Talk:Persians

Changes to link

Consider adding Afghanistan/Tajikistans Tajiks as "Persians" ===Related groups=== There are several ethnic groups and communities which are either ethnically or linguistically related to the Persian people, living predominantly in Iran, and also within Afghanistan, the Caucasus, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates.<ref>{{cite web|year=2005|title=SociolinguistEssex X – 2005|publisher=[[Essex University]]|page=10|url=http://www.essex.ac.uk/langling/documents/slx/slx_x_programme.pdf}}</ref> to ===Related groups=== There are several ethnic groups and communities which are either ethnically or linguistically related to the Persian people, living predominantly in Iran, and also within Afghanistan, the Caucasus, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates.<ref>{{cite web|year=2005|title=SociolinguistEssex X – 2005|publisher=[[University of Essex]]|page=10|url=http://www.essex.ac.uk/langling/documents/slx/slx_x_programme.pdf}}</ref>

Sorry, didn't work as intended. Consider changing the publisher parameter from Essex University to University of Essex

Again, it has been made a point that the Persian ethnicity does not exist in the Persian language. Instead, Persian equates to Persian speaker or "Farsi zaban". Tajiks or Persians of Afghanistan and Tajikistan identify as the same. They identify from the city they come for e.g."Herati" or "Kabuli". I want to clarify that this is indicative of this article in Persian itself. You can see that a Persian is referred to as Persian speaker an in this case Tajiks are included. فارسی

Tajiks!

The editor has completely excluded Tajiks and their countries! There are around 30-35 million Tajiks and also other groups of people who do not live in iran and are referred as Persians too! Not only to Iran! 82.132.223.21 (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I was about to comment the same thing. They should be added in the infobox with their population listed under Afghanistan and Tajikistan. HarvardJock (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Safavids

Please correct the text under isamil I photo, change persian empire to iranian empire. Only achaemenids and sassanids were persian empires. ( after islam would be samanids included as they were completely persianizied ) safavids were iranian but not ethnically persian, even tho persianizied. ~2026-44735-69 (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Recent additions

@Prof. JS2: Please demonstrate that the cited sources you added say exactly this and why/how this is notable in WP:RS. The specific page(s) aren't cited in those journals, making it very difficult to verify (WP:VER). Please keep WP:SYNTH in mind. Your additions;

Additionally, Arabs (specifically, Iraqis, Levantines, and, to some degree, Peninsular Arabs) are genetically, historically, and culturally related to Persians, as suggested by evidence. In Islamic tradition, they have been considered a related people to the Arabs (sometimes considered cousins), most notably by scholars such as Ibn Abbās and others. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay:

"clear continuums throughout time linking western Arabia with the Levant, and eastern Arabia with Iran and the Caucasus." first paragraph of "Projecting Ancient Ancestry in Modern-Day Arabians and Iranians: A Key Role of the Past Exposed Arabo-Persian Gulf on Human Migrations"

"genetic connection between Iranian populations and the Arabian Peninsula, likely the result of both ancient and recent gene flow" first paragraph of "Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomal stratification in Iran: relationship between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula"

"The biparental genetic landscape supports a picture of close contact between the Arab and Persian populations" first paragraph of "Genetic encapsulation among Near Eastern populations"

"Arabs and Iranians have been in contact with each other, and at times have had their fortunes intertwined, for some three millennia" among many other statements of historical/cultural similarity, first line of "ʿARAB i. Arabs and Iran in the pre-Islamic period"

"Using genetic distances, correspondence analysis and NJ trees, we showed earlier [[https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0192269&utm_source=chatgpt.com#pone.0192269.ref061 61], [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0192269&utm_source=chatgpt.com#pone.0192269.ref062 62]] and in this study that Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese and Jordanians are closely related to each other and to Eastern Mediterranean Europeans (Turks, Cretans, Greeks), Egyptians and Iranians," Under "Arabs of Levant" in "The genetic heterogeneity of Arab populations as inferred from HLA genes"

" bearing the name of Ibn ‘Abbās, adds that being sons of Isaac and cousins to the sons of Ishmael, “the Persians are a band [related] to us, the people of the house [of the Prophet]” (fāris ‘u§batunā ahl al-bayt)."

