Talk:Persians

Resetting the table

I have manually archived the old discussions on the talk page since the forum like posts interspersed with obvious trolling and insults were not conducive to improving the article, which is the raison d'etre of article talk-pages. If something useful was lost in the process it can be recovered from hArchive 8. Editors are welcome to resume discussion of any content issues, but they should familiarize themselves of talk page guidelines as well as wikipedia's general content and behavioral policies. If a issue is not settled by discussion here, please follow one of the dispute resolution processes. Abecedare (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Any collage here?

Does someone prefer a collage to be labelled in this article? --115ash^→(☏) 11:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Change pictures

We need to change some of the pictures in the montage. Really how famous are Anousheh Ansari and Pierre Omidyar? Compared to major Persian cultural figures like Googoosh, Leila Forouhar, Mohsen Namjoo, Ahmed Shamlou, Sadeq Hedayat, Forough Farrokhzad, etc. Also key politicians like Mossadeq, the Shah, Khomeini, etc regardless of whether you personally like them or not.

User:Iranmehr2015, I tend to agree, that the montage is not the best. Can you suggest some portraits that would be good to include? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

request to a wikipedia adminstrator

why any adminstrator dont care about this article, this article is full of errors and misleadings. as you know every nation and nation state has an article in wikipedia. but iranians dont have. swedes, iraqis, french, brazilians. azeris and even state less tiny nations as assyrians and even gypsies have article about them but IRANIANS dont have any article. i hope one admin is creating an article about iranian nation, it is the right to us iranians nation to have an article in wikipedia and it is the right of us to not be mixed with afqans in wikpedia since so many afqans are writing our articles and confusing readers about us iranians. it is true that afqans are wriing articles about us iranians but the admins should not accept that. iranian is not related to afqanis. it is the desire of afqanis that want to be part of us iranians but this its funny and pathetic about afqans. please any adminstrator in wikipedia either create an article about iranian nation in wikipedia or delete everything about afqan in this article.--Iranmehr2015 (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

There are articles on Iran and Greater Iran. Can you speak to a specific point in an article, and provide a source for what you are saying? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

of course there is an article about the country iran in wikipedia. but i dont mean an article about the country, i mean about the nation and peope. iranian nation and people dont have an article in wikipedia. but every other people has article in wikipedia. please creare an article about the iranian people and redirect it with persian. persian is a synonym with iranian. greater iran is a geographical article not about the people. i mean iranian people, like the articles: swedes, french people, italians, spaniards, argentine people.--Iranmehr2015 (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

afqans are not persians

persian is a synonym of iranian. in united states the iranians call their country iran and they call themselves persian americans. the iranian film (kasi az gorbehaye irani khabar nadare) is called (no one knows about persian cats) in english. iran have always been the native name of iran but former western name was persia, but now persia and iran are synonyms since 1960 since the iranian then king declared that both names can be used interchangably. afqans are not persians. but they are wanna be. please dontmox us iranians with afqans. it is better for afqans to be proud of their nation in sted being claiming part of iranians.

create an article about the IRANIAN nation and redirect persian with the iranian article and delete everything about afqan. and IF REALLY AFQANS ARE PERSIANS SO PLEASE MAKE THE ARTICLE MORE FUNNY AND PUT PICTURES OF AFQAN PEOPLE IN THE IMAGE SECTTION SIDE BY SIDE WITH IRANIANS. iranian is a synonym with persian. afqans are not related to us. they even do not speak farsi their language is dari. croatian and bosnian are not called serbian and urdu is not called hindi. and swedish is not called danish. stop wannabeness.--Iranmehr2015 (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Iranmehr2015. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This pages need serious considerations of revisal.

