This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Please read the discussion on US map color here. Basically, it says that red is not neutral for a map color. I suggest we change permanently Iran's map color from red to green (as it has always been). SSZ ( talk) 22:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I tried to change that once but my edit was undone. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 19:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The Major Cities section shouldn't contain a list of cities with information oon them. I'm going to rewrite it so it is the way it is supposed to be, i.e. in prose and mentioning about four or five cities not 8! Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 22:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
you said that Iran has no borders with Russia and Kazakhstan and that if we include them then we should also include other states (in the Souths). Dear friend, you should notice that the Caspian Sea in different than the Persian Gulf. Aside from the territorial waters Persian Gulf is an international body of water. Therefore Iran is separated by international waters from Oman and UAE. But Caspian see in not international waters. it is an internal sea (lake) and belongs to the litoral states. There is no agreement on the division of oil resources, but the internal sea character of it is not in doubt. Caspian sea is therefore can be seen as territory/condominium of the litoral states. Therefore Iran has borders with Kazakhstan and Russia but not with those Arab statelets you proposed.-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 08:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I am a hitorian/sociologist/ anthropologist, maybe I am not. Does not matter. I know what I am saying.-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 05:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The Islamic republic section should have more information about more recent history. I shall add MAJOR events up to 10 years ago. Please do not add anything insignificant which is mentioned before e.g. new sanctions. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 13:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The Iran page has reached a milestone in it's history. For the first time in years this article is now UNDER 100kb long. We shouldn't let our efforts go to waste and we should maintain it and even shorten it further.
I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the article, either by adding text, or removing non-POV, too dettailed, irrelevant or incorrect and non-factual text.
I also suggest that we merge the Safavid,Af... section with the Pahlavi era section. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 18:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Saddam's reasons for attacking Iran is described in great detail on this page, but they are not explained on the History of the Islamic Republic of Iran page. I thought that the main articles should be more detailed? I thought that sections with main articles are supposed to be more general?
Which pic would you prefer in the Geography section?
Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 14:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the latter; it seems more appropriate than a wildlife picture. Moreover, it shows snow and the mountains, which would help dispel myths that Iran is entirely desert. - Rosywounds ( talk) 21:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought that too. Wildlife isn't even mentioned in the section. I have seen at least two FA articles which have satellite images ( Japan & Canada) Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 15:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we have now addressed almost of Iran's problems(the article!;-)) and so I now nominate it for FA. I hope it is accepted. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 20:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Bold text
I have tried several times to merge the Sfavid, Afshar, Zand and Qajar period with the Pahlavi section. It is obvious that these two periods of Iranian history are connected. In both sections colonial powers influenced Iran greatly. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be merged. Both sections are relatively small. Also the other sections span over 1000,800 and 900 years and it seems odd if this section only has 400 years of Iran's history. If we merge these two sections it will span nearer to 500 years which makes it more balanced. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 21:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear All, I wish that the intention to nominate this entry for FA would have been announced publicly and clearly so that interested people would have had chance to comment on its contents and quality. Below I present some of my comments which as yet may be incorporated into the main text:
The above were my comments for the time being; I shall return if I have more to say. In the meantime you may ask that the reviewers put reviewing the entry on hold until further notice (i.e. until various shortcoming are corrected). With kind regards, --BF 22:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC).
Can I infer from this [11] that "urban settlement" is the new euphemism of civilization? -- Pejman47 ( talk) 20:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I counted at least 10 maps of Iran for the entire article. May be we can replace some with pictures? I also merged the military section with the paragraph about foreign relations as per other similar articles: See Japan (featured), USA and others.
I also moved the geography section up for same reason. See Iran on the French Wikipedia (featured). [12]
I remember that a while back someone re-organised the sections to the current form(i.e. Etymology, history,politics, geog, admin divisions etc.) and everyone thought it was a great edit. I don't think this change is the best change. But something could be done about the admin divisions and geography. Maybe a merge? Thank you for your enthusiasm and contribution. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 18:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if it's vaild at all to discuss Iran's contribution to science and technology relying on the example of Persian scientists who live and work outsied Iran, and who are probablly all of them citizens of Western countries. I think since the article is on Iran, it should stick to what's inside Iran. If you want to discuss the work of these scientists, I think it should be in a section on "Iranian Immigrants in the West", or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.69.1.21 ( talk) 17:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
We need to trim it further. We need to MOVE the rest to the main articles. I am not a "specialist" of the history section but I think we should give a clear mandate to those who are able in that field.
I think triming 30% of the section would be appropriate. NO INFORMATION WILL BE LOST (JUST MOVED TO THE MAIN SUB-ARTICLES).
Please state your approval or opposition below. Thanks.
Comment: Look at the Turkey page. The Iranian article needs to have something different to other articles; a WOW factor. It needs something to set it apart. I think we should have a history section slightly larger than the Turkey one. The politics could also be shortened a little. As some of you might have noticed I started a major one-man effort to shorten it and beat it down to a reasonable size and the article was under 100KB. But instead of maintaining it's small size the information came flooding back into the article. As I have done many times before, I will show my full support to shorten the article. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 17:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment:Iran is not a special little snowflake.-- mitrebox ( talk) 18:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I think it does need further trimming, particularly the Iran-Iraq war section. Turkey and Japan both provide excellent models for countries with very ancient histories. As I had stated prior, many of these FA class country articles do not have a huge amount of headers; I think we are capable of slowly transitioning towards a merger of all the history sections. It would make the section much more fluid. - Rosywounds ( talk) 18:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: No history section needs to be trimmed. History is a valuable part of the description of a country. To fully understand a country, you must know where the country came from and how it came to be in the present age. What is that saying, "You can't know where you are going until you know where you have been." Expansion and contraction, Turmoil and peace, all of these are a part of a country's history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryHawk ( talk • contribs) 00:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I quickly counted the number of images in the article and we have 42!!!!! The turkey page only has 24.