First page of "Ambivalent Attitudes", its only one page.

All explicitly state genetic similarity, one mentions historical/cultural similarity and the last explains my final sentence. Prof. JS2 (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

So they have some genetics similarities in some aspects, so what? Also, Iraqis aren't even mentioned in your quotes? And there is nothing about "historically, and culturally related", unless you are trying to imply something else.

I didn't mean to include the Ibn Abbas citation, it's irrelevant unless WP:RS actually considers this notable. Which could be said about all of this, you are over-inflating the significance of this, even going as far as to claim these groups are "related" in the infobox.

Also, you forgot to remove "Chatgpt" in two of your links. Please be honest, how much AI did you use here? And are you the temporary account I recently spoke with? Please also see WP:LLM. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

1) it's not "some", if you can read, it says "closely related to each other and to Eastern Mediterranean Europeans (Turks, Cretans, Greeks), Egyptians and Iranians"

2) Read the Iranica article again and come back to me.

3) Cambridge is WP:RS, and it does not specify, meaning genetically related groups (as well as historically and culturally) can be included. You're better than this, don't remove things that don't fit your narrative.

4) "Forgot"? I didn't forget, I used AI to help me with links, is that taboo? And I did not use that much AI, only the ones you see. I absolutely never used AI to write text for me though, that is a false accusation.

5) You have failed to provide me any good points. Expect the article to go back to my edit.

Yes I'm that account, why do you care exactly?

And, oh yes, you can remove Iraqis. That was a misread on my part. Prof. JS2 (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

1) it's not "some", if you can read, it says "closely related to each other and to Eastern Mediterranean Europeans (Turks, Cretans, Greeks), Egyptians and Iranians"

Iranians aren't even part of the scope of this study, and this is about HLA genetics, which is just a specific part of the genome that mostly related to the immune system.

2) Read the Iranica article again and come back to me.

So you have no evidence.

3) Cambridge is WP:RS, and it does not specify, meaning genetically related groups (as well as historically and culturally) can be included. You're better than this, don't remove things that don't fit your narrative.

Where did I say Cambridge wasn't WP:RS? I'm calling you out for cherry picking and making a sentence appear much more significant than that is because you consider it so, similar to your edits on your temporary account.

4) "Forgot"? I didn't forget, I used AI to help me with links, is that taboo? And I did not use that much AI, only the ones you see. I absolutely never used AI to write text for me though, that is a false accusation.

False accusation? I merely asked you how much AI you used. So how much did you use? Did you use AI to do the researching for you? That would explain the errors.

5) You have failed to provide me any good points. Expect the article to go back to my edit.

That's because they contradict you, and now that you've admitted that you're the same person as the other account, I would advise you to stop edit warring and causing further disruption.

And, oh yes, you can remove Iraqis. That was a misread on my part

Yours or ChatGPTs? HistoryofIran (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

"Iranians aren't even part of the scope of this study, and this is about HLA genetics, which is just a specific part of the genome that mostly related to the immune system."

It's still part of the genome, and my other sources back the related claim.

"So you have no evidence."

Is Iranica not evidence? You asked me about cultural/historical, I gave you the source. What more do you genuinely want?

"False accusation? I merely asked you how much AI you used. So how much did you use? Did you use AI to do the researching for you? That would explain the errors."

Yes false accusation, as you implied that I had violated WP:LLM, which I did not. And I did not use AI to research for me, but rather help me find specific links. I read, and double checked the sources myself and reached the conclusions myself, not to mention writing the paragraph myself.

"That's because they contradict you, and now that you've admitted that you're the same person as the other account, I would advise you to stop edit warring and causing further disruption."

How am I edit warring? You gave me a notice to take it to this talk page, and I complied. I'm not causing disruptions, I back my claims with WP:RS sources, you are the one that is removing them for no apparent reason.

"Yours or ChatGPTs?"

