously do. Pecher ^Talk 07:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is open to criticism, but very few criticisms can stand long enough to earn a spot in an article. Lewis is not open to criticism simply because 'everything is open to criticism', but rather because his work has been in fact criticised by his peers. Lewis has been accused by too many scholars of being motivated in his science by political concerns. Specifically, he has been accused of having an anti-islamist agenda, as well as a right-wing agenda. He is more popular at the White House than at academic colloquia. What's important is that the reliability of his science has been affected, and becomes questionable by the very nature of the accusations. Need sources? See above (just point ... and click). The point of such widespread doubt is that it calls into question dramatic antecdotal information like the so-called 'no-jews-in-the-rain' taboo. Unless other sources could be found (like the records department that would have to record the imposition of such a law, or the independently verifiable reports of other travelers, anthropologists, etc.), this story, for one, can be used only with proviso. It must be noted that the person reporting it, Lewis, has been accused by his fellows of being anti-islamic to the point that it has determined his writings on Islamic societies. It is true Lewis made the report on an Islamic society. It is true that Lewis's very reporting ability concerning said societies has been attacked by his peers. Both truths. Both relevant. Both need citing.black thorn of brethil 19:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black, Your claim that Mithraism is a merely a form of Zoroastrianism is incorrect. You could just as easily claim Mandeanism is a form of Christianity which is claerly not the case. Yes, they both share certain similarities, but the structure Mithraism is completly different. Yes, Mithraism is derived from Zoroastrianism, but where Zoroatrianism is essentially a dualistic and non-esoteric religion, Mithraism is a mystery religion (esoteric). Also while the form practiced by the romans was different, it was not as different as you suggest.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing Roman Mithraism (the mystery religion) with the original Persian variant. Read the writings of David Ulansey and Franz Cumont (though Cumont's theories, from where much of our knowledge of Roman Mithraism comes from, are generally out of date as Ulansey's work is far more comprehensive and accurate). If you're going to assert that the Roman and Persian religions were the same, you need a source for that controversial claim. SouthernComfort 08:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you only read the first sentence of my post? I made it clear that they were different, they were just not different enough to be considerd different religions. It could be compared to the way different cultures practice christianity. When romans began practicing Mithraism, it came under the influence of Roman and Greek mythology. Just like when Christianity came to england in came under the influence of traditional Celtic and Druidic worship.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your source for this claim, that they were not originally different? SouthernComfort 11:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Roman Mithraism as practised in Iran was an aspect of Zoroastrianism - like worship of Athena or Dionysius were aspects of Classical Greek Religion, and not new or independent religions on their own. Mithras was given his exalted position by Zoroastrianism - Mithraism in its inception was a sanctioned 'path' of Zoroastrianism, and not a seperate religion. The idea is that one, being a Zoroastrian, adopts Mithras-worship as a Christian might adopt saint-worship, or an ancient Egyptian might have adopted Isis-worship. In all three cases, something is elevated, yet remains subsumed in the larger religion. In Persian Mithraism, Ahura Mazda is still worshipped, and Mithras' connection to the Creator God is ever-present. This form of Mithraism dominated the Persian empire. It was not until later, after it came into contact with Babylonian, Egyptian and Roman ideas that it morphed and became a religion in its own right. In the Roman practice, however, Mithras was the focus to the exclusion of all else. This is something that never happened in the Zoroastrian cult of Mithras as it was practiced in ancient Iran (and still is practiced in modern Iran - there are festivals to this day dedicated to Mithras). The much later Roman practice first passed through the mystical lense of Babylon before emerging so very different in the West. Academic sources you can check with to learn about Zoroastrian Mithraism and Roman Mithraism: [45], [46], [47], [48]. black thorn of brethil 20:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War

This whole page protection thing is getting boring. Can we summarize the basic arguments here and get them settled? Otherwise, someone is going to need to DO something to get work restarted on this little piece of the Project - and it's possible no one will be happy with the results. I am starting the list of disputed subjects. Feel free to add to the list. Once it seems pretty much done, we can go from there:

1. Persian Jews; Persian, Jew or Both? (sub conflict - nature of 'Persian', nature of 'Jew'; sub-sub conflict - the question of Conversion).

2. Bernard Lewis; Reputable, citable (in the standard, minimal way) authority on Jewish life in Iran, or hate-mongering rightist considered by the majority of contemporary history departments to have been co-opted by his extreme values (thus requiring proviso, attachment or disclaimer).

3. Mizrahi Jews; Are Persian Jew expats subject to discrimination from Ashkenazi Jews in Israel and the U.S., or is everything Hunky Dory Morning Glory?

Anything Else? black thorn of brethil 00:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well pretty much everything you oppse above you have convientenly presented a straw man of, so yes there is more.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down with the typing. Spelling is important. I don't want to misunderstand you. A. Name one issue I laid out above that I 'oppose'. B. If there is more, then let's hear it. black thorn of brethil 06:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats funny, I misspelled two words, and it was obvious what I was trying to say. Should I go find everything you misspelled above? I don't believe I need to because I am capable of arguing like an adult.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's "that's" (with an apostrophe). I am not saying that your arguments are affected by your spelling, insofar as it leaves us able to avoid any ambiguity. I don't want our arguments to be tainted by ambiguity. This isn't a question of maturity, but rather only of clear communication. Of course I value your statements, but I value them more when I am sure I understand correctly what you are saying. - black thorn of brethil 01:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection