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-number of images on the iran(not featured) page!
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-number of Pakistan(featured) images
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-number of Turkey(featured) images
I will remove a few of them. I shall smite whoever stands in my way!(just kidding;-)) Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 18:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree here because generally more images is a good thing. Having more than enough is never a problem. Most articles have fewer images because people don't want to go through the hassle of copyright licenses and whatnot. This is an area where more is always better. - Rosywounds ( talk) 19:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I want to discuss the deletion of these images. Ideally SOME BUT NOT ALL of these should be deleted: Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 19:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Great idea; but I absolutely hate the Yakhchal/flower image and the mountain/grassland picture is misleading, so let's delete them anyway. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 15:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Which image is better?
They predate the Persians. Xenophon is a primary source, and you cannot use primary sources without violating Wikipedia policies on OR (since you are not a scholar and do not have the expertise to critique or analyze primary sources). Further, Xenophon wasn't alive when the first carpet ever was ever made, so its a weak example for this situation. Even more, the Greeks assumed all innovations by Easterners to be of Persian origin, since that was the ruling class. [13] History of carpet making is too obscure to be claimed by one group. The previous wording was so flowery I thought Mohammad Reza Pahlavi wrote it. - Rosywounds ( talk) 01:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with Iranian contributions to the art being mentioned. We can include that. I don't think we should definitively say that we KNOW that the Persians were the first to make them, though. The wording should also remain neutral if we wish to present it. - Rosywounds ( talk) 01:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Who thinks this [14] version of the safavid to IR history section is better than the current one? I do. There are two pictures of the safavid dynasty and two from the pahlavi era, but nothing else. But this one has one of the Qajar era too;which was one of the most important eras in modern iranian history. The picture of the Shah is a lot clearer too and it shows the Shah's close ties with the USA. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 17:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
What I mean is that we need a picture which shows something or someone in Iran's history from the Qajar era and I think the Naser Al-Din picture is a good picture. Babakexorramdin pointed out that the Safavid map is wrong. Should we remove it or leave it until it is updated? Is it better to have incomplete information or none at all? I don't know. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 16:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC) >>>> good question. Generally no info is better than wrong info. But in this case you can let it be here, untill it is updated, rather rapidly. In this article, maps and puictures should be sharp and strong, because we do not have much space in the text. -- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 19:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
In the tourism subsection it said that 1.8% of employment is generated from tourism. I wondered if tourism is important enough to have it's own subsection, so I moved all of the text to the Economy of Iran article and put a few sentences in the economy lead. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 12:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC) >>>>> Just note that its not all about income but about the attraction of this country. Interesting would be to mentiond that despite its potential there is not much foreign tourist, due to the bad name the western Media has created for the country, and give a link to Anti Iranianism.-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 08:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
OK. I think I can do that. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 11:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia's MOS it says that headings (and titles) should preferably be under ten words. One of the history titles violates this guideline and two other headings also contain a large number of words. All headings (except the Parthian and Sassanid empires) should be changed. I suggest we change the post Arab invasion to Iran under Islamic rule or Caliphate and Sultanate. The Safavid 'till revolution could be Early Modern Iran and the Pahlavi dynasty or Monarchist Modern Iran. I have no suggestions for the early history section. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 16:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC) >>> You can call that the early historic period or what I prefer the ancient and classical period.-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 08:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we could call it by that part of world history, like stone age or bronze age or antiquity or whenever it is(obviously this is not my strong point, but I will look it up). According to my dictionary statehood means The status of being a recognised independent nation, which Iran still is. Maybe ...and early statehood? Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 20:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I looked and it falls under the Bronze and Iron ages and early antiquity, but the antiquty period focuses more on Greece and Rome. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 21:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what consilodation means. Maybe Inauguration of Iranian statehood, but I'm not sure it is the best word. If only we could shorten it, merge it with the next subsection (Parthia and Sassanids) and name it pre Islamic period or something!
I just had a thought! How about we merge the Median and Achaemenid pat with the Sassanid and Parthian section and call it Pre Islamic Statehood, and leave the Pre-median stuff in it's own subsection (Early History). I think this is a good idea because with the statehood of Iran a new era of Iranian history started. I think it is also important that if we do this that we don't add any text to the section. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 15:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the English lesson;-)! I'll now edit the history section. What do you think about the other headings? Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Relating to the Safavid until IR, it could be early modern era, but I think the Pahlavi era is more recent than early modern. But I can't think of anything better. pre-Islamic statehood is good enough and no Iranian is necessary. The rest is good. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 23:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
As for the Islamic era, use the early Islamic era, or medieval times. Then use as islamic era Iranian empires. What I opt for is> a section from the Safavid untill end of Qajar and call it the early modern period, and then from Pahlavi till now we call it the later modern period or just modern era Iran. -- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 21:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, I also thought of the latter, but I dismissed it due to doubts on their similarities and also people's opinion. I think that the Pahlavi era is similar equally to the IR and the Qajar dynasty. It was similar as it was in the same political world as the IR is now (e.g. American supremacy) but it was also greatly influenced and corrupted by western powers, like the Qajars were. I think to make things simpler we should put it with the IR section. With this move the Safavid Qajar section would have very little text and we should keep it that way! Many have talked about the History section's massive size. If we do this change we must keep the sections which loose text short and shorten the sections which have become larger. With this and a few reference and grammatical changes we could achieve the FA. I disagree with the initial suggestion about the Post islamic thing. Iran is still n Islamic country. I'm not sure if all of that part is medieval, but if it does I'm for it. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 00:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Middle Ages it is! Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 10:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed a minor error on the page for Iran. The description of the country lists the official language of Iran as Persian. Persian is not exactly the official language of the Iranians. The actual official language of Iran is called Farsi, a semitic language very similar to Arabic and Hebrew. In fact Farsi takes many letters from the Arabic language into it's own. There are a few letters in Farsi that are not in Arabic, setting it a little apart from Arabic. I just thought that this should be clarified. Although the country is not a particular favorite of mine, it's culture deserves a little respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryHawk ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Contrary to common belief, it is not a Semitic language. Persian belongs to the Western group of the Iranian languages branch of the Indo-European language family. Being a speaker myself I know that it was heavily influenced by Arabic due to the Arab Conquest of Iran (Persia), but the original words are Aryan. Farsi shares many words or words with the same origin with other Indo-European languages like English e.g. Bad, Madar/Mother etc. An argument has been going on for a while on Wikipedia and also in the International community; Persia or Iran?, Persian or Farsi? They are basicly the same language. Persian, the more widely used name of the language in English, is an Anglicized form derived from Latin Persianus < Latin Persia < Greek Πέρσις Pérsis, a Hellenized form of Old Persian Parsa. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term Persian seems to have been first used in English in the mid-16th century. Native Persian speakers call it "Fārsi" (local name) or Parsi. Farsi is the arabicized form of Parsi, due to a lack of the /p/ phoneme in Standard Arabic. So as I said they are the same thing. So it's like saying Francaise or French, Cymraeg or Welsh. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 13:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I never said Persian is the right name, I just explained where they came from. My personal opinion is in fact the opposite. I support the Farsi camp. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 00:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The fact that most languages are known by their English name is a good point, but your initial point is incorrect. It would be more correct to say that Persian is from a Greek translation of Parsi (Farsi). As wikipedia talk pages aren't forums for general discusion, we should look at which one the UN recognises (the Persian gulf is correct partially because the UN recognises this but not the "Arabian gulf" or the "Gulf"). Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 14:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a problem with the official language on the right hand column. It states that the official language is "farsi". This is ironic since the article states itself that the language is Persian in the Language section. Moreoever, the wiki page on the Persian Language: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language#Local_names) notes that the Academy of Persian Language and Literature, the governing body that regulates the language, itself issued a statement saying that the correct ENGLISH name is Persian. Please have the right hand column language designation changed from Farsi to Persian please. 1 April 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikronium ( talk • contribs) 07:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
User:BehnamFarid wants to keep a set of external links at the bottom of the article. My "motivation" for removing the "Faces of Iran" link are covered by WP:External links#Restrictions_on_linking:
The uploader of the Youtube video that is linked to uses a large number of photos for which no source or licensing is given. Please do not readd it. Green Giant ( talk) 02:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The early modern era (changed due to a consencus on this talk page) has two Safavid images. They only ruled for 200 of the total of 500 years described in this section. I think a Qajar image would do. how about one relating to the constitutional revolution or an image of a king. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 23:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The Safavids are important. I'm not denying that; but it's not that important. We lost A lot of land during the Qajar period. Our current borders were formed the Qajar period. Nader Shah saved iran from permanent occupation. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 10:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Consensus for what? Sorry if I've done something wrong but I've forgotten. If your talking about the Achaemenid pic it's under "Another Image Question". I would also like to say that all of my history knowledge is not from my history books, but that book was nearest to me. I would also like to say that the Iranian history books (later years) are very informative. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 22:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I've changed my mind. the subsection is too small for two images so let's get rid of the map. It is wrong (see Safavid/Pahlavi pic discussion section) and there is nothing special about the map. We have about seven maps & satellite images. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 19:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Section language and literature should be revised heavily. We are not dealing with the Iranian languages in the region but with the languages of Iran. In addition only Persian literature is reffered too. A good article of Iran pays attention to all (larger) languages of Iran.-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 19:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Good point. fine with me. but delete some sentences on Persian. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 20:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The banknote image only shows the English side of the note. Could someone make one with both sides. I would do it but i'm not in Iran and my note is a bit tattered. Also generally add images of other banknotes for the rial article. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 20:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ardeshir. I think that those things were necessary, I had put some of those informations there myself because the anti-Iranianists are continuously abuse ambiguity in order to instigate ethnic and relkgious hatred and intra-state and interstate conflicts in the region. Also it is necessary that that The Safavid empire is explicitely is called an Iranian empire, at the moment The anti-Iranianists American and Israeli lobby are championing the idea that 1- Transcauacsus and republic of Azerbaijan were not Iranian 2- that Safavid empire was originated there and 3- They conquered Iran. They are violating the history. Unfortunately some obscure pseudo-scientists such as Brenda Shaffer and company are very eager to abuse these things.-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 08:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I have never heard of these claims! This might be due to my ignorance or lack of media coverage or something. But Wikipedia wasn't made to prove some cowboy anti-Iranians wrong. Why should Kurdish and Azeri be in the infobox when languages like Pashtu or Baluchi aren't mentioned. I don't think that when people come to learn about Iran they just read the captions. Also I have suggested that we delete that image because (As you pointed out) it is wrong and it hasn't any significance in Iran's history. Maybe the Qajar borders would be good or maybe a picture of a famous person like a king. Or maybe we should just delete it and not replace it. The section is short now (Thank god) and two images might be too much. Also you shouldn't sandwich text between two images. Why is Iran in the heart of the Persian gulf? This implies that 1. Iran can fit in the Persian Gulf 2.It is an Island in the Persian Gulf 3.It has no neighbours 4. It can't border any other body of water(as it's in the middle of one). Another thing is what heart? Geographical, Political, Cultural, Historical, Economical or Demographical. All points can be contested. I won't undo your edit until the matter is resolved. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 15:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
or maybe Jangali. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 23:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll change it now. I'll change the "Heart of the Persian Gulf" bit too. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 11:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Which picture? the one or just ? Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 11:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I have a question. should this article adopt American English or Proper English. I support the latter because US English is only mainly used in the US. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 15:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, should we use BC/AD or BCE/CE (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Longer_periods). I personally think AD/BC is better. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 15:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The article can't be a mix of AmEng and proper English. Issues such as US or U.S. depend on it. I think Brit English should be encouraged. I would also like to say that I will change all BCE/CE to BC/AD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardeshire Babakan ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
"Choose either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE system, but not both in the same article." Maybe you read this bit: "It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change". But there isn't a single style on this page. Some use AD and others use CE. I just changed the CE/BCE ones. We think it's better, Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 20:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it is important to mention territoal loss and the contemporary borders. Briefly the loss of Caucasus, Bahrain and Herat should be discussed. They both involved Imperial (Russian and British) envolvmenet and are still alive in the Iranian public mind as a major Trauma.-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 08:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