Look, I ask this out of genuine concern, can you comprehend my sentences? I explicitly said that AI did not write text for me, not a word. And if I remember correctly I didn't even add the Iraqis part personally.

Finally, I'm not here to try to argue with you uselessly. You have experience (14 years at that), so I mean obviously you know what the ins and outs of Wikipedia. But I genuinely think that it's not good to leave out a paragraph explaining that Persians and Arabs are related groups. I mean who can deny that? I showed you multiple sources, and I think that the paragraph should stay. I'm open to your re-wording too, so we can reach a consensus. Sound good?

Also about the Ibn Abbas article, I didn't over exemplify it, I rephrased what it said, I also think it should stay since it provided traditional context. Prof. JS2 (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

It's still part of the genome, and my other sources back the related claim.

So what? It's just a slice of the genome, and you falsely made it appear much more significant than it actually was, even going as far as to claim the groups are related. And your other sources don't seem to point anything special out either.

Is Iranica not evidence? You asked me about cultural/historical, I gave you the source. What more do you genuinely want?

Give me the quote then.

Yes false accusation, as you implied that I had violated WP:LLM, which I did not. And I did not use AI to research for me, but rather help me find specific links. I read, and double checked the sources myself and reached the conclusions myself, not to mention writing the paragraph myself.

I asked you to be aware of WP:LLM, just as I have other policies which you've ignored several times. Evidently, you have not properly checked.

How am I edit warring? You gave me a notice to take it to this talk page, and I complied. I'm not causing disruptions, I back my claims with WP:RS sources, you are the one that is removing them for no apparent reason.

Again, I never said WP:RS was an issue here, but your misuse of them are.

Look, I ask this out of genuine concern, can you comprehend my sentences? I explicitly said that AI did not write text for me, not a word. And if I remember correctly I didn't even add the Iraqis part personally.

Second time you're suggesting I have problems with reading, yet your diffs are the only one that shows signs related to that, both here and your previous account.

Finally, I'm not here to try to argue with you uselessly. You have experience (14 years at that), so I mean obviously you know what the ins and outs of Wikipedia. But I genuinely think that it's not good to leave out a paragraph explaining that Persians and Arabs are related groups. I mean who can deny that? I showed you multiple sources, and I think that the paragraph should stay. I'm open to your re-wording too, so we can reach a consensus. Sound good?

Please re-read my comments, as well as WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, the latter which I asked to read several times on your previous account.

Also about the Ibn Abbas article, I didn't over exemplify it, I rephrased what it said, I also think it should stay since it provided traditional context.

Yes you did, just like you wanted to add Abu Shahr/Shehr because you personally liked it, just because you wanted to conflate the Khuzestani Arabs with all the other Arabs because you personally liked it, just like you falsely claimed a Cambridge source was "outdated and false" because you personally didn't like it. Please stop this. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

You are the only one that has a problem with this. Other editors either fixed punctuation or made it more clear. For some reason, this makes me think that this doesn't fir you narrative.

"So what? It's just a slice of the genome, and you falsely made it appear much more significant than it actually was, even going as far as to claim the groups are related. And your other sources don't seem to point anything special out either."

Alright. But did you see the other quotes I gave? You asked me for quotes, I gave you sufficient ones. Here's one of them in case you didn't see: "The biparental genetic landscape supports a picture of close contact between the Arab and Persian populations"

Finally, are you seriously saying that Arabs aren't related to Persians? (If it's language, that doesn't work since language isn't the primary definition of relatedness or ethnicity)

Also, where on the Wikipedia page, does it explicitly say what type of relatedness? For all we know, genetically related is valid.

"Give me the quote then."

Sure: "been in contact with each other, and at times have had their fortunes intertwined, for some three millennia", but the article isn't one that you can take quotes out and be like "here you go", its supposed to be read. It shows the historical contact between the populations.

I think 3 millennia is significant, no?

"Please re-read my comments, as well as WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, the latter which I asked to read several times on your previous account."

WP:OR states below:

"reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented."

and I've read WP:SYNTH multiple times.