An ethnic group means sharing a large element of genetic relation amongst its members. Afghans (Tajiks included) are closer related to Northwest South Asian populations GENETICALLY, than to Iranian populations.

http://www.zackvision.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/genome_Zack_Full.txt.cleaned_BGA_4.png

Iranians, on the other hand, genetically cluster with South Caucasians, Anatolians, and Mesopotamians. The only relation Tajiks have with Persian Iranians is a shared language and somewhat-shared literary culture. Other than that, the genetics prove that they are not closely related groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonstone1889 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

This pages need serious considerations of revisal.

i agree, this article need serious consideration as soon as possible for revisal

the article is totally misleading. tajiks and afghans should have their own article and like other nations, persians (or iranians) should have an article of their own. perisan is only an ancient name for iranians. please consider correcting the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadra2011 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, this really is extremely misleading. There already is a "Persian language" page- the ethnicities are distinct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonstone1889 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

request of an administrator

Please revert this article, this article is full of errors. iranians and afghans are two different nationalities and ethnicities. they can not be mixed according to wikipedia rules and according to the fact that persian (iranians) and afghans are not the same thing and can not be in the same category. thank you--Rambodnikraftar (talk) 09:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Second Paragraph Should Be Deleted

"Afghanis, better known as Afghoonis or Efis and Afaghaneh, are not part of the Persian people and they are acting as wannabe persians, they are not proud of their nation and we Iranians hate them hate them hate them."

This should be taken out of the article, for obvious reasons/ SonomaLass (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

afghoonis are not Persians

afghanis are not persians, austrians speak german but are not germans and they do not consider themselves as germans, they are neither considered germans by the people of germany, the people of switzerland speak french but they are only swiss and it is wrong to call the swiss peoiple as french people. the people of belgium speak dutch, but they are not dutch or netherlanders, the people of brazil speak portuguese but they are not portuguese people. they are brazilians speaking portuguese. the people of ghana speak english but they are not english. and finally the afghans speak a dialect of persian. but they are not persians racially or ethnically or historically. afghans are ethnically and racially a mixed nation. the tajiks, are related to people of central asia, to the people of uzbekistan, turkmenistan and tajikistan. the tajiks of afghanistan look exactly the same as tajik and uzbeks because they are the same. the hazaras are not related to the iranian or persian race, they are of mongol origin, their hazaragi language which is a dialect of dari language, is heavily mixed with the momgolian languiage, their look and appearence attest to the fact that they are only assimilated mongols. even the word hazara is a millitary unit which describe that they were a part of the mongol chengiz khan army who destroyed civilization of iran including nishabur and tus and many other cities of khorasan. (khorasan is in iran and is iranian, not afghani or afghanistan).

tajiks are iranized or persianized central asians, like uzbeks are turkified central asian people. tajik is NOT a synonym of persian or iranian, tajik only refered to people of central asia which became iranized, even the tajiks of china which speak and iranic language which is not persian language, they the tajiks of china are called tajiks by the chinese government, this is because they speak an iranic language, whether be persian or what else. the term tajik were invented by the turkic speaking central asian to differentiate themselves from the iranic speaking central asians, even when the northwestern iran was turkified the turkic speaking iranians called the iranian speaking iranians tats, which means non.turk. tajiks was at the beginning only meaning non turk and later was used to call the iranic speaking central asians. the words tats and tajiks are etymolically related but two totally different things, like the words dutch and deutsch is etymologically related but dutch mean netherlander and deutsch mean german, tats are iranians speaking iranians living in turkic areas of iran, tajiks are iranic speaking central asians neighbur with turks of central asia.

so the conclusion is that tajik do not mean iranian, even if it was meaning iranians (which it is not) it would be a linguistic term, like germanic, which do not mean german, and slavic which do not mean slovakian.

the aryans where living in southern russia over 3000 years ago, and 3000 years ago they migrated due to the cold weather, one part of the aryan people migrated to north india, today the people of north india, and pakistan and bangladesh which where later splitted from the northern india, today these countries, bangladesh, pakistan and india are the ancient aryans who migrated to the ganges palin. and one part of the aryan race migrated to iran, they became divided to three tribes, one persian tribe, who migrated to southern iran, one was called median who migrated to central iran, and one who called parthians and migrated to a region in northeastern iran which they later called parthia, parthia was neighbur of central asia, turkmenistan to the north, exactly the todays turkmen.iranian border to the north, parthia was in east limited to hariva, which is todays afghanistans herat province. so the iranian race, people, nation, ethnicity was limited to todays border of iran, and afghanis are not iranian by ethnicity.