When I checked some territorial losses were mentioned, but not Bahrain, Herat and Caucasus. I don't think such details are important on the Iran page. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 20:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The loss is mentioned, but no details are given. Mentioning the loss is enough. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 16:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Iran did not lost jalf of its territory but less than than. It should be mentioned that Golestan and Turkmenchay meant loss of Iranian territories in the Caucasus (modern day Georgia, Armenia, republic of Azerbaijan, and Daghestan(. Akhal dealt with territories in Turkmenistan. Then Iran also lost Herat to the British. From this time The British intervened in Bahrain, but Iran lost it in 1971. These are important information. Mentioning territorial loss has not much value without mentioning its location. -- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 23:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not convinced and I have no more points to make. I'm not convinced so others must decide. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 18:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough! I would like to tell every wikipedian to check the details and if there are any concerns mention it! Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 21:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I personally support your changes, but we have to do these things democratically and properly. Otherwise we would be encouraging less established editors to change pages as they please. Let's start a discussion now. I am in favour for all of the above reasons and also because it is like the one on the Turkey (FA) page. I wanted to ask if the list of provinces next to it is necessary? Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 15:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
As no-one has objected to the new map then i will put it back in the article. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 18:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The links on the map are enough and a list of provinces isn't necessary. I'll get rid of the list now. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 19:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There are currently THREE Achaemenid image in the early statehood section and one sassanid image. What happened to the medians, greeks and parthians? i'm going to replace the lion image with a Parthian image. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 16:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Pejman47. Your image is more relevant, but I think that there are much more relevant Sassanid images than the Shapur bust. I'll search for some. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 20:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking it would be better if we merged Early History and Pre-Islamic statehood and title it Pre-Islamic history. "Statehood" seems like an inaccurate term, since there was no such thing as citizenship or a nation state until the modern era, at least we understand it today. - Rosywounds ( talk) 21:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Iranians generally agree that the Medians started the chain of Iranian dynasties, and other states were smaller and didn't merit a "State of Iran" but merited an "Iranian State". Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 16:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't make this political. they were states. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 16:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There are two pictures in the geography section showing green grass. As most of you know, Iran isn't like that. There are some places like that but it is 2/3 desert and 1/3 mountainous, but it is hard to find a picture of a desert in Iran. I think one should be deleted so I'll delete the fars one(the damavand one kills two birds with one stone). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardeshire Babakan ( talk • contribs) 16:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
>>> Iran is like that. Much grass, only central Iran is arid. North and West have much "grass". -- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 16:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
ok. to simplify it greatly, the Northwestern half of Iran is green and the south-eastern half is desert/mountains. I think one image full of greenery is enough.(forgive me for my unscientific terms but i can't be bothered to use them.) Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
In the pagge's infobox there is a unification section; but clearly, someone has made some mistakes. Someone has added the first constitution, Islamic revolution and the sassanid dynasty! These weren't unifications or even reunifications!The Parthian and Safavid dynasties are noted as reunifications but the section in the infobox is called Unification! Why does it say unified under Cyrus tG? In the text it says that the medians made the first emipre/state of iran. It should only have the Median dynasty. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 19:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Unification is very easy. The Median Empire unified Iran. It was kept untill the end of the sassanids. Even Alexander and Seleucides did not disintegrate Iran. In the middle ages the Iranian unity was lost and the safavids reunified it and it is still kept.-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 17:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the terms Unification and reunification as it is used here are not useful. It should be Established by the Median Empire and Restored or if you like unified by the Safavids. But we should keep in mind that the Safavids did not restore the Median or Achamenid Empire but the Sassanid Empire. their political system as well as the territories over which they ruled is virtually the same as the sasanid empire (proper)-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 17:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
So let's just mention the Medians and Safavids then. It feels strange. we're on at the same time doing the same thing! Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 17:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think Unification(I mean of Iran) is good enough for now. I don't think restoration is a good word here, but establishment seems better than unification, because if you say Iran was unified, it might mean Iran within it's current borders or historic borders or Iranian people or people of greater of iran or the unification of people who practice persian culture, but when you say Iran was established fewer questions are asked. You could say the Safavids Reestablished Iran (as a state) but restored suggests that they redid what was done in the median times. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 18:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Why not just copy Turkey's format... and please summarize the history section... overall this page is very shambly. lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micronie ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
We do generally look at other pages (which are featured) for guidance, but to copy another page is deeply immoral as we both undermine the work of the contributors of the Turkey page, and the work of people constantly improving the Iran page. There is also the fact that they are two different countries and to "Understand" Iran we may need to focus more on factors of Iran like the History and Culture sections, as all Iranians are proud of our history and culture. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 18:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'm getting you right but, but if by two different countries you mean the historical Persia and modern Iran, I suggest you divide the history topic into to subs 'historical Persia' and 'Modern Iran', that would help everyone "understand" the difference between the two. I checked a number of other page's, all of them have much shorter history topics (e.g. Greece, Egypt, Britain) except for china which doesn't even have an economy topic. There is too much detail right now, I believe there is a page dedicated to 'History of Iran' isn't there? I'm Iranian, But I don't feel the need to force-feed our culture and history to others. You really look at other page's? Featured pages look nothing like this one. Thank y'all anyway , I'm not even helping, I feel kind of guilty I'm just being whiny. I don't know how to sign by the way March 12th
I meant Turkey and Iran are different. I know how you feel about force-feeding people and many times I've been frustrated by this. But the page has improved a lot. If you look at older editions of the page you would see what we were dealing with. It felt like they were trying to convert people or something. The history section is big but people think it should remain big, and these people have demoralized people who want to shorten it; by reverting edits and expanding it.. It should be big but not as big as it is now. About three screen-fulls is about right.The Turkey history section is about this big. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 15:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. below the box thing where you write it says GFDL. go directly down and there are four wavy lines. click on that and save.
