Talk:Iranian Americans/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Religion

I have a problem with the 2012 statistics in this WP article, because they do not conform with the cited source.

The original source says:

Muslim: 31%, Roman Catholic: 2%, Protestant: 5%, Zoroastrian: 2%, Baha’i: 7%, Jewish: 5%, Atheist/Realist/Humanist: 11%, Agnostic:8%, Other:15%, No response: 15%, (TOTAL: 100%).

or to summarize:

Muslim: 31%, Zoroastrian (2%) + Christian: (7%) + Jewish (5%) + Baha'i (7%) = 21% in total, Irreligious: 19% in total (11%+8%, as stated above). Survey does not say what "Other: 15%" category means.*

Yet, one WP editor insists on saying: "most Iranian-Americans appear not to practice any particular religion at all. The poll found the remaining balance split among Muslims, Christians, followers of Judaism, Baha'is and Zoroastrians." based on this same source.

This is patently false!

Besides, a similar poll conducted also by Zogby for PAAIA in 2008 says texto:

"The survey paints the picture of a diverse and relatively affluent Iranian American community. While two-fifths of Iranian Americans identify themselves as Muslims, almost an equal percentage appear not to practice any particular religion, and the balance are roughly equally divided among Christians, Jews, Bahai's and Zoroastrians."

I suggest to use the 2008 survey because there is no *interpretation needed (or to make the correction as stated above). 67.87.50.54 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

11% Atheist + 8% agnostic + 15% other/no religion = 34% irreligious, this is completely accurate. However saying two-fifths of Iranian-Americans identify themselves as Muslims is patently false ... 30% is not equal to 40%!!! Please avoid adding your unsourced claims to the article. - Marmoulak (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

That's NOT what the source says. First source cited above says: "other (religion): 15%" and "no response for religion: 15%" which is different from "no religion" (which is your own unsourced statement). Regarding the second 2008-source cited, it is a DIRECT quote from the report itself. Please read again. 67.87.50.54 (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not the one who needs to re-read the source, You are. The source clearly says 31% Muslim NOT 40% ("two fifth"). Iranian-American Muslims are an absolute minority stop inserting your made-up numbers into the article. 15% no response stats are reflected in the graph already; please avoid removing sourced material - Marmoulak (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Marmoulak on this one. The current version is the best and it should remain this way.--Bowser2500 (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm confused. Can someone restate this clearly? I don't see how those numbers equate with a claim that most are not religious. Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This is very simple: there are 2 studies by PAA-Zogby. One [1] in 2012 and an older one in 2008. The one in 2012 is copied above. It says/gives Zoroastrian (2%) + Christian: (7%) + Jewish (5%) + Baha'i (7%) = 21% in total (other religions). So, altogether with Muslims it gives 52% for "religious" (21%+31%) as shown above. For the Irreligious: 19% in total (11%+8%, as stated above). Survey does not say what "Other: 15%" category means. Also you have 15% that did not give any response in the survey. Marmoulak has decided to include those 15% with irreligious as stated above. This is WRONG and unsupported by the source. Regarding the older ([2008-Zogby]) survey this is just a quote from the survey "two-fifths of Iranian-Americans identify themselves as Muslims". Yet Marmoulak calls this "patently false". 67.87.50.54 (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• I can't see any basis -- even if we were to allow OR and Synth -- under the circumstances for such an assertion. I urge that it be struck. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• This exact situation is why we're not supposed to use primary sources. I suggest that the primary sources be removed and replaced, if possible, by seconary sources that do the interpretation for you. If you can't locate any secondary sources, then maybe it's undue to include the data in the first place. This unsourced interpretation of primary sources is against policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Another reference noting that many Iranian Americans are irreligious has been added.--Bowser2500 (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

That ref fails to support the statement that "Iranian-Americans are mostly irreligious, agnostic and atheist." I don't see any support whatsoever for that text. Epeefleche (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right, but it does note the non-religious, as do the following links. Do you have any sources that could help contribute?

http://www.jewishjournal.com/iranianamericanjews/item/video_persian_new_year_unites_folks_of_different_religions_together

