Talk:Iranic peoples

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iranic peoples article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Do not attack other users For disputes, please see our guideline	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Sources[change source]

The sources section needs cleaning. The actual sources part should just be the sources themselves with one entry per book. The references section should have the pages and quotes being used from the sources. Pure Evil (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As brought up at the administrators' noticeboard, there is also a problem with the way that the sources are presented which does not follow the manual of style (MOS). Looking over the page history, it seems that this version of yours follows most closely the MOS while not missing out on any information that is in the current version. Do you see any other issues with "your" version that need to be discussed? I have informed the IP (37.155.194.92) of this thread as well, in case they want to share their opinions. Griff (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blame that version on me. I own nothing. I just did the best I could with what I was given. Which is to say extremely poor writing, presentation and layout. The main issue remaining to be dealt with is the fact that there are 47 sources given for the 51 references that are not the CIA factbook. Access to each of those books may be needed to trim out those that are not being used to support facts in the article. There is also the question of over references. Are 5 references needed to support the claim that the Zand dynasty is a historical Iranian whatever? There are several others in that section with 3 references which seems excessive given the "level" of the information in regards to the article. Does one relatively non controversial statement need three references? I could see the need for three if the subject was controversial, but this is not. Pure Evil (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Griffinofwales@Pure Evil So having a few minutes to go through this, I recommend the following:

The topic is Iranian peoples not Iran and it's history or any variation thereof. So I recommend we eliminate the entire section of 'Iranian states, dynasties, empires and countries' as I do not see any bearing or negative result on the article.
Weed out all of the references and get them corrected and laid out properly.
The CIA factbook is not the only source. There are many other sources we can use.
We can create a list (as is done in the first section) of present and historical peoples.
Since there is a list of ethnicities on the article, but also looks like it is repeated in the infobox, we can take that section and put it in a proper table and reflect what needs to be reflected.
The Iranian_peoples#Present-day and the Iranian peoples#List really confuse me as to why they are in there to begin with. Again, the latter can be put into a table.

What are your thoughts?

Sidenote: Pure Evil - I do not think Griff meant "yours" in any kind of derogatory way. They just stated "yours" because, as they stated, "yours" closely follows MOS and not the other edits that are in place. PotsdamLamb (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1: I fully agree. I can see the defense that the section is a listing of historic Iranian people but I also see that as a weak argument for inclusion here

2: Removal caused by (1) should help there. Mostly the references themselves are fine, but trimming them will make connecting source to inline easier. The bibliography approach is useful, just over done here.

3: While there are other sources, the factbook is perfectly fine, even on archive state, if 100% current is not entirely need. In this case, a more current source may be a better choice.

4 and 5: no comment at this time.

6: That section is badly worded but in essence is it a list of Iranian populations in countries with a large Iranian presence subdivided by subgroups of the ethnicity. Ideally, we would have the actual numbers and not a percentage so a table would be a good choice but with just country, group and percentage, a table is a bit much. A table seems overkill for a header and two subgroups. This is more of an issue with the "smaller" countries with only one ethnic group. Either the country is a column (South Ossetia and Tajikistan) and the languages could fill out the column number as well, or the country is a header (Iran and Afghanistan) and there are only 2 columns and a footer for the language. Both options have their issues. My personal choice would be:


Iran
Ethnic group	Population	%age	language	ref
blah	##,###	# %	yadda	[some ref]
blah blah	##,###	# %	yadda yadda	[some ref]
total	##,###			[some ref]

For that to work, the population numbers would also be needed and the more up to date they are, the better.

Side reply: Any hint of "ownership" is a bad thing. This is doubly true when it comes to the ownership of something in this state. Pure Evil (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the references section, compared to the size of the article's prose, is indeed quite ridiculous. I agree with PotsdamLamb's assessment - the section about dynasties should be removed. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 00:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pure Evil: I like those ideas. I posted something on WP:AN too from a quick research I did. The numbers can be quickly updated using wikidata (only if they have been updated). I have done work there too so throwing in statements for the numbers would auto update at some point. Again it wasn’t meant to be ownership. Maybe a better phrasing would be “the version you created from the mess it was more closely resembles

Wikipedia:Manual of Style”? *tosses you some cookies* PotsdamLamb (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Side note to others working here.[change source]

I would suggest that before deciding to work on this article, someone other than me decides to revert it to the version pointed out by Griff. A large amount of clean up has already been done so there is no reason to have to redo that work if the other editors find it is acceptable. Pure Evil (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pure Evil: Most of this will be nuked more than likely making it an easy fix. I have scripts I can run to fix some of the issues and refs are an easy fix too because they listed just enough information for my stuff to run. I was thinking of doing a mock up in my space and then see what others think. PotsdamLamb (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that looking at the recent changes to the page, all of them have already been done. I moved the infobox, removed the unused parameters, cleared the bolding and excess capitalization and cleared the quotes from the sources as well as some of the duplicates when they put in a quote from two section of a book so used the source two or more times. There is no need to do this again as it was already done and is sitting in the history of the page. Pure Evil (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got ya PotsdamLamb (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been semi-protected for a week to allow everyone to work on "Griff's version" (admin abuse!!!). I have also informed all the IPs of this discussion, and if they do not provide input, we can accept that this group's version of the article is the consensus version and any changes that to revert back to a different version should be seen as a violation of the CON policy. Griff (talk) 04:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Griffinofwales What is the CON policy? PDL^{Talk to me!}_{OMG, What have I done?} 04:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CON => Wikipedia:Consensus. When in doubt, toss "WP:" in front of it in the search bar here and at the English wikipedia and see if it tells you what you need to know. Pure Evil (talk) 05:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Location requirements[change source]

Currently, the list of areas is limited to those with significant populations of Iranian people and have the Iranian language as an official language. While the first is pretty much a given, should this be limited to countries based by language? Should any country who has a sizable population be included? I think sizable is more accurate than significant since the population may only be a small percentage of a country's population but still be a large number of people.

Should we expand/lift/trim the requirements and have groups such as the Irani of India and other groups caused by Iranian diaspora be included? Iranian people live all over the modern world. Should we be limiting their inclusion based on the language of the country they chose to live in? Pure Evil (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have a lot of Iranian people living in the US and speak different dialects. Would that be a percentage of the US population or would that be sizeable considering a lot of our border states either speak Spanish or French? This is going to be a hard decision. PDL^{Talk to me!}_{OMG, What have I done?} 04:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given how low the bar is set with the inclusion of Dagestan and its 0.5% of 2.9m people. I would imagine the United States could easily account to 14.6K Iranian people. South Ossetia is also a small number with 90% of 53K total people. It has a much better percentage but those numbers are smaller in actual population of Iranian people than several US states. Iranian Americans are estimated between 500K and 1M+ people. The LA Times estimates that California alone could have as many as 800K people of Iranian decent. While it could be seen as a small percentage of the entire US population, that is a lot of people that I think should be recognized here. Pure Evil (talk) 05:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]