What could be comparable were Egypt and China, but those articles are not featured either. We are dealing here with Historic nations, so we should set different criteria with regard to the length of history section.-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 09:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect to Babakexorramdin but the history section is still a bit big. No one was Forced to shorten the article. Most people agreed that it was too big. Also, none of the information was lost as the information is already in their respective MAIN ARTICLES!!!!! Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 20:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
we Iranian wikipedians admitted to shortening only reluctantly, giving in to the demands of administrators hoping to elevate the article to the featured status. I do not know how many Iranian wikipedians were of this opinion. I was, and I know some. You can tyrace their discussion even in this talk page. -- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 10:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I am also an Iranian Wikipedian and I support shortening the whole page and I know other people who share my point of view. Stop implying that Wikipedia is wrong and a few proud editors are right. I am also proud but that doesn't affect my view on the issue. We don't have to force-feed and impose our history onto readers. If you want to expand Wikipedia's information on Iranian history PLEASE edit History of Iran. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 16:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that I am very important but maybe I act like it and I'm sorry if I do. The only thing I need to say is that main articles are there for a reason. I appreciate that you make your comments with no harm intended. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 11:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Very important, not important... too much drama! I'm a nobody here by that account, so what? The history section is way too big. there is a HISTORY OF IRAN article, designated to inform anyone who wants to study History of Iran! this is the Iran page. it should be balanced. Nobody said remove the history section but man o man that's biiiig! no offense but keeping it this way for the sake of a group of people's "pride" is both selfish and foolish. I have no say on this though. Just giving an observer's opinion. Micronie ( talk) 18:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right. It is big and we should shorten it to around the size of the Turkey history section. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 11:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a mistake at the very beginning of the paragraph, as it says that Reza Khan overthrew the Qajar dynasty and became the Shah in 1921. This is not the case.
He overthrew the Dynasty in 1921, and what was left was effectively a constitutional monarchy without a monarch. He was Head of the Army for four years, if I am not mistaken, and then he was made Minister of War in 1925 by the Majlis. At the end of 1925, the Majlis passed a bill declaring that the constitutional monarchy would remain, and the foundation for Reza Khan to become the Shah was laid. Early in 1926, he was made the first Shah of the Pahlavi dynasty, not in 1921 directly after the coup.
In fact, the Iran article and the Reza Khan article on wikipedia contradict themselves. The Reza Khan article is more accurate in stating that Reza Khan was made Shah in 1925.
Albi 217.201.108.108 ( talk) 11:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You are right-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 12:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The brief section on the main Iran page devoted to sports contains errors. The sentences explaining that Iran is the origin of polo and the youthful demographic aren't well written.
More importantly, the following blurb about football claims that Iran was a World Cup finalist three times, which is not true. As the Sports in Iran article states, they've qualified for the tournament three times, not reached the finals. There should probably also be a line break between the football paragraph and the details of Iran's mountains. Thanks.
SunMachine (
talk)
09:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Picture of a book is not very interesting by itself (btw what are those glasses doing there?)
Why not replace the book's picture with something else. Any opinion/idea? 69.116.243.83 ( talk) 14:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, what about this picture (from Timurid era) for a change?:
Dorood guys. Great job on this article, I am very proud of the great work here. Can you also give some attention to Persian people? That article is very poor right now and needs some improvement considering how important an ethnic group Persians have been and still are.
Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Iranica and Encyclopedia of Islam use the term Persian and it is has been the common name used by scholars and scholarly material. -- alidoostzadeh ( talk) 11:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Why my example of gender inequality (that male are only 30% of students) is frequently removed?
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Please read the discussion on US map color here. Basically, it says that red is not neutral for a map color. I suggest we change permanently Iran's map color from red to green (as it has always been). SSZ ( talk) 22:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I tried to change that once but my edit was undone. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 19:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The Major Cities section shouldn't contain a list of cities with information oon them. I'm going to rewrite it so it is the way it is supposed to be, i.e. in prose and mentioning about four or five cities not 8! Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 22:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
you said that Iran has no borders with Russia and Kazakhstan and that if we include them then we should also include other states (in the Souths). Dear friend, you should notice that the Caspian Sea in different than the Persian Gulf. Aside from the territorial waters Persian Gulf is an international body of water. Therefore Iran is separated by international waters from Oman and UAE. But Caspian see in not international waters. it is an internal sea (lake) and belongs to the litoral states. There is no agreement on the division of oil resources, but the internal sea character of it is not in doubt. Caspian sea is therefore can be seen as territory/condominium of the litoral states. Therefore Iran has borders with Kazakhstan and Russia but not with those Arab statelets you proposed.-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 08:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I am a hitorian/sociologist/ anthropologist, maybe I am not. Does not matter. I know what I am saying.-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 05:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The Islamic republic section should have more information about more recent history. I shall add MAJOR events up to 10 years ago. Please do not add anything insignificant which is mentioned before e.g. new sanctions. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 13:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The Iran page has reached a milestone in it's history. For the first time in years this article is now UNDER 100kb long. We shouldn't let our efforts go to waste and we should maintain it and even shorten it further.