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=236855

http://www.iasaz.org/

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:IAmericanreligions.png

http://payvand.com/news/08/dec/1117.html

http://www.niacouncil.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Resources_iranian_american_scholarships

http://iaca-seattle.org/

https://iranianatheists.org/about-us.html --Bowser2500 (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

No -- which is why, as that phrase fails wp:v, it should be deleted. Epeefleche (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Well then let's look at some possible solutions. How could it be rephrased to support both sides of the spectrum?--Bowser2500 (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The two sides here are the accurate RS-supported side and the non-RS-supported inaccurate side. There is no need to support the inaccurate side. As it stands, it should be deleted. Epeefleche (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed it to "Many Iranian-Americans are irreligious, agnostic and atheist, but some are also of Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Baha'i and Zoroastrian religious backgrounds."--Bowser2500 (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• That's not what the ref says. I've edited that sentence to reflect what the ref says. Please don't engage in synth, including your use -- unless an RS ref supports it directly -- of phrases such as "many" and "some". Epeefleche (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• The following is what is currently written in the religion section, which I am fine with. I've combined two of the paragraphs because they have to do with one poll:

Iranian Americans religious demographics as of 2012.

  Irreligious (34%)

  Muslim (31%)

  Christian, Bahai, Zoroastrian, Jewish (21%)

  Other (15%)

Iranians of all religious backgrounds in the United States have comparatively a mix of liberal, conservative and nationalist political leaning and opinions. Iranian-Americans thus are largely secular and tend to practice moderate, less traditional religious forms, but have strong cultural traditions.

According to a 2012 Zogby-PAAIA poll, most Iranian-Americans appear not to practice any particular religion at all, showing many to be irreligious, agnostic and atheist. The poll found the remaining balance split among Muslims, Christians, followers of Judaism, Baha'is and Zoroastrians, with the results as follows: Muslim: 31%, "No response": 15%, Atheist/Realist/Humanist: 11%, Agnostic: 8%, (Irreligious: 34%), Baha’i: 7%, Jewish: 5%, Protestant: 5%, Roman Catholic: 2%, Zoroastrian: 2%, and "Other": 15%. "There are religious and ethnolinguistic differences among the Muslim, Jewish, Baha'i, Zoroastrian, Christian, Armenian, Azerbaijani, Kurdish, and Assyrian groups". Calculating the percentage of Christian Iranian-Americans is difficult because most Iranian Christians are of Armenian or Assyrian origin and self-identify as such rather than as Iranian.--Bowser2500 (talk) 04:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

References

The pie chart is a mixture of misleading and wrong. Epeefleche (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Bowser2500 has been blocked for two weeks. Epeefleche (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest to revert to this version since it is accurate as per 2 reliable sources. I would like the opinion of 2 Admins please. Thanks! 67.87.50.54 (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, if there is no objection I will edit as indicated above. 67.87.50.54 (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I continue to object to that -- and if you read above in this string, you will see that there are other objections as well. And Bowser -- who may not object -- is blocked (for the fourth time in two months). You are suggesting we replace accurate precise info with innaccurate imprecise info. That's unacceptable. Epeefleche (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

My friend, I think you are confusing me with Marmoulak :) Btw, I was surprised you left the wrong version in place while you claim your accord with what i said above all along. 67.87.50.54 (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Tx. Fixed. Epeefleche (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello. The version suggested by 67.87.50.54 seems odd to me, because the graph and the text disagree with each other - the former using the 2012 numbers and the latter the 2008. Although each does mention the year, thus explaining the discrepancy, it still seems like it would be clearer to either just stick to one of the two surveys, or else explicitly discuss the difference ("In 2008 a survey found that... a 2012 survey by the same organisation found...").

Personally I would favour picking one survey to stick to. In particular the 2012 seems to have two advantages: first, it's more recent; and secondly its categories are more clearly defined. The 2008 survey's 'almost two fifths are irreligious' statement is based on the sentence "a significant thirty-one percent (31%) [identified themselves] as other, presumably meaning that they do not practice any particular religion." (emphasis added). If we stick to the 2012 source, then rather than relying on this 'presumption' about what 'other' means we can straightforwardly give the percentages of atheist, agnostic, other and no response and let the reader draw their own conclusion. This, to me, seems preferable. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Olaf. Epeefleche (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

All i care is to have all the falsehood in this version of the article removed. The point mentioned by Olaf is well taken, agreed. 67.87.50.54 (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC) PS: The info-box still says "majority of non-religious" which is false. Thanks for making the correction.