Can you tell me, exactly, where this RE-WORDED paragraph (with sources) violates these?:

" Additionally, Arabs (specifically, Levantines to some extent, and Peninsular Arabs) are genetically related to Persians, as suggested by evidence. The two populations also have a millennia long history of contact, as stated by Encyclopedia Iranica.

Aside from that, in Islamic/cultural tradition, they have been thought to be a genealogically related people to the Arabs (occasionally considered cousins), most notably by scholars such as Ibn Abbās and others. "

"Yes you did, just like you wanted to add Abu Shahr/Shehr because you personally liked it, just because you wanted to conflate the Khuzestani Arabs with all the other Arabs because you personally liked it, just like you falsely claimed a Cambridge source was "outdated and false" because you personally didn't like it. Please stop this.

Please, tell me, where I over exemplified? This is directly from the source: "The idea that the Persians are sons of Isaac was advanced by a variety of traditions attributed to the Prophet. Their main aim was to enhance the role of Persians in the establishment of Islam, and at least some of them bear a clear colouring from the ‘Abbāsid period. Thus, while two of them, associated with the names of Ibn ‘Umar and Abu Hurayra, simply state this notion, a third one, bearing the name of Ibn ‘Abbās, adds that being sons of Isaac and cousins to the sons of Ishmael, “the Persians are a band [related] to us, the people of the house [of the Prophet]” (fāris ‘u§batunā ahl al-bayt)." https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/arabs-and-others-in-early-islam/ambivalent-attitudes/065EC69E2B3913B8F800EEC1D9B00EF2

This was my original sentence: "In Islamic tradition, they have been considered a related people to the Arabs (sometimes considered cousins), most notably by scholars such as Ibn Abbās and others"

How is that over exemplification? Am I just blind or missing something??

And about personally "liking", that's not why. I found the original parts of those articles to simply not make sense. Hence I found sources, and made an edit. You reverted them, I accepted it, and I will try to find better sources to back my claims up.

And stop what? You want me to stop editing things that YOU perhaps don't like?

And come on man, I SAID that me calling the Cambridge source outdated and false was a mistake, you don't need to rub it in my face.

And we need to reach a consensus here, and I don't want to spend any more time here than I have to. What do you want to do? Prof. JS2 (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

You are the only one that has a problem with this. Other editors either fixed punctuation or made it more clear. For some reason, this makes me think that this doesn't fir you narrative.

So what? Disruptive edits go through all the time, in some topics more than others. If you have proof that of these allegations, then report me, if not please refrain from casting WP:ASPERSIONS. The rest of your comments are more of the same WP:REHASHes that I have already responded to. Except that when that more context in the passage related to Ibn Abbas makes your edit look even worse. The summary is specifically about the Early Islamic period and the Shu'ubi movement, and in which some authors considered the Persians to have the same (legendary) descent as the Arabs (which was also used on other people), because "Their main aim was to enhance the role of Persians in the establishment of Islam, and at least some of them bear a clear colouring from the ‘Abbāsid period." and which is obviously ahistorical. Yet you tried to push that by misusing other sources as well to create a false view that Arabs and Persians are closely related.

And we need to reach a consensus here, and I don't want to spend any more time here than I have to. What do you want to do?

I want you to stop this pattern of WP:TENDENTIOUS or I will report you to WP:ANI. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure. You don't want the Ibn Abbas part, let's keep it out. You presented evidence that it doesn't make sense here, and the more I think about it, the more I agree.

"WP:ASPERSIONS"

Sure, I'll stop when you stop accusing me of "just like you wanted to add Abu Shahr/Shehr because you personally liked it, just because you wanted to conflate the Khuzestani Arabs with all the other Arabs because you personally liked it", when in fact, I based all of this from evidence and misreads, rather than a personal "liking".

And here, I responded to your explicit questions/suggestions that you wanted answers to, and gave you links and quotes. How is that "WP:REHASH"?

"create a false view that Arabs and Persians are closely related."

How is this a false view? In my paragraph I said, "(specifically, Levantines to some extent, and Peninsular Arabs) are genetically related to Persians, as suggested by evidence", and I don't know how to genuinely make you understand without being hit by a REHASH accusation.

