Talk:Iranian Americans

Ministry of Iran?

Why is an Iranian source taken over the actual American source? It shouldn't be in the header at all, this is an american article and american sources say there are half a million Iranians. It should be a footnote down in the article, not up top where an obviously biased government would want to claim there are many iranians in american.71.191.159.69 (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Enlighten me, what makes this an "American article"? PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Pro-Iranian Bias in this Article

The fact that Iranian Americans are more "successful" by some socio-economic measures is likely due to the specific conditions that allowed for travel and immigration of only a very narrow selection of people. I've tried to edit this article and it's been reverted to the original. I think it's important to note that many Iranian Americans are political refugees--not economic ones. Or they are related to or descendants of pre-1979 Iranians with student visas--again a relatively privileged and highly selective group. Damoname (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for commenting. Can you provide some potential sources/links for this statement? If you have independent sources, you can work on adding it into the article in a way that may not get reverted (assuming it's true and improves the article, etc) Apathyash (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The Migration Policy Institute finds that early arrivals of Iranian to the US "consisted mainly of international students along with professionals and tourists." Following the revolution, "These new arrivals included upper- and middle-class Iranians as well as religious and ethnic minorities such as Baháʼís and Armenians. At the same time, many Iranian students in the United States remained in the country after graduation."

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/iranian-immigrants-united-states

Another article cited below explains some of the trends in Iranian-American immigration patterns, pointing out that "Immigrants from Iran began to arrive in the U.S. in the early 20th century, often members of the country’s religious minorities, including Armenian and Assyrian Christians and Jews." Later, after the Iranian Revolutiuon of 19798, "U.S. immigration law gave precedence to family members of U.S. residents, allowing Iranians already settled in America to bring over spouses, parents and children" https://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/mapping-the-iranian-diaspora-in-america#:~:text=Between%201978%20and%201980%2C%20more,to%20several%20sources%2C%20Harris%20said. Damoname (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Shouldn't the opening sentence be simplified to something like "Iranian Americans are Americans of Iranian ancestry"? The current wording seems somewhat clunky "Iranian Americans are citizens or nationals of the United States who are of Iranian ancestry or who hold Iranian citizenship. Short description even states: U.S. citizens of Iranian ancestry.

If we're being technical, then every single "[ethnicity]-American" term should have sentences denoting dual citizenship. Many countries allow dual citizenship. But many "[insert ethnicity] American" pages don't state this in the opening sentence. Usually just that it refers to Americans of whatever ancestry. Or some variation of that wording. Whether this is referring to Irish Americans, German Americans, Filipino Americans, Swedish Americans, Lebanese Americans, Mexican Americans, Japanese Americans, Indian Americans, Bangladeshi Americans and countless other pages.

Looking at past discussion and the hidden comment, the issue seemed to be about the terminology debate between "Iranian Americans or Persian Americans" but I'm not really talking about that. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

What is the reliable source that indicates Persian and Iranian are synonymous?

I asked this question multiple times in good faith and have been subjected to nothing but trolling from an admin with too much time on his hands. Hello73262568 (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Hello73262568: First of all, I seriously suspect you're a logged in version of temporary account User:~2026-39899-71. Your edits on your registered account are very similar to that of the temporary account. Please don't do that, because that can violate Wikipedia's alternative account policies. Second of all, neither Salmon of Knowledge nor I are admins, and we are not trolling – we're simply asking you to provide a proof/source that Persian means Iranian, and not edit war over it. If you continue to edit war, registered or not, you can get in trouble. Please refrain from edit warring. Thank you. SHSR _{T • C} 19:18, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I did not say Persian means Iranian. This dispute began because I asked for a reliable source indicating that Persian means Iranian.

I don’t know why you’re saying “we” as if you were involved, but regardless, I would call into question who is edit-warring here when Knowledge of Salmon is the one revering my edits within less than 10 seconds and refusing to provide a reliable source when asked. Hello73262568 (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Hello73262568: Did you read Salmon of Knowledge's reply to you below too? SHSR _{T • C} 19:48, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Adding on to what SeaHaircutSoilReplace said, I'm not trying to troll you. I appreciate your clarification that your edits are being made in good faith, and I apologize if I gave any impression of the contrary. However, Wikipedia has strict policies regarding the manner in which content can be modified. In this case, the most pertinent policy seems to be that of verifiability: we require any change made to an article to be supplemented by reliable sources that expressly state the claim being introduced such that any interested reader can verify them by following those sources. Like SeaHaircutSoilReplace, I also suspect you're the same operator as the person who operated the temporary account ~2026-39899-71, so I'll be referring to my interactions with that account as if they were my interactions with you—I'm sorry if this isn't the case. I was giving you incremental warnings about adding commentary to articles because of your edit summaries that contested parts of the article. The proper route was to introduce that concern on the talk page, which I see you're doing now. If here, you can provide reliable sources and an argument that the lead sentence in its current state should be changed, I think the majority of us would be more than happy to hear you out. If you need anything else, contact me on my talk page. I'll be more than happy to answer whatever questions you may have. Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Just popping in here, I have a couple sources that may help with this dispute.

• History.com
• JSTOR Daily and JSTOR

OrbitalVoid49 (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2026 (UTC)