Thanks for pointing out the ibox problem. I've conformed it to the text in the body. But I think we might consider deleting it altogether in the ibox -- or clarifying it furhter. As the text in the body makes clear, it is one 400 person survey, subject to error, and not definitive. Thoughts? Epeefleche (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, again. The infobox is good as it is in my opinion (may be without the percentages) 67.87.50.54 (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Olaf above & the IP user as well. I don't think the percentages are needed in the infobox.--Bowser2500 (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Irreligion

• Also, this is the current religion section that I'd like to check with other users to reach consensus. What do you guys think?:

--Bowser2500 (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC) A 2012 national telephone survey in English of a sample of 400 Iranian-Americans, commissioned by the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans and conducted by Zogby Research Services, asked the respondents what their religions were. The responses broke down as follows: Muslim: 31%, "No response": 15%, atheist/realist/humanist: 11%, agnostic: 8%, Baha’i: 7%, Jewish: 5%, Protestant: 5%, Roman Catholic: 2%, Zoroastrian: 2%, and "Other": 15%. The survey had a cooperation rate of 31.2%. The margin of error for the results was +/- 5 percentage points, with higher margins of error in sub-groups.

Due to the laws regarding apostasy in Islam, some Iranians do not claim Islam as their religion, but would in fear of persecution. The Central Committee for Ex-Muslims was founded by Iranian Ehsan Jami with an aim to support apostates and to bring forth the reality of women's rights violations in the religion. According to Harvard University professor Robert D. Putnam, the average Iranian is slightly less religious than the average American. Iranian-Americans are distancing themselves from Islam, having accepted the negative characteristics associated with the religion. This is due to Islam being imposed on the Iranians through war and invasion, equating to authoritarianism, brutality and corruption. In the novel, Social Movements in 20th Century Iran: Culture, Ideology, and Mobilizing Frameworks, author Stephen C. Poulson adds that Western ideas are making Iranians irreligious.

There are religious and ethnolinguistic differences among the Muslim, Jewish, Baha'i, Zoroastrian, Christian, Armenian, Azerbaijani, Kurdish, and Assyrian groups. Calculating the percentage of Christian Iranian-Americans is difficult because most Iranian Christians are of Armenian or Assyrian origin and self-identify as such, rather than as Iranian.--Bowser2500 (talk) 07:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

References

• Bowser -- you were just blocked, for the fourth time in two months. For 2 weeks. For disruptive editing, including here, including relative to this stream. You first try to insist on the inclusion of inaccurate percentage information. Now -- failing that, and given then the accurate information is in -- fresh from your latest block, you seek to delete the accurate information ... which is of course at odds with the inaccurate information you sought to input. And, you've used a sockpuppet within the past two months. The information you are trying to delete is RS supported. Please stop trying to delete it. It is obviously relevant. Marmoulak pointed out above at length why your efforts were disruptively trying to change the facts to fit your unsupported views. Please stop. Epeefleche (talk)