khorasan was a term which was invented by the sassanid iranians, in presassanid times it was called parthia, which was called because of the parthians which where iranians and aryans, but in sassanid times they called it khorasan, meaning the place of sunrise, meaning east in old persians, because khorasan was located in eastern iran, at the same time, they called the western part of iran khorbaran, meaning west, they called todays iraq which was then part of iran and western iran as khorbaran. later in islamic times, khorasan was used to refer to parts of turkmenistan and afghanistan, but the real and original khorasan was still iran.

the most important thing is that let alone the fact that afghanis are not iranian or persian, they are even not considered persian by the iranian people. if you tell an iranian that an afghan is persian, he will be surprized and he or she will not like that and will not accept that. so the afghanis (those who call themselves persians) they are not persian, they are only wannabe persians, they shoukd be proud of their afghan and tajik nation and ethnicity, because as long as they are acting like wannabe persians, the iranians and afghans wil not have a good friendship relation, why iranians do not think the same of iraqis or azarbaijanis, or pakistanis, as they are thinking of afghans, because these countries are not wannabe persians despite the fact that iraq was called dele iranshahr, or heart of iran in sassanid times, despite that the most famous persian poet is an azarbaijani called nizami ganjavi, he has statue in many countries, and pakistanis having contributed to persian literature and civilizaiton

every language is beautiful on earth, but some languages are melodic and musical, and persian is one of the most melodic languages, and when some europeans or westerners say that persian is a beautiful language they only mean the language of iran, and not afghanistan, because it is the the farsi language which is meldodic and musical, the afghanis speak and pronounce the dari accent totoally different, and you can not hear the farsi or iranian accent from them when they talk.

the most correct persian dialect is the tehrani persian, and the most original and real persian dialect is luri and bandari, lari, and dezfuli dialects, because these dialects are descended from middle persian, or pahlavi as it was called. and the orginal persian language before the current language was pahlavi, the speakers of the mentioned languages and cities are still in the same area and region where pahlavi or middle persian was spoken, bccause it was spoken in southern iran especially fars and khuzestan province.

so dari is not the original persian language as someone claim, dari is mixed heavily with turkmen and uzbek and pashtun and mongol and hindi words, so you can not say that the farsi language is mixed and unreal, but dari is real and unmixed.

the dari word which is mentioned by some authors has not anything to do with afghanistan, because it was in 1960 the afghan state changed the name of the language from tajiki to dari, so dari is originally an iranian word, not afghan, even hafez have talked about dari and he did not mean anything afghan, and even the farsi dialect of zartoshtians in kerman and yazd todays is called dari by themselves. even many kermanis and yazdid call their sweet persian dialect and accent dari, and they are not afghans. they are iranians.

it is not only the afghan that have adapted the culture of iran, and it is not the only afghans that have history shared with iran, the whole europe share the history of roman empire, even egypt and libya and libanon and iraq and azarbaijan and armenia and georgia share history with iran, afghanistan was never part of iran, it was part of iranian empires, the iranian empire included many nations and countries.

the article about persian people, should be changed to iranian people, and personalities of todays iran, should be mentioned in the artike and have pitcures, not only ancient persons, and the article should be name iranian people, also called persians. because every nation and country have article on wikipedia, but the iranian people do not have. and one other article should be created for the afghans mentioning afghan personalities and subjects related to todays afghanistan.

because afghans and iranians, despite speaking closely related languages, are two different nations and ethnic groups, and are not the same people as the article claims.

--Iranmehr27 (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome Iranmehr27. That's a bit of an unexpected screed. Is it in response to something in the article?

You seem to be relying on some particular definitions. That's OK, but you should be clear about these definitions, and cite their source.

"Afghans are not Persians" is a justifiable statement, but it is not that simple. There are Persian people who are also Afghan. Some Afghans are Persian, unless you choose a very restrictive definition.