The Iranica article also shows deep historical contact.

Do the sources not back this up? Does this: "The biparental genetic landscape supports a picture of close contact between the Arab and Persian populations" not back this up even to the slightest extent? At this point it's just funny.

"I want you to stop this pattern of WP:TENDENTIOUS or I will report you to WP:ANI."

100%. I have stopped. After our talk on Abu Shehr, did I continue or did I lay off? After Iranian Arabs, and Khuzi Arabs, you gave me your evidence, and I laid off. Here, even though I strongly believe that you should be the one bringing your suggestion to the talk page instead of me, I complied. And, all in all, none of my edits are based solely on bias. You can see that my wording retains a neutral point of view.

But, this isn't a consensus.

I don't know, do you want to re-word it? Do you want to add it in another section or what?

To be honest, I think you're using REHASH more than I am, (don't take this as ASPERSIONS), since you don't really bring up the root of your issue and how my core paragraph is problematic. Rather you give me the same Wikipedia warnings over and over again. Or, maybe we're both using it, since both of us are unconvinced.

So, whats the plan? Prof. JS2 (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

More WP:REHASH, I already replied to this. I do find it ridiculous that I have to do a deep into the very sources you cite because you haven't properly read them yourself, and then repeat it to you several times in several ways until you finally somewhat understand it. Yet you're the only one here who has suggested the other party has reading issues. I'm sorry, but if you issues with understanding historical studies, then I highly doubt you will understand much more complicated genetic studies, which can also be seen up above. Understanding genetics is a trade on its own, which I have no knowledge of either, which makes it even more frustrating that I have to look into them for you.

But, this isn't a consensus.

Violation of policies, in this case misuse of sources will never be part of a consensus. I have nothing more to say on this. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

REHASH? Funny. Since you are the one that is avoiding bringing good talking points and bringing up the same "Wiki rules" over and over again.

"which I have no knowledge of either"

Therefore your opposition to this is void? You see the same thing I see, and you have admitted to have no knowledge on genetics. So how come you are against this so confidently?

You brought me here, if you don't want to reach a consensus then I should be able to put the paragraph back in again.

"Violation of policies, in this case misuse of sources will never be part of a consensus. I have nothing more to say on this."

Violation of which policy, you gave suggestions into the ones I've violated, but none of them apply.

According to Wikipedia rules, claims must be verifiable and backed by WP:RS sources, which mine complies with.

"clear continuums throughout time linking western Arabia with the Levant, and eastern Arabia with Iran and the Caucasus." first paragraph of "Projecting Ancient Ancestry in Modern-Day Arabians and Iranians: A Key Role of the Past Exposed Arabo-Persian Gulf on Human Migrations"

"genetic connection between Iranian populations and the Arabian Peninsula, likely the result of both ancient and recent gene flow" first paragraph of "Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomal stratification in Iran: relationship between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula"

"The biparental genetic landscape supports a picture of close contact between the Arab and Persian populations" first paragraph of "Genetic encapsulation among Near Eastern populations"

"Arabs and Iranians have been in contact with each other, and at times have had their fortunes intertwined, for some three millennia" among many other statements of historical/cultural similarity, first line of "ʿARAB i. Arabs and Iran in the pre-Islamic period"

"Using genetic distances, correspondence analysis and NJ trees, we showed earlier, and in this study that Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese and Jordanians are closely related to each other and to Eastern Mediterranean Europeans (Turks, Cretans, Greeks), Egyptians and Iranians," Under "Arabs of Levant" in "The genetic heterogeneity of Arab populations as inferred from HLA genes"

You keep saying that I have issues with understanding my sources, but from what I've read, these clearly state deep genetic similarity between the two populations.

If you are so confident show me other quotes from these sources contradicting my claim.

" I have nothing more to say on this."

Textbook example of avoiding an argument that is not going your way.

Here is your first reply: "So they have some genetics similarities in some aspects, so what? Also, Iraqis aren't even mentioned in your quotes? And there is nothing about "historically, and culturally related", unless you are trying to imply something else."