Your accusations are false. I'm not trying to delete any accurate information; instead, I've added text & sources that help support the RS. Please let me know what you think about the section, irregardless of my previous blocks. Thanks.--Bowser2500 (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You've been blocked four times in two months for exactly this sort of disruptive activity. Including on this article. As pointed out by Marmoulak and the IP above -- you were trying to force mis-statements into this article, which was part of what led to your last block. Which you are fresh off of. You also deleted accurate info from this article, as your warnings prior to that block attest. And now you just deleted RS-supported material on this article again. Which clarified the error in the untruth you tried to push into this article, as discussed above. You are at final warning (for at least the fifth time in four months). Please stop editing disruptively. Epeefleche (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The percentages above have been made clear now, sorry for the misunderstanding. At the time, I calculated a certain classification as being irreligious, as did another user. But that's not the point now; you seem to be going back to the same points, using them as scapegoats. Could you please help in verifying the validity of the current section? Thanks.--Bowser2500 (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The "misunderstanding" had been pointed out to you many times, on this page and elsewhere, and you kept on inputting clearly incorrect information. And deleting clearly correct information. Even after you were blocked 4 times. This page was settled without upset before you returned from your last block, these past few hours. I believe the state it was in was appropriate, and your suggested reverted revisions are not.Epeefleche (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's leave it under your edit then, I'm fine with the percentages being up. As for the text, do you have any comments to make in regards to them? & just to get a couple things straight here, I only deleted the percentages because the IP user above believed in deleting them as well. They just don't look right to me to be in the infobox (as no other article has them there either), but I digress.--Bowser2500 (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Though atheism and agnosticism technically aren't religions, shouldn't they be capitalized as seen here due to the context with the others being capitalized?--Bowser2500 (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• Admin/experienced editor here.

  I just reverted Bowser2500's latest addition: there is no way in which an opinion piece on the opinionator's website can count as a reliable source. Take it to WP:RSN if you disagree, but we cannot allow such information to stand, at least not without strong consensus that this is reliable. In addition, I am considering locking this article until an agreement is reached: this back-and-forth editing is disruptive, and the clogging-up of the history makes things only more difficult.

  Now, with my editor hat on, I'll say that locking the article right now would probably codify the wrong version. The 2008 survey seems more reliable to me than the 2012 version (only 400 respondents? that's not good), but an added difficulty here is that the press release and the full report (linked here, at the bottom) are inaccessible, to me anyway, so it's hard to say if this was a larger, more comprehensive survey. But this is a matter that needs to be decided on, maybe in an WP:RFC or two--along the lines of "1. is the 2008 survey to be taken as reliable and its numbers included in the article, and if so, how?" and "2. ...", well, ditto for the 2012 survey. Epeefleche, you don't need to repeat Bowser's block log anymore--that's just rubbing it in. Bowser, you need to stop reverting until there is consensus. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this new paragraph belongs to this current article at all. I would instead try to expand Irreligion in Iran. Also I think there are 2 refs that are mere speculations (including the Professor) and therefore do not belong to Wikipedia. Regarding the comment about religion (please see previous debate about religion). I agree; the 2008 study is less confusing. Also there is confusion: Marmoulak had similar position to editor Browser2500 (are they the same editors?). I for one agree with Drmies, Epeefleche and Olaf. 67.87.50.54 (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Please don't delete a section without having reached consensus first, IP user. I agree with them too, and they kept the paragraph as well since it pertains to Iranian Americans. I've added the 2008 survery, & no, I am not Marmoulak.--Bowser2500 (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Browser2500 has been warned by many admins not to disrupt Wikipedia and yet he continues as nothing has happened.67.87.50.54 (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the 2nd time I've had to revert your deletions of referenced information within the past week. Your reasoning of "irrelevant for this section" is wrong - the articles specifically relate to the religiosity of Iranian Americans. The numerical statistics have been presented at the beginning of the section, with the text subsequently added based on the verified sources. The other users have let the section be, but you continue to delete them. You've been warned for the second time.--Bowser2500 (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

No Sir/Madam, what I have said clearly is that one opinion cannot be used as survey. That is against Wikipedia's policy. That is besides the point to large extend. Your highly disruptive editing of this article after your ban is not civil. I suggest you take some of your own medicine. 67.87.50.54 (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• OK. IP67, your "one opinion cannot be used as a survey" is invalid. First of all, it's semantically incorrect--how could an "opinion" be used as a "survey"? Second, this is apparently the "opinion" of someone who knows what they're talking about. Third, I do not see, on this talk page, where your removals are warranted, besides your saying that they are. (On the other hand, the Payvand article is an opinion piece in something that is not a reliable source, as far as I know, and so cannot be used to make the general statement "Iranian-Americans are distancing...", let alone for the claim "This is due to Islam being imposed..."--in Wikipedia's voice! Now, you're both edit warring, and both of you are likely go get blocked if you persist. In addition, IP, I'm warning you that you cannot remove sourced content in this way. You must seek talk page consensus--which, for some parts, should be easy to do. He who hath ears... Drmies (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Drmies: Respectfully, this is NOT me who needs to discuss things first as I have done so all along as you can see above. It is Browser2500 who added this new paragraph WITHOUT seeking approval on this talk page after he/she was blocked from editing and he/she gives me two false/abusive warnings on my talk page for removing what is undue weight -- since it is not a survey but only a sourced opinion of two individuals. Editors who disrupt WP need be blocked even if they give sources to WP:UNDUE. But to be gracious I will not edit until it is resolved on this talk page first. 67.87.50.54 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Photos