You are touching upon some subtle issues of balance between overlapping articles, and much you say has merit. Have you carefully compared the current states of Iranian peoples, Iran, and this article, Persian people. What's one thing to change first? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC). And Greater Iran. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

as i argued in the text and i prooved that afghans are not persians by the ethnic definitoion, because they are iranized and persianized central asians, like uzbeks who are turkified central asians, they where formerly called sarts because they changed their name to uzbek and tajik.

the people of iran was NOT At All and never called tajiks. the word used for iranians was ajam or ajami, because when the arabs were conquering iran, they called them ajams, meaning non arab at the beginning and later it was restricted specifically to iranians. so the iranians was only called ajams. they where never called tajiks. only the central asians who got iranized were called tajiks by their turkic neighboors.

and yes the most restrictive defintion of the word persian is that persian is a person from iran, espeicially in united states, most iranians self identify as persians, and the iranians in the US are known as persian by most americans, and persia is the former name of iran, and persian is the former adjective of iran, and since the second shah of the last iranian monarchy, in 1960 declared that both persia and iran can be used as synonyms, so the word persian is only the synonym of iranian, and iranians, whithou regard of ethnicity are persians. because persian is only a synonym adjective of iranian. you can not say googoosh and dariush, iranian most famous female and male singers who are ethnically azarbaijani, and shapour bakhtiar, a Lor and nima youshij, founder of modern persoan poetry, you can not say these people are not persians. they are as persian as other originally persian speaking personalities.

so according to the most correct, accepted and famous definition the term persian excludes afghans. because the word persian is a synonym of iranian. it is only some afghans who like to be called persians. no other person consider them as persians. --Iranmehr27 (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

my former text was in response of the unsigned comment> beginning with Kind Regards

every nation and people on earth have article on wikipedia, even stateless people like gypsies and assyrians have, but iranians have not their own article on wikipdeia. i request some administrator of wikipedia to change the name of this article to iranian people. and the article be limited to iranian and not afghans. because the germans and austrians, or swiss and the french, and portuguese and brazilians, and even americans and english people are not mixed in their articles of wikipedia. this article is totally misleading.

i know that many afghans would like to be considered persians, but by most correct and accepted definition they are not regarded as persians. even in this article they are not fully acknoledged as persians. If Really afghans are persians, then please add some pictures of afghans, like the persident hameed karsay, or add some pictures of afghans singers, politicans, directors, and actors side by side with the iranians personalities in the image section on the top of the article. please do that, this article should either be for iranian people and if if you mix iranians and afghans here, then please add pictures of afghans also, one of the persons who should have picture on this article is hameed kasay, because he is the most famous afghan person.--Iranmehr27 (talk) 06:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Afghans, in general, are not Persian, agreed. Never in dispute.

What seems contentious is that there are Persians who are Afghan. Does an Iranian stop being Persian by travelling, by emigrating, or by being born outside Iran?

I understand the term "Persian" to refer to ethnicity, a concept that is never clean, and that the counting of Afgan Persians as Persians is an acknowledged grey zone. I understand that "Persian" is proudly distinguished by self-identifying Persians in contrast to "Arab", but that the Iranian/Afghanistan boundary of Persians is not so clear. Similarly with Turkmenistan, although Persian communities there are in smaller numbers. To confuse strict synonymy with Iranian, note that proud Persians look back over thousands of years of cultured civilisation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

There's also some confusion here about how we work. "Proving" on this talk page is what we call WP:Original research, and arguments like the one above needs to be supported by sources meeting our criteria at WP:RS. It looks as though sources may not be unanimous and is there is a dispute we follow WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Dougweller. Actually, Iranmehr is almost completely wrong. Because he does not understand the difference between "culture", "ethnicity", "nationality", and "citizenship", etc. His talking about Aryans etc. ist just as wrong as the rest (just for his information: the ethnonym "Afghan" derives from Sanskrit "Aśvakas" (and contains the Skt. Ashva, "horse"), once designating the so-called Kshatriya warrior class of Hindu-Aryan society. Keeping that aside, he also does not understand that not all Afghans (in der mondern sense) but only Tajiks, Aimaq and - at best - Hazaras are considered "Persians". His comment that Persians in Iran have never been known as "Tajiks" shows his ignorance of historical facts. As late as 1895, it was noted by German encyclopedist Friedrich Arnold Brockhaus that the Persians in Iran are known as "Tajiks": Die Bewohner (s. Tasel: Asiatische Völkertypen, Fig. 13, Bd. 1,S. 984), deren Gesamtzahl jetzt auf etwa 9 Mill. geschätzt wird, teilen sich in zwei Hauptmassen: Ansässige (Tadschik) und Nomaden (Ilat oder Ilyats). Die Tadschik, die mit verschiedenem sremdem Blute vermischten Nachkommen der alten Perser, Meder und Vaktrier, bilden, wie in Ostiran und in Turan, die Hauptmasse der seßhasten, Ackerbau, Gewerbe und Künste treibenden Einwohnerschaft und sind Schiiten. (source). Brockhaus correctly defined the "Tajik" as the Persian-speaking, sedentary, Shia and majority population of Iran - unlike the "Ilat Turks" who were by then still a politically dominant minority, forming the ruling houses and the majority in Persia's military. As for AUstrians and Germans: it's only because of WW2 that Austrians do not want to be called Germans anymore, beucase they do not want to take responsibility for the war crimes (even thout Adolf Hitler himself was an Austrian). The official name of the country is derived from "Deutsch Österreich", meaning "German Eastern Empire", and as late as the 60's the Austrians were still widely known as "Austrian Germans". There is an excellent article about this complex topic in the German Wikipedia: de:Österreichische_Identität. Nations and nationalities change constantly, neither nationality not ethnicity are constant. I encourage everyone to read Benedict Anderson's "Imagined communities". --Lysozym (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