I gave you an answer repeatedly, I, again, do not understand your extreme opposition to writing: "Additionally, Arabs (specifically, Levantines to some extent, and Peninsular Arabs) are genetically related to Persians, as suggested by evidence. The two populations also share a "three-millennia long history of contact", as stated by Encyclopedia Iranica."

When in fact, all those sources back this claim up. If you still think I'm wrong, write in Farsi, maybe I'll understand better. Prof. JS2 (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Sigh..

Sharing a slice of genetics does not make someone genetic related, especially not to the point where you put two distinct ethnic groups as "related" in the infobox, even if you personally consider that. You have not properly checked any of those genetics studies. You falsely cited a HLA genetic study to falsely claim, and I quote; it's not "some", if you can read, it says "closely related to each other and to Eastern Mediterranean Europeans (Turks, Cretans, Greeks), Egyptians and Iranians". This is one of your many source misuses, which will not be added in any article.

The two populations also share a "three-millennia long history of contact",

This is quite different from your original "historically, and culturally related to Persians", which you (like many other things) also falsely portrayed and insisted on. I don't see a reason to mention unless it's relevant, especially when you want to combine it with misused sources.

If you still think I'm wrong, write in Farsi, maybe I'll understand better.

I'm sorry, but it's really not my problem if there is a language barrier here (see WP:CIR). Also, my Persian is not as good as yours, so it will just be another language barrier. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Finally. You give good, reasonable points. I understand you more now.

"Sharing a slice of genetics does not make someone genetic related, especially not to the point where you put two distinct ethnic groups as "related" in the infobox, even if you personally consider that. You have not properly checked any of those genetics studies. You falsely cited a HLA genetic study to falsely claim, and I quote; it's not "some", if you can read, it says "closely related to each other and to Eastern Mediterranean Europeans (Turks, Cretans, Greeks), Egyptians and Iranians". This is one of your many source misuses, which will not be added in any article."

Okay. Fair enough. I guess that source wasn't the best since it was just HLA.

But, does the infobox explicitly state how they can be related (I'm not dismissing your point, I'm just asking that IF there were better sources, it would make sense?)

Also, two "distinct" groups can be genetically related, are Kurds and Persians not distinct? Are Iranian Arabs and Persians not distinct? What I'm trying to say is that two groups do not have to be the same to be related that's all.

I still don't see how I falsely claim this when the source literally says "closely"? Paired with my other sources I still believe that it can be considered genetically related, since it's not just HLA, I proposed other sources as well, which you don't bring up.

"This is quite different from your original "historically, and culturally related to Persians", which you (like many other things) also falsely portrayed and insisted on. I don't see a reason to mention unless it's relevant, especially when you want to combine it with misused sources."

True, I re-worded it so it would match the source.

"I'm sorry, but it's really not my problem if there is a language barrier here (see WP:CIR). Also, my Persian is not as good as yours, so it will just be another language barrier"

Oh it's not a language barrier, I just thought that you could get your point across better in Persian. Nvm then.

So, does: "Additionally, Arabs (specifically, Levantines to some extent, and Peninsular Arabs) are genetically related to Persians, as suggested by evidence. The two populations also share a "three-millennia long history of contact", as stated by Encyclopedia Iranica."

make sense IF more clear and reviewed sources are brought up? As in, I can review my sources and find others that fit the topic, and bring them here?

Because still, the other sources I showed aren't just a "slice", it's multiple ones. I can review them if you insist. Prof. JS2 (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Finally. You give good, reasonable points. I understand you more now.

...I said this hours ago , which you dismissed as "It's still part of the genome". This is what I am saying, you keep WP:REHASHing the same stuff over and over, which I have already responded to.

But, does the infobox explicitly state how they can be related (I'm not dismissing your point, I'm just asking that IF there were better sources, it would make sense?)

What do you mean? The infobox is meant to be a very short and concise overview of the whole article, which of course has both its cons and pros.