Photos are full. A good group of Iranian-Americans from various sources are listed. Please do not add/remove/change photos without discussing the changes first.

I recall a nice array of photos on this article... where did they go?? - Mr. N

Andre Agassi is not Iranian. HE IS AN ARMENIAN. I SAW THE 60 MINUTE SEGMENT. HE WAS ONLY BORN IN IRAN. ARMENIANS ARE NOT IRANIANS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.221.197 (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Iranian is a nationality, not an ethnicity. Armenians born in Iran or with parents (e.g roots) born in Iran are thus of Iranian descent. Furthermore he always mentions it in interviews, acknowledges his Iranian descent, planned on visiting Iran, and his father represented Iran in the Olympics. Ridiculously nonsensical comment. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Bavand vs Bournoutian

We have enough entrepreneur/business related people's, e.g Omidyar, Kordestani, Kamangar, etc. Bournoutian is a well established Iranian-American (of Armenian descent) and is a well known authority on Iranian history, apart from his other specialization, Armenian history. Furthermore, Armenians are significantly overrepresented amongst the Iranian diaspora in the US, so it doesn't hurt. Also, we only have one person of Assyrian descent (partial) and that's Agassi. We have to take the overrepresentation of Armenians, Assyrians, etc into consideration. Maybe one more Assyrian would be a good one too. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Karim is Iranian-American. An American of purely Iranian descent. He is not Armenian, which you provided as reasoning for his removal Furthermore he is not an entrepreneur or business person, which you also suggested as reasoning for his removal. Karim is, in fact, a scholar and academic, which you yourself suggested are underrepresented on this list. He is also a filmmaker and he has made a significant cultural contribution with his latest film, which addresses the national issues of race and hate crimes. You have offered no valid reason to remove this entry. Please let it be. Karim represents a new, young generation of Iranians born in the United States. He is unique on this list. -Ieatfreshfruit (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Bournoutian is equally "purely" Iranian. Iranian is a nationality, not an ethnicity. He's an Iranian of Armenian descent. Furthermore, you totally misunderstood me. I meant that the Iranian-Assyrians and Iranian-Armenians are vastly overrepresented amongst the Iranian diaspora in the US, thus, that should be reflected in the infobox. Which it does now.

Your single only reason to edit on Wikipedia seems only to make sure this guy is included in the infobox. Are you related to him? Are you himself? I mean that's totally fine, no problem, but that does not make a valid "pass" just to push for something related to him, just because you personally think its important. Looking at your edits, you're quite pov-pushing.