afghanis are not Persians

No Lysozym i am not almost completely wrong, actually you know that my knowledge is almost entirely true and correct thats why you did not dare to say it is completely wrong, you say it is Almost completely wrong, but believe me whatever what i said is based on the general historical sources, so you are wrong, not me. i doubt you yourself understand the meaning of the culture, ethnicity, nationality and citizanship, but you can be sure that afghanis (your nationality) is neither persian or iranian in the contexts of citizenship, ethnicity, nationality. only the culture of afghans is iranian, but you can not say afghans are iranian or persian because they have some elements of iranian culture, many nations in west asia have iranian or persian cultural elements but are not iranians,example the azaris or iraqis. by the way culture have many definitions, i once read that culture have as much as 300 definitions. no you are not considered persian by any book, nation, organization or history and last but the best one by iranian people. the afghan tajiks are ethnic relatives of other tajiks and uzbeks of central asia, and hazaras are ethnic relatives of mongols. and neither tajiks or hazaras have the iranian or persian appearence. none of them look iranian or persian, the fact is that, at least in my opinion pakistanis and indians, despite being little more colored than iranians, they, indians and pakistanis look iranian and persian.

no it is you that are ignorant to historical facts, even if one or some author or writer said that iranians are tajiks this does not make iranians tajiks

Friedrich Arnold Brockhaus perhaps he called some people tajiks, but that does not mean he meant the tajiks of central asia or the tajiks of tajikistan or afghanistan.

in the army of safavid empire there where two grouups who made the army of the state, one groups were turkic speakings, they became knows as torks, and one groups were speaking iranic languages, this groups of army consisting of iranic speaking groups of iran, they became known as tajiks, again i say, tajiks here only is a linguistic term to differentiate turkic speaking and iranic speaking groups. it is a difference between germanic and german, and iranian and iranic. so the author Friedrich Arnold Brockhaus only called a group of the iranian safavid army as tajiks, this was not a term which was widely used, it was only used to differentiate turkic and iranic speakers in his book. So the Friedrich Arnold Brockhaus, meant only iranic speakings peoples by the terms tajik, and he meant iranic speaking groups like lors, because they did not speak turkic, Friedrich Arnold Brockhaus did not mean anything afghan or tajikistani.

but> here you are not only claiming and wanting to be a persian, your claims are bigger, you even claim and want the iranian nation to call themselves tajiks. so you want afghans to call themselves persians, and you want iranians to call themselves tajiks, all this shows a inferiority complex of the people who have such a funny, wrong and meaningless claims.

i dont care if afghans call themselves aryans or not, i am not trying to convince or force you to dont call yourself aryan, and even if i convince you that afghans are not aryans, i can not stop other afghans to say or think they are aryans.

so you can keep saying or considering yourself aryan, but according to the history, afghans are not aryans, aryans are the people of ancient north india and iran, and two countries splitted from north india, pakistan and bangladesh, so the fact is that, at least in my opinion who have read many books, the fact is that aryans are the people of india, pakistan, bangladesh and iran. the people of these 3 first countries, despite being little darker, are still looking like iranian people, this mean they may have been one people before splitiing and dividig.