So, does: "Additionally, Arabs (specifically, Levantines to some extent, and Peninsular Arabs) are genetically related to Persians, as suggested by evidence. The two populations also share a "three-millennia long history of contact", as stated by Encyclopedia Iranica." make sense IF more clear and reviewed sources are brought up? As in, I can review my sources and find others that fit the topic, and bring them here?

The issue isn't about "clear" or "unclear", you are straight up misusing sources, as I said and demonstrated dozens of times, including with your previous account. It's very easy to find and cite bunch of random sources, especially if AI does the searching for you. Reading and understanding them, evaluating their quality and what other sources say, however, takes much more time and effort. I'm not going to analyze more sources (especially genetic studies) for you, sorry.

Because still, the other sources I showed aren't just a "slice", it's multiple ones. I can review them if you insist.

Review them? So what have you been doing all this time? You clearly have not looked into any of them, nor understood them. You didn't know what HLA was (which I didn't either, but I had to read it about since you didn't..), despite it being the title of the study, yet went on ahead and cited it. I'll say this again;

I'm sorry, but if you have issues with understanding historical studies, then I highly doubt you will understand much more complicated genetic studies, which can also be seen up above. Understanding genetics is a trade on its own, which I have no knowledge of either, which makes it even more frustrating that I have to look into them for you. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Fine. My original wording was too broad, and could easily be taken as "misusing sources".

I have clearly looked into them though, I just don't know what to say to you, since you keep dismissing it as "You don't understand".

And HLA, for some reason you don't understand, is still a genetic connection. Yes, it is a fraction, but when paired with other studies, it becomes a noteworthy addition.

"What do you mean? The infobox is meant to be a very short and concise overview of the whole article, which of course has both its cons and pros."

Uh yes, I mean that why shouldn't we add Arabs in there, IF they are genetically related? As in, "related groups" can include genetically related groups, no?

"The issue isn't about "clear" or "unclear", you are straight up misusing sources, as I said and demonstrated dozens of times, including with your previous account. It's very easy to find and cite bunch of random sources, especially if AI does the searching for you. Reading and understanding them, evaluating their quality and what other sources say, however, takes much more time and effort. I'm not going to analyze more sources (especially genetic studies) for you, sorry."

You don't have to analyze for me. I still fail to see how I'm misusing sources IN the way you say, when the sources, clearly explain genetic connections and do not contradict? To fully make sure, I'll re-read each source and get back to you.

In terms of quality, these are academic papers that are WP:RS, so... and they state my claims clearly

I hope this will be the final argument, because that paragraph will go in one way or another, the backing is too strong to remove.

I will do what you said, "Reading and understanding them, evaluating their quality and what other sources say." AGAIN,

and I'll come back to you with what conclusion I reached so we can stop arguing over this.

Fine? Prof. JS2 (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I hope this will be the final argument, because that paragraph will go in one way or another, the backing is too strong to remove.

You are now threatening to continue your disruption, I would advise you to stop. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure. It might not go in. Depending on what conclusion we all reach.

But, I'll come back to you with what conclusion I reached so we can stop arguing over this and reach an actual consensus.

Agree? Prof. JS2 (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

No, I'm going to prematurely say yes to such a vague question. In a short time you have caused a lot of disruption, particularly misusing sources/failing to understand them, and yet you act as if your "conclusion" is some sort of deciding factor here. Please re-read all my comments and understand the issues with your all edits. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean? I said that's exactly what I am going to do, review everything because you seem to think that's the way to go.

I never said my conclusion is a deciding factor, don't put words in my mouth. I said, that I'll come back with my conclusion, and you can tell me whether it's good or not since you are so overly confident in what you know.

And please don't think I'm trying to cause disruption, I'm getting frustrated and tired of this too, because I don't think you understand my point.

So how about now, I'll do everything you said, and review sources, and based on what I reach I'll decide on a conclusion (w/ sources and links + quotes), and then we can discuss whether a new paragraph (reworded) should go in or not.

Agree ? Prof. JS2 (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but if you engage in one more source misuse, I'm not going to bother with the rest of your response. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

1) Okay but before I go, give me your explicit definition of source misuse.