Furthermore, most importantly, his notability compared to Bournoutian is nothing. When I type "George Bournoutian" in Google, I get 23.200 hits, whilst when I type "Bavand Karim", I get a mere 3.060 hits. The infobox should show notable people that accomplished things related to the respective community (Iranian Americans), not people we specifically just like or admire. That seems like pretty solid reasoning to me. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You can't make whatever changes you want just because you consider yourself some kind of authority on Iranians. I looked through your posts too. Who do you think you are? I am not Karim or related to him. His notability and 3,060 are is completely valid for an infobox. He IS accomplished respective and related to Iranian Americans AND specifically the ones on this list by a) in being a prominent current filmmaker, b) with articles in the national press, c) credits on major Hollywood films, d) a documentary on Netflix, and a e) prominent faculty position. Just as my personal desire to include him does not validate his position on this list, just because you don't know or have any regard for his work does not mean his placement is invalid. Bournoutian is equally deserving, and I suspect you are an admirer of his work, but Wikipedia is not the place for a pissing match. You are not the supreme authority on what is the most "Iranian" or what is most notable. --Turnbull35 (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but read WP:JDL. He's not remotely as notable as compared to Bournoutian. That fact alone ascribes him, if we compare them. These infoboxes are for people that are notable, I repeat once again. You have brought no valid facts or reasons (except for the work that he does), that he should be added instead of Bournoutian. I think we're done here, as its becoming a refurbishment of already said words and argumentations. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Iranian Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://paaia.org/galleries/new-gallery/Survey_of_Iranian_Americans_Final_Report_Dec_10%202008.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070826143136/http://www.pdx.edu:80/cecs/visionary_alumnus.html to http://www.pdx.edu/cecs/visionary_alumnus.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Error capture replaced with working capture x 1 + correct captures x 1. Thanks Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Iranian Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160112022954/http://www.oracle.com/profit/features/p27anniv_timeline.pdf to http://www.oracle.com/profit/features/p27anniv_timeline.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect capture to redirect page to top site level. I've replaced it with a working live link. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iranian Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cyruscopeland.com/biography/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100626003804/http://www.daftar.org/far/default.asp to http://www.daftar.org/far/default.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Intermarriage

Unless men have been pairing with men in significant numbers, which seems doubtful, or unless many Iranian-American women are remaining single, or an unusual number of Iranian-American men are divorcing their Iranian-American wives to marry other Iranian-American women, or Iranian-American wives have especially high mortality rates, etc., the article's source on intermarriage would seem to have an arithmetic problem. Every Iranian-American woman married to Iranian-American man would seem reduce the unmarried numbers of each sex by exactly one, wouldn't it? If, after most of the Iranian-American women have married, the surplus is mostly male, then male outmarriage is precisely what one would expect! The cited statistic does not seem to suggest that Iranian-American women "are more likely to adhere to traditional Iranian values," but rather simply that more Iranian men than women migrate to the United States. Logic, lads, logic! Rather than reporting actual facts, the source in question may be lazily just making things up. Tbtkorg (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iranian Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304185604/http://www.paaia.org/CMS/Data/Sites/1/pdfs/iranian-americans---immigration-and-assimilation.pdf to http://www.paaia.org/CMS/Data/Sites/1/pdfs/iranian-americans---immigration-and-assimilation.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111210173947/http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/14601.html to http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/14601.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The poll was only conducted with 400 people

Only 400 people took the poll you cannot apply it to all iranian americans. Arsi786 (talk) 08:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• "(...) you cannot apply it to all iranian americans."

According to whom? - LouisAragon (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the OP has a point, although I've worked too much on copy editing the display of the results to want to see it removed. To rely on one (privately commissioned?) poll with such a small sample—instead of, say, official census data—does seem dubious. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I quote, page 15:

The survey was conducted between March 5th–6th, 2012 and is based on successful interviews in English with a representative sample of 400 Iranian American respondents. Zogby Research Services working with jzanalytics, conducted the survey employing sampling strategies in which selection probabilities are proportional to population size within area codes and exchanges. Up to four calls are made to reach a sampled phone number. Cooperation rates are calculated using one of the methodologies that are approved by the American Association for Public Opinion Research and are comparable to other professional public-opinion surveys conducted using similar sampling strategies. Cooperation rates (in this case, 31.2%) are calculated using one of AAPOR’s approved methodologies. The margin of error for the results of this survey is +/-5 percentage points, which is an acceptable margin of error for a survey of this type. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups. Based on a confidence interval of 95%, the margin of error for 400 is +/-5.0 percentage points. This means that all other things being equal, the identical survey repeated will have results within the margin of error 95 times out of 100.