at least in my opinion, afghans are not aryans, and what is that so important about aryans, in my opinion the pakistanis are aryans, but they dont care at all about aryan, they are proud of their nation and culture and dont discuss so much about aryan, and even indians and iranians, only the nationalists talk about aryan, the general indian or iranian nations are not so busy about the aryan race despite being the true aryans.

the only people who are not aryans and like to be wannabe aryans are afghans. it is better for afghans to be proud of their current culture, than a thing that existed 3000 years ago. in farsi we say, dashtam dashtam hesab nist, daram daram hesab ast, meaning it is not important what you had, it is important what you have now.

i am residing in a country that a famous magazine for 10 years ago, the magazine wrote that iran is an arab nation, this is totally wrong, everyone knows that, so after 10 years the magazine said iran is an arab nation, iran is still not arab and did not became an arab nation,iran is stlll a persian nation and not arab, what i mean by mentioning this is that you can not change reality and history, in persian language we iranians say, ba kesafate sag darya kasif nemishe, meaning with the dirt of a dog, the sea does not get dirty. meaning you can not change reality.

so you can never change the reality that afghans are not persians , even if you convince the magazine new york times to write that afghans are persians you can not change reality and history. hehehe because afghans and tajiks are not persians, they are persianized (linguistic term) central asians.

be proud of your culture, not claim being another nationality or ethnicity, and do not claim and say iranians are tajiks or were known as tajiks for 100 years ago, this is not a relevant or actual issue. all of these show your inferiority complex

Uh dude - genetically speaking Pashtuns and Tajiks are both considered "Iranian peoples". Genetically they are very close to Eastern Persians, as all have R1a1-M17 as their patrilineal DNA marker, along with North Indians and Pakistanis. There is nothing "Turko-Mongol" about the Tajiks. The term "Tajik" was historically used to refer to Persian-speakers in Central Asia. The term "Khorasan" historically covered western half of what is now Afghanistan, along with Balkh, Turkmenistan and northeastern Iran. Central Asia, btw, was once populated primarily by Iranian peoples like the Sogdians, Parthians, Bactrians, Chorasmians, Hepthalites and, most importantly, the Scythians. After the Turkic expansions during the latter end of the first millennium CE, these groups gave way to a Turkic culture and identity but the people didn't disappear, instead intermarrying with the invading Turks to form the modern Turkic groups of south-Central Asia. If there's a reason Uzbeks and Turkmen don't look as strongly Mongoloid as, say, the Kazakhs and Kyrgyz, its because they have a mixed ancestry, being partially descended from the region's original Iranian-speaking inhabitants in addition to the Turks. The Tajiks of Tajikistan tend to be somewhat mixed I concede but the ones in Afghanistan are not. They are, for all practical purposes, Caucasian in appearance. Genetically they carry R1a1 which is common among Indo-European speakers in Eurasia. As for whether they are ethnically the same as Persians, well, Tajik used to refer to Persian-speakers. Their ancestry was another matter but most scholars conclude that they descend from Iranian peoples who adopted Persian, like the Bactrians and Hepthalites. Indeed, it is believed the Tajiks are really Persianized Bactrians, who were an Iranian people closely related to the Persians, Medes and Scythians. Pashtuns are an eastern Iranian group but still Iranian and culturally related to the Persians, Tajiks, Kurds, Baloch, etc. Essentially they are all "Iranian people" and follow common customs such as Nowruz, speak related languages, and share a common Zoroastrian background prior to Islam. So your entire screed is off base and silly. Hurvashtahumvata888 (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

pashtuns and tajiks are not Persians or Iranians

Oh dude, genetically speaking norwegians, danish, swedes, icelanders, dutch, belgium, swiss and austrians and english peoples are all germanic peoples, and they are not germans, neithr they consider themselves german. there is a difference between german and germanic, german means someone from germany, germanic means someone speaking germanic languages, all abovementioned countries speak germanic languages and they are still not german. pashtuns and tajiks are iranic peoples, what does iranic mean here? iranic here is a linguistic term, meaning that they speak languages descending from old iranian languages. iranic here does not mean iranian. so pashtun and tajiks are iranic peoples and this does not make them iranians, because iranian is a person from iran.