2) Would citing sources (after review) that back up a claim that is not over exemplified count as misuse?

3) Also, I need to know if you're open to a reworded version of this paragraph going in (if it meets standards) Prof. JS2 (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

You have been told about this countless times.. misusing a source is falsely claiming it says something it doesn't actually say. Also, please read WP:SYNTH and WP:OR this time.

Well, any information in general needs to be reworded as much as possible no matter what to avoid WP:PLAGARISM. But it goes without saying there's a big difference between rewriting and giving false information not actually stated by the source. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply I was having network issues.

But here is my reworded paragraph, based on the more useful sources (I don't think it's source misuse since they clearly say this. Also I reworded it as much as possible to avoid plagiarism and avoid source misuse):

"Additionally, genetic studies have found connections between Arab populations (specifically those of the Arabian Peninsula) and Iranian populations^1. Moreover, the Journal of Human Genetics states, "The biparental genetic landscape supports a picture of close contact between the Arab and Persian populations" ^3. Separately, the two populations share a three-millennia long history of contact, as stated by Encyclopedia Iranica. ^2"

sources:

1) "genetic connection between Iranian populations and the Arabian Peninsula, likely the result of both ancient and recent gene flow" first paragraph of "Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomal stratification in Iran: relationship between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula"

2) "Arabs and Iranians have been in contact with each other, and at times have had their fortunes intertwined, for some three millennia" among many other statements of historical/cultural similarity, first line of "ʿARAB i. Arabs and Iran in the pre-Islamic period"

3)"The biparental genetic landscape supports a picture of close contact between the Arab and Persian populations" first paragraph of "Genetic encapsulation among Near Eastern populations" Prof. JS2 (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

This is basically the same as your previous messages (with even the same sources), which I already replied to several times. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Is your way of "reviewing everything" not even bothering to read the full source, instead being content with its abstract (Genetic encapsulation among Near Eastern populations), which even with its much smaller context, makes your claim seem off? 15 forensic autosomal STR markers, have you even looked into what that is? Have you looked at actual important markers in genetics? (I just did a bit). You didn't "review" anything, you struggle with understanding historical sources, so obviously much more complicated genetic studies are not going to be easier. Next time you engage in disruption, you will be reported to WP:ANI. I'm done here. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

"15 forensic autosomal STR markers, have you even looked into what that is?"

Yes I have, they are short tandem repeat markers. They are a baseline for population genetic studies. To add, they are useful.

"makes your claim seem off?"

How? I quoted the article, I didn't synthesize a meaning nor did I plagiarize or provide original research.

"Have you looked at actual important markers in genetics? (I just did a bit)."

Yes I have. If you had actually done a search, you would realize that although it's not everything, it is an important part of population genetics.

"Next time you engage in disruption, you will be reported to WP:ANI. I'm done here"

Disruption? What disruption? Reporting me will not solve the problem, nor would it make sense, since I do not believe I've caused disruption.

With due respect, answer me this, please:

Do you count saying "genetic studies have found connections between Arab populations (specifically those of the Arabian Peninsula) and Iranian populations" as source misuse, when the PRIMARY source explicitly states, I quote, "genetic connection between Iranian populations and the Arabian Peninsula, likely the result of both ancient and recent gene flow"? Prof. JS2 (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

It has been 7 days, with no objection to my new concern. Should I take this as WP:SILENCE?

Glad to discuss if you have any concerns. Prof. JS2 (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

References

About persia

“ In the Western world, "Persian" was largely understood as a demonym for all Iranians rather than as an ethnonym for the Persian people, but this understanding shifted in the 20th century.” This is somehow not quite correct. In western historiography they did always know the ethnics living in iran, the persian only worked because the land was known as persia, it was a national label not ethnic. For example in safavid era, the historians talk about kurds in persia, turks in persia, so its not that they thought all people in country are persian, but as they know the country as persia ( because after sassanids, because in arsacids time the country was called parthia. ) they use the label “ persian “ for all iranians. So its needs more information to explain this. ~2026-48201-75 (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2026 (UTC)