Unless it can be proven (with WP:RS) that the PAAIA (Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans) and/or Zogby Research Services are partisan, biased or discredited in peer-reviewed reports I don't see any reason to remove the content from the infobox. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Polls involve mathematical extrapolation; and a series of polls, all conducted with equal rigor, are likely to yield a variety of results. You cannot take a poll, no matter how carefully done, and put it on the level of census data, something that is official (i.e. to be taken much more seriously by respondents) and inclusive of so many more people. And we have only one poll taken at one time. I won't try to move it unless there's consensus, but I suggest it would be more appropriate in the body of the article. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

polls only allow us to obtain estimations with a margin of error. The less people you have in the poll sample, the greater the margin of error is. A poll done with a sample comprising 400 people will have a margin of error of roughly 5% while a poll done with a sample comprising 1000 people will have a margin of error of roughly 3%. There is no evidence here that the poll was not achieved "carefully" (btw, the only thing that matters when doing a poll is to chose a representative sample).---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not requesting that you remove the polls information entirely from the wiki page and if you did look into the reference you would know its mainly concentrated in the los angeles area and they conducted phone interviews while going through phonebooks and calling people with iranian surnames all I am saying there are over 200,000 ~ 1 million iranians living in the usa and your taking a poll conducted by only 400 iranians and applying it to every single iranian in the country all I was requesting that you remove the statistic numbers from the infobox and leave the poll as it is in the religion section of the page. Arsi786 (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, you just don't understand what a poll is ! A poll is not intended to be done with 200000-1000000 persons, this would be called a vote, not a poll. Trust me, you really need to read a math book about statistics (and i'm not saying that dismissively). Do you really think that when some institute makes a poll before an election in the USA, they just ask to the 250,000,000 potential voters for who they're going to vote ??? No, this is definitely not how things work, they chose a few hundred people to constitute a representative sample and they ask them for who they're going to vote. Then they calculate an interval with a margin of error in order to have an estimation.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

New Additions

Hello!

I am planning to make some additions to this Wiki Page using data from the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans 2019 survey. The reputable survey is administered by the Zogby Research Services group. Past versions of the PAAIA survey have already been utilized on this page, but I think the 2019 survey contains valuable new information on the Iranian American community that would further enhance this page. Overall, I will add 200-300 words.

I will add content about Iranian American opinions and fears on foreign policy and discrimination in recent years under the Trump administration under the “Politics” and the “Discrimination” sections. I will discuss how 75% of Iranian Americans surveyed by PAAIA view the Trump Administration’s Iranian foreign policy negatively (Zogby 10). Similarly, I will elaborate on the travel ban and how most Iranian American respondents in the survey oppose the travel ban, with 70% of respondents being personally affected or have family and friends affected by the ban (Zogby 10). Also, the current "Politics" section states that over half of Iranian Americans find domestic issues the most important, but the 2019 survey found that 50% of respondents considered foreign policy most important when voting (Zogby 7). I will also add that in 2016, over half of respondents voted for Hillary Clinton and over half also plan to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2020 (Zogby 7-8).

Additionally, I will amend the content in the “Ties to Iran” sub-section on the Wikipedia page. This subsections contain a lot of great information, but I think it would be a good idea to use updated data from the 2019 PAAIA survey. In this section I will add that in the 2019 survey, 41% of respondents said they contacted loved ones in Iran several times a week (Zogby 1). I will also add how 74% prefer phone calls, but also how communication over mobile communications apps and internet services has increased to 69% and 66% respectively (Zogby 3-4).

If anyone has any comments on my proposed changes please reach out here or on my Talk Page!

Thank you! Sabrinag20 (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

1,500,000 Iranian Americans probably false

I Highly doubt that this number is true, there is only a Iranian Source for that which is difficult to check. There are no way 1,500,000 Iranians in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethgecko22 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2020 and 19 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sabrinag20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Request of Revision

I have read the article about Iranian Americans and my first impression is that it is very biased. It based on incorrect assumptions, unprofessional material is used as a reference that reminds of the motive to increase the presence and "prestige" of Iranians in the USA artificially, not reflecting the actual situation properly.

Examples include, "Iranian Americans are among the most highly educated people in the United States." Iranians or Persians are not of western cultural heritage, while the main domain of education and intelligence origins in the white or European population, especially of British ancestry, as nearly all of the top elite universities in the United States were founded on the model and principles of elite universities in the United Kingdom. This claim can therefore not be justified.

Furthermore, the Wikipedia article states that 20 % of the population of Beverly Hills are of Persian ancestry. I do not believe this. Beverly Hills is a high society area. Persians and Iranians origin in 3rd world nations. I find it difficult to believe that 20 % of the population of one of the most wealthiest areas in the United States shall have 3rd world ancestry.