Is anyone opposed to just unprotecting this page? Aucaman^Talk 03:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are several ongoing unsolved disputes on this page, unprotecting it will mean a resumption of edits wars. --ManiF 05:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What ongoing disputes? How about you create new sections and tell us what the disputes are? Aucaman^Talk 05:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list of the ongoing unsolved disputes above this section. --ManiF 05:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer the questions below. Aucaman^Talk 05:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions have already been answered over and over again. Read the discussion page again. --ManiF 05:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity

What's people's problem with the Jewish ethnicity? Aucaman^Talk 05:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem here. Perhaps you might want to elaborate? 'Problem' can mean so many things. black thorn of brethil 06:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting. - black thorn of brethil 01:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some people reject the notion of a Jewish race. People like me. Some people cannot see that Jews are a simple religious group, and because the majority of Jews are descended from the ancient Hebrews, people go under the impression that Jews are a race. Nobody ever says Hindus are a race even though the majority of them of of Indian ancestry.

Hinduism is primarily a religion, it doesn't carry with it the culture, language, and group cohesion that Judaism does.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well racial origin of Hindus or Indians is pretty diverse. Indians are a heterogenous ethnicity of 30 or so lossely connected cultures. File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 13:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy smokes, Moshe, I never thought I would hear you say such a thing. I don't even know how to respond.black thorn of brethil 06:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Islam does. Islam is a religion, there is an Islamic culture, Arabic is the shared language of Muslims, and the majority of Muslims are of South East Asian origin. And Muslims have each other's backs like how you propose Jews do. Iranians don't like Arabs a lot because of the treatment they recieved 1300 years ago from them, YET most Iranians are supporting the Palestinian Arabs in getting a nation. Hmm...Why? ISLAM. If the Palestinians were predominately Christians, Jews, Athiests, or polytheists the Iranian regime wouldn't care less about the Arabs. Islam fits in the same description as Judaism does, but I don't hear anyone saying Muslims are a race...

Bernard Lewis

Which specific passages do people have problems with and why? Aucaman^Talk 05:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JHC. What were the passages your opposition kept trying to add provisos to? Was it (perhaps) the passage about Jews not being allowed in the rain in Iran? Why would an Iranian have problems with that? Because s/he believed it to be true? Surely not. But if they rather thought it false, could that explain it? No - not enough to explain the 'problem' - one could simply say "I never heard such a thing" and be done with it. It must be something else: the fact that this claim is 'making it' into a so-called encyclopedic entry, where it can be read by others, posited as fact, backed up by ONE source only; a source that is under attack for being anti-Islamic and jaded to the point of it coloring his science.... Well, maybe THAT could exlain 'which' and 'why'. But only if you want to see this cleared up. black thorn of brethil 06:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, your answer is "because I don't like it". Unless you can cite reliable sources, no one here will take your arguments seriously, just as no one does it now. Pecher ^Talk 08:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any source can be attacked as unreliable, what matters is whether those accusations of bias are backed up with reliable fact, in this case there hasn't been any evidence that Bernard Lewis is more bias than any other reputable journalist.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, Lewis is a highly reputable historian and orientalist; Princeton is one of the most prestigious places in the academe, so those opposing him can save their attack for being "anti-Islamic" for their blogs. Furthermore, the claim that the prohibtion on going out in the rain is sourced to Lewis only is just ridiculous: even in this article it is sourced to both Lewis and Littman with these scholars quoting European travellers in their own turn. However, I must say it again and again that we need not have several sources saying the same thing here because as long as an argument from a reliable source is unquestioned it need not be attributed to the source. If Lewis is NOT a reliable source, then he has no place in WIkipedia whatsoever; if he IS a reliable source, he can be cited without attribution. Pecher ^Talk 07:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being from Princeton doesnt mean anything here. Netanyahu was from MIT. With your reasoning, I guess we can consider anything he says as reputable and pro-Islamic. That's why Im not participating in this discussion. It has merely degenarated into a highschool level debate. Have fun.--Zereshk 00:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Academic sources to reference information on the controversial nature of Bernard Lewis and his work: [49], [50], [51] (this article only mentions Lewis, but in a very ... relevant ... light), [52], [53], [54], [55] (again, in a passing but important mention).black thorn of brethil 01:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting to see if the list of contentious issues I provided above is acceptable to all parties; namely, that we are dealing with the following:

The question of the ancestral heritage of Persian Jews;

The question of the reputability of Bernard Lewis as an unqualified source;

The question of possible abuse of Persian Jews at the hands of Ashkenazi Jews in the U.S. and Israel.

Anything else? - black thorn of brethil 01:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Bernard Lewis is NOT a journalist!!!! - black thorn of brethil 01:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for specific passages

This is not an article on Bernard Lewis. Which specific passages do people have problems with? Aucaman^Talk 01:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any statement of fact that rests upon a citation of Bernard Lewis' work is suspect and requires qualification. For established, academic proofs of this assertion, please see above noted citations. Please read the articles so linked. black thorn of brethil 01:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about Bernard Lewis in general. For that you can go to this article. We're talking about Persian Jews and history of their persecution. Now which specific statements do people have problems with? Aucaman^Talk 02:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any statement of fact about Persian Jews and the history of their persecution that rests upon a citation of Bernard Lewis' work is suspect and requires qualification. For established academic proofs of this assertion, please see above noted citations. Please read the articles so linked. - black thorn of brethil 06:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've gone over this many times, I don't fund it neccessary to repeat ourselves.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]