I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the article, either by adding text, or removing non-POV, too dettailed, irrelevant or incorrect and non-factual text.
I also suggest that we merge the Safavid,Af... section with the Pahlavi era section. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 18:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Saddam's reasons for attacking Iran is described in great detail on this page, but they are not explained on the History of the Islamic Republic of Iran page. I thought that the main articles should be more detailed? I thought that sections with main articles are supposed to be more general?
Which pic would you prefer in the Geography section?
Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 14:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the latter; it seems more appropriate than a wildlife picture. Moreover, it shows snow and the mountains, which would help dispel myths that Iran is entirely desert. - Rosywounds ( talk) 21:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought that too. Wildlife isn't even mentioned in the section. I have seen at least two FA articles which have satellite images ( Japan & Canada) Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 15:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we have now addressed almost of Iran's problems(the article!;-)) and so I now nominate it for FA. I hope it is accepted. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 20:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Bold text
I have tried several times to merge the Sfavid, Afshar, Zand and Qajar period with the Pahlavi section. It is obvious that these two periods of Iranian history are connected. In both sections colonial powers influenced Iran greatly. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be merged. Both sections are relatively small. Also the other sections span over 1000,800 and 900 years and it seems odd if this section only has 400 years of Iran's history. If we merge these two sections it will span nearer to 500 years which makes it more balanced. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 21:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear All, I wish that the intention to nominate this entry for FA would have been announced publicly and clearly so that interested people would have had chance to comment on its contents and quality. Below I present some of my comments which as yet may be incorporated into the main text:
The above were my comments for the time being; I shall return if I have more to say. In the meantime you may ask that the reviewers put reviewing the entry on hold until further notice (i.e. until various shortcoming are corrected). With kind regards, --BF 22:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC).
Can I infer from this [11] that "urban settlement" is the new euphemism of civilization? -- Pejman47 ( talk) 20:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I counted at least 10 maps of Iran for the entire article. May be we can replace some with pictures? I also merged the military section with the paragraph about foreign relations as per other similar articles: See Japan (featured), USA and others.
I also moved the geography section up for same reason. See Iran on the French Wikipedia (featured). [12]
I remember that a while back someone re-organised the sections to the current form(i.e. Etymology, history,politics, geog, admin divisions etc.) and everyone thought it was a great edit. I don't think this change is the best change. But something could be done about the admin divisions and geography. Maybe a merge? Thank you for your enthusiasm and contribution. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 18:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if it's vaild at all to discuss Iran's contribution to science and technology relying on the example of Persian scientists who live and work outsied Iran, and who are probablly all of them citizens of Western countries. I think since the article is on Iran, it should stick to what's inside Iran. If you want to discuss the work of these scientists, I think it should be in a section on "Iranian Immigrants in the West", or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.69.1.21 ( talk) 17:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
We need to trim it further. We need to MOVE the rest to the main articles. I am not a "specialist" of the history section but I think we should give a clear mandate to those who are able in that field.
I think triming 30% of the section would be appropriate. NO INFORMATION WILL BE LOST (JUST MOVED TO THE MAIN SUB-ARTICLES).
Please state your approval or opposition below. Thanks.
Comment: Look at the Turkey page. The Iranian article needs to have something different to other articles; a WOW factor. It needs something to set it apart. I think we should have a history section slightly larger than the Turkey one. The politics could also be shortened a little. As some of you might have noticed I started a major one-man effort to shorten it and beat it down to a reasonable size and the article was under 100KB. But instead of maintaining it's small size the information came flooding back into the article. As I have done many times before, I will show my full support to shorten the article. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 17:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment:Iran is not a special little snowflake.-- mitrebox ( talk) 18:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I think it does need further trimming, particularly the Iran-Iraq war section. Turkey and Japan both provide excellent models for countries with very ancient histories. As I had stated prior, many of these FA class country articles do not have a huge amount of headers; I think we are capable of slowly transitioning towards a merger of all the history sections. It would make the section much more fluid. - Rosywounds ( talk) 18:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: No history section needs to be trimmed. History is a valuable part of the description of a country. To fully understand a country, you must know where the country came from and how it came to be in the present age. What is that saying, "You can't know where you are going until you know where you have been." Expansion and contraction, Turmoil and peace, all of these are a part of a country's history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryHawk ( talk • contribs) 00:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I quickly counted the number of images in the article and we have 42!!!!! The turkey page only has 24.
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-number of images on the iran(not featured) page!
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-number of Pakistan(featured) images
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-number of Turkey(featured) images
I will remove a few of them. I shall smite whoever stands in my way!(just kidding;-)) Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 18:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree here because generally more images is a good thing. Having more than enough is never a problem. Most articles have fewer images because people don't want to go through the hassle of copyright licenses and whatnot. This is an area where more is always better. - Rosywounds ( talk) 19:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I want to discuss the deletion of these images. Ideally SOME BUT NOT ALL of these should be deleted: Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 19:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Great idea; but I absolutely hate the Yakhchal/flower image and the mountain/grassland picture is misleading, so let's delete them anyway. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 15:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Which image is better?