It seems to me that this article is more based on wish thinking, forcefully pushing Iranians and Persians into the high cultural society of those of white, British and other European ancestry. Especially in the context of historic technological, sociological and human evolution is this article in no way reflecting the reality of people with Persian or Iranian ancestry. Analphabetism, lack of access to basic education and it's development, lack of basic sanitation and other technological developments as well as especially lack of scientific development in the Persian culture alongside other underdeveloped civilian infrastructure areas cause Persians to receive through this article a completely misleading impression.

The most important part is the hostile religious, political, and affiliation allegiances, not just of Iran but of Iranians and Persians alike with a mentality for, convictions and believes in international terrorism, hate for Jews as well as the West.

It seems to me that the article is based on the life's of a few US Americans with Persian ancestry who want to declare their constellation in being of mixed western and Iranian origin that defines 0.0005 % or less of the Persian population who want to declare their origin as representative for 100 % of all Persians.

When then numbers and content suggests that Persians "build" or defined the modern United States reminds this simply of propaganda coming close to the insanity of Aryanism.

This article needs much more realism especially concerning Persian political, security and affiliation allegiances with terrorist affiliations on a cultural level.

These clarifications and revisions are necessary in order to have a Wikipedia article that truly represents the real situation.

This article must be revised to match more the Wikipedia article concerning Iran - United States relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.12.72 (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE:

I have just found this statement "Research has furthermore indicated that Iranian-Americans who are Muslim are more open to intermarry than those who are members of religious or ethnic minorities, such as Jews and Armenian". Iranian Islamic Americans that are more open to marry non Iranian Moslems are more open than Jews to marry non Jews? This is Aryanism and anti Jewish propaganda reflecting in no way reality.

This article needs to be revised. It includes elements of Aryanism and Antisemitism using false scientific research data for claims that shall benefit Iranians and Islam on the cost of Jews especially suggesting that Jews are a minority in the United States but not Iranians or Moslems. The cultural impact of Iranians or Islam, except concerning the attacks of 11 September, is ridiculous compared to the cultural impact of Jews in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.12.72 (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You're right that the article is somewhat boosterish, but if phrases such as "among the most highly educated people" are supported by statistics, then we should allow it. Pointing out that a certain percentage living in Beverly Hills is one-sided if we don't point out the percentage living in lesser housing, but is that percentage wrong? Reading through your text, I see some over-generalizations of your own. Can you cite sources for your assessments? In short, what specific changes do you propose and what sources back up your assertions? Dhtwiki (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This is some serious self-formulated WP:FORUM stuff, bordering WP:TENDENTIOUS. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

British IP sounds quite angry and bigoted towards Iranians and Persians. American statistics on average income by national origin don't lie, maybe it triggers his own national/ethnic inferiority complex though but thats his problem. No complaints about "Aryanism" or "anti-semitism" will change that reality. --Qahramani44 (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Problem with Lede

First sentence presents Iranian and Persian as being equivalent: "Iranian Americans or Persian Americans". However these two words refer to distinct things. Persian: " 1 : one of the people of Persia: such as a : one of the ancient Iranians who under Cyrus and his successors founded an empire in southwest Asia b : a member of one of the peoples forming the modern Iranian nationality" Iranian: " 1 : a native or inhabitant of Iran"

Put more simply Persian is an ethnic group where as Iranian refers to a nationality. Thus you can be Persian but be from Afghanistan, or Tajikistan etc. And by the same token you can be Iranian but not Persian, which is the case for about 35-40% of the population of Iran, there are many Iranian Azeri Turks for example who are Iranian but not Persian. Thus since this article is about Iranian Americans I propose deleting Persian American in the lede. Or atleast not preseting Iranian American and Persian American as being equivalents. 189.6.251.47 (talk) 07:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Phases of immigration section issue

The section about phases of immigration skips over the Iranian immigration to Chicago in the 1890s. Fir more info, see the book, Iranians in Chicagoland (2005) by Hamid Akbari. Adding a note here in case anyone wants to further develop this. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)