pashtuns and tajiks being iranic people does not make them genetically iranian. because genetic definition of iranian is restricted to the citizens and borders of iran. the aryans splitted when they were migrating southward, one group went to india and one group went to iran (current borders of iran), the group which came to iran were divided to three groups, one parthian, which came to the border of todays three khorasan provinces of iran, i mean parthia, because parthia is a former name of khorasan before sassanid times, the parthia was in east limited to afghan border and in north to the turmen border, accuratley the present border of iran with afghanistan and turkmenistan. so the aryan parthian tribe was limited to iran and khorasan in iran, it did not include afghan and turkmen lands. another group were called medes, they went to western and central iran, and another group who founded achaemenids dynasty went to souther iran and province of fars or pars. the aryan tribes of pars, medes and parthians are the precursor and origin of the iranian race and these three tribes formed the iranian nation. because these three aryan tribes migrated to iran and all of these three tribes ar limited to current iranian borders.

so pashtuns and tajiks, are not iranian because they are iranic and iranic means a person who speak iranic languages. pashtuns and tajiks are not genetically related to iranians, because iranians are aryan race orginating from the three aryan tribes who migrated to iran, but pashtuns and tajiks are central asian descending from bactrians and sogdians. bactrians and sogdians despite being iranic they were not aryan and iranian genetically because sogdians and bactrians are not one of the aryans tribes who migrated to iran. only pars and medes and parthians were aryans and founded the iranian nation.

afghan tajiks are related to tajiks of tajikistan, and they have mongolic influence, many tajiks look mongol, despite not being a direct descendant of mongol invaders.

khorasan is a TERM made by IRANIANS, i mean iranian SASSANID dynasty, so this name is iranian and allways remain iranian and iranians own this term, not afghans. khorasan was a term made by sasanian persians to former province of parthia which is still in current iranian border. during islamic rule parts of turkmenistan and afghanistan were considered as part of khorasan but the true historical khorasan/parthia was and is still in iran. at the present time there is not khorasan in afghanistam, only iran have a region and province called khorasan. and iran will never let afghans to steal this name. but they can continue to claim, if you claim something it does not mean it is yours, so afghans, keep claiming khorasan khorasan, keep saying khorasan khorasan, but khorasan is still in iran and owned by iranians, and khorasan was always part of iran. even the first capital of khorasan was merv, wich is located in turkmenistan. but turkmens are not claiming khorasan is turkmen. so it is better for afghans to dont talk about khorasan anynmore, because khorasan is in iran and owned by iranians and historically was only in iran. and the term was coined by sasanid persians, khorasan means east in old persian, because it was located in eastern iran, so the term khorasan says itself that it is East Iran, and khorasan is stil located in east iran. afghanistan was not east iran, afghanistan was located in aniran, meaning non-iran in sassanid times, because it was located in central asia and turan, central asia and turan was not considered iran by sasanid persians and thats why they called it noniran or aniran. but iraq was called dele iranshahr, meaning heart of iran.

pashtung celebrating nowruz does not make them iranians, many nations share cultural elements but this does not make them one people, so dont say pashtuns are iranians and put pashtuns and iranians in the same category. because pashtuns are not iranians despie celebrating nowruz.

sogdians and bactrians were not related to persians, persians were aryans in iran. but sogdian and bactrian were central asians and not aryans.

so your entire screed is off base and silly.

this was an answer to Hurvashtahumvata888

Request of an Wikipedia Administrator

I request some administrators of wikipedia to change the name of this article to iranian people and limit the article to iranian people. Because iranians and afghans can not be mixed here. this is totally wrong. An administrator did that but was later reverted by some afghan wannabe iranians. even afghans are not fully acknowledged as persians in this article, because although in terms of population statistics, it is mentioned at the top of the article how many percent are afghans, but they dont have any pictures of afghan people. because no afghan dare do that and afghan know that if he add pictures of afghans by side of iranian people, it will make people laugh. so please i request an admin of wikipedia to change the name of the article to iranian people and delete every thing about afghanistan, because every nation in the world have wikipedia article but iranians dont have, like the articles of french, italian, norwegian or swedish peoples.

and create an article for afghans of their own.

fuck afghani afghoonis, they are not persian. this article needs every word about afghan to be deleted. fucking afghanis. efis.