They predate the Persians. Xenophon is a primary source, and you cannot use primary sources without violating Wikipedia policies on OR (since you are not a scholar and do not have the expertise to critique or analyze primary sources). Further, Xenophon wasn't alive when the first carpet ever was ever made, so its a weak example for this situation. Even more, the Greeks assumed all innovations by Easterners to be of Persian origin, since that was the ruling class. [13] History of carpet making is too obscure to be claimed by one group. The previous wording was so flowery I thought Mohammad Reza Pahlavi wrote it. - Rosywounds ( talk) 01:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with Iranian contributions to the art being mentioned. We can include that. I don't think we should definitively say that we KNOW that the Persians were the first to make them, though. The wording should also remain neutral if we wish to present it. - Rosywounds ( talk) 01:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Who thinks this [14] version of the safavid to IR history section is better than the current one? I do. There are two pictures of the safavid dynasty and two from the pahlavi era, but nothing else. But this one has one of the Qajar era too;which was one of the most important eras in modern iranian history. The picture of the Shah is a lot clearer too and it shows the Shah's close ties with the USA. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 17:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
What I mean is that we need a picture which shows something or someone in Iran's history from the Qajar era and I think the Naser Al-Din picture is a good picture. Babakexorramdin pointed out that the Safavid map is wrong. Should we remove it or leave it until it is updated? Is it better to have incomplete information or none at all? I don't know. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 16:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC) >>>> good question. Generally no info is better than wrong info. But in this case you can let it be here, untill it is updated, rather rapidly. In this article, maps and puictures should be sharp and strong, because we do not have much space in the text. -- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 19:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
In the tourism subsection it said that 1.8% of employment is generated from tourism. I wondered if tourism is important enough to have it's own subsection, so I moved all of the text to the Economy of Iran article and put a few sentences in the economy lead. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 12:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC) >>>>> Just note that its not all about income but about the attraction of this country. Interesting would be to mentiond that despite its potential there is not much foreign tourist, due to the bad name the western Media has created for the country, and give a link to Anti Iranianism.-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 08:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
OK. I think I can do that. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 11:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia's MOS it says that headings (and titles) should preferably be under ten words. One of the history titles violates this guideline and two other headings also contain a large number of words. All headings (except the Parthian and Sassanid empires) should be changed. I suggest we change the post Arab invasion to Iran under Islamic rule or Caliphate and Sultanate. The Safavid 'till revolution could be Early Modern Iran and the Pahlavi dynasty or Monarchist Modern Iran. I have no suggestions for the early history section. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 16:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC) >>> You can call that the early historic period or what I prefer the ancient and classical period.-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 08:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we could call it by that part of world history, like stone age or bronze age or antiquity or whenever it is(obviously this is not my strong point, but I will look it up). According to my dictionary statehood means The status of being a recognised independent nation, which Iran still is. Maybe ...and early statehood? Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 20:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I looked and it falls under the Bronze and Iron ages and early antiquity, but the antiquty period focuses more on Greece and Rome. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 21:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what consilodation means. Maybe Inauguration of Iranian statehood, but I'm not sure it is the best word. If only we could shorten it, merge it with the next subsection (Parthia and Sassanids) and name it pre Islamic period or something!
I just had a thought! How about we merge the Median and Achaemenid pat with the Sassanid and Parthian section and call it Pre Islamic Statehood, and leave the Pre-median stuff in it's own subsection (Early History). I think this is a good idea because with the statehood of Iran a new era of Iranian history started. I think it is also important that if we do this that we don't add any text to the section. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 15:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the English lesson;-)! I'll now edit the history section. What do you think about the other headings? Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Relating to the Safavid until IR, it could be early modern era, but I think the Pahlavi era is more recent than early modern. But I can't think of anything better. pre-Islamic statehood is good enough and no Iranian is necessary. The rest is good. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 23:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
As for the Islamic era, use the early Islamic era, or medieval times. Then use as islamic era Iranian empires. What I opt for is> a section from the Safavid untill end of Qajar and call it the early modern period, and then from Pahlavi till now we call it the later modern period or just modern era Iran. -- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 21:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, I also thought of the latter, but I dismissed it due to doubts on their similarities and also people's opinion. I think that the Pahlavi era is similar equally to the IR and the Qajar dynasty. It was similar as it was in the same political world as the IR is now (e.g. American supremacy) but it was also greatly influenced and corrupted by western powers, like the Qajars were. I think to make things simpler we should put it with the IR section. With this move the Safavid Qajar section would have very little text and we should keep it that way! Many have talked about the History section's massive size. If we do this change we must keep the sections which loose text short and shorten the sections which have become larger. With this and a few reference and grammatical changes we could achieve the FA. I disagree with the initial suggestion about the Post islamic thing. Iran is still n Islamic country. I'm not sure if all of that part is medieval, but if it does I'm for it. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 00:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Middle Ages it is! Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 10:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed a minor error on the page for Iran. The description of the country lists the official language of Iran as Persian. Persian is not exactly the official language of the Iranians. The actual official language of Iran is called Farsi, a semitic language very similar to Arabic and Hebrew. In fact Farsi takes many letters from the Arabic language into it's own. There are a few letters in Farsi that are not in Arabic, setting it a little apart from Arabic. I just thought that this should be clarified. Although the country is not a particular favorite of mine, it's culture deserves a little respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryHawk ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Contrary to common belief, it is not a Semitic language. Persian belongs to the Western group of the Iranian languages branch of the Indo-European language family. Being a speaker myself I know that it was heavily influenced by Arabic due to the Arab Conquest of Iran (Persia), but the original words are Aryan. Farsi shares many words or words with the same origin with other Indo-European languages like English e.g. Bad, Madar/Mother etc. An argument has been going on for a while on Wikipedia and also in the International community; Persia or Iran?, Persian or Farsi? They are basicly the same language. Persian, the more widely used name of the language in English, is an Anglicized form derived from Latin Persianus < Latin Persia < Greek Πέρσις Pérsis, a Hellenized form of Old Persian Parsa. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term Persian seems to have been first used in English in the mid-16th century. Native Persian speakers call it "Fārsi" (local name) or Parsi. Farsi is the arabicized form of Parsi, due to a lack of the /p/ phoneme in Standard Arabic. So as I said they are the same thing. So it's like saying Francaise or French, Cymraeg or Welsh. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 13:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I never said Persian is the right name, I just explained where they came from. My personal opinion is in fact the opposite. I support the Farsi camp. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 00:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The fact that most languages are known by their English name is a good point, but your initial point is incorrect. It would be more correct to say that Persian is from a Greek translation of Parsi (Farsi). As wikipedia talk pages aren't forums for general discusion, we should look at which one the UN recognises (the Persian gulf is correct partially because the UN recognises this but not the "Arabian gulf" or the "Gulf"). Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 14:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a problem with the official language on the right hand column. It states that the official language is "farsi". This is ironic since the article states itself that the language is Persian in the Language section. Moreoever, the wiki page on the Persian Language: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language#Local_names) notes that the Academy of Persian Language and Literature, the governing body that regulates the language, itself issued a statement saying that the correct ENGLISH name is Persian. Please have the right hand column language designation changed from Farsi to Persian please. 1 April 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikronium ( talk • contribs) 07:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
User:BehnamFarid wants to keep a set of external links at the bottom of the article. My "motivation" for removing the "Faces of Iran" link are covered by WP:External links#Restrictions_on_linking:
The uploader of the Youtube video that is linked to uses a large number of photos for which no source or licensing is given. Please do not readd it. Green Giant ( talk) 02:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The early modern era (changed due to a consencus on this talk page) has two Safavid images. They only ruled for 200 of the total of 500 years described in this section. I think a Qajar image would do. how about one relating to the constitutional revolution or an image of a king. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 23:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The Safavids are important. I'm not denying that; but it's not that important. We lost A lot of land during the Qajar period. Our current borders were formed the Qajar period. Nader Shah saved iran from permanent occupation. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 10:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Consensus for what? Sorry if I've done something wrong but I've forgotten. If your talking about the Achaemenid pic it's under "Another Image Question". I would also like to say that all of my history knowledge is not from my history books, but that book was nearest to me. I would also like to say that the Iranian history books (later years) are very informative. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 22:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I've changed my mind. the subsection is too small for two images so let's get rid of the map. It is wrong (see Safavid/Pahlavi pic discussion section) and there is nothing special about the map. We have about seven maps & satellite images. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 19:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Section language and literature should be revised heavily. We are not dealing with the Iranian languages in the region but with the languages of Iran. In addition only Persian literature is reffered too. A good article of Iran pays attention to all (larger) languages of Iran.-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 19:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Good point. fine with me. but delete some sentences on Persian. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 20:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The banknote image only shows the English side of the note. Could someone make one with both sides. I would do it but i'm not in Iran and my note is a bit tattered. Also generally add images of other banknotes for the rial article. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 20:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ardeshir. I think that those things were necessary, I had put some of those informations there myself because the anti-Iranianists are continuously abuse ambiguity in order to instigate ethnic and relkgious hatred and intra-state and interstate conflicts in the region. Also it is necessary that that The Safavid empire is explicitely is called an Iranian empire, at the moment The anti-Iranianists American and Israeli lobby are championing the idea that 1- Transcauacsus and republic of Azerbaijan were not Iranian 2- that Safavid empire was originated there and 3- They conquered Iran. They are violating the history. Unfortunately some obscure pseudo-scientists such as Brenda Shaffer and company are very eager to abuse these things.-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 08:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I have never heard of these claims! This might be due to my ignorance or lack of media coverage or something. But Wikipedia wasn't made to prove some cowboy anti-Iranians wrong. Why should Kurdish and Azeri be in the infobox when languages like Pashtu or Baluchi aren't mentioned. I don't think that when people come to learn about Iran they just read the captions. Also I have suggested that we delete that image because (As you pointed out) it is wrong and it hasn't any significance in Iran's history. Maybe the Qajar borders would be good or maybe a picture of a famous person like a king. Or maybe we should just delete it and not replace it. The section is short now (Thank god) and two images might be too much. Also you shouldn't sandwich text between two images. Why is Iran in the heart of the Persian gulf? This implies that 1. Iran can fit in the Persian Gulf 2.It is an Island in the Persian Gulf 3.It has no neighbours 4. It can't border any other body of water(as it's in the middle of one). Another thing is what heart? Geographical, Political, Cultural, Historical, Economical or Demographical. All points can be contested. I won't undo your edit until the matter is resolved. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 15:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
or maybe Jangali. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 23:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll change it now. I'll change the "Heart of the Persian Gulf" bit too. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 11:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Which picture? the one or just ? Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 11:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I have a question. should this article adopt American English or Proper English. I support the latter because US English is only mainly used in the US. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 15:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, should we use BC/AD or BCE/CE (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Longer_periods). I personally think AD/BC is better. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 15:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The article can't be a mix of AmEng and proper English. Issues such as US or U.S. depend on it. I think Brit English should be encouraged. I would also like to say that I will change all BCE/CE to BC/AD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardeshire Babakan ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
"Choose either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE system, but not both in the same article." Maybe you read this bit: "It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change". But there isn't a single style on this page. Some use AD and others use CE. I just changed the CE/BCE ones. We think it's better, Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 20:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it is important to mention territoal loss and the contemporary borders. Briefly the loss of Caucasus, Bahrain and Herat should be discussed. They both involved Imperial (Russian and British) envolvmenet and are still alive in the Iranian public mind as a major Trauma.-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 08:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
When I checked some territorial losses were mentioned, but not Bahrain, Herat and Caucasus. I don't think such details are important on the Iran page. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 20:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The loss is mentioned, but no details are given. Mentioning the loss is enough. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 16:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Iran did not lost jalf of its territory but less than than. It should be mentioned that Golestan and Turkmenchay meant loss of Iranian territories in the Caucasus (modern day Georgia, Armenia, republic of Azerbaijan, and Daghestan(. Akhal dealt with territories in Turkmenistan. Then Iran also lost Herat to the British. From this time The British intervened in Bahrain, but Iran lost it in 1971. These are important information. Mentioning territorial loss has not much value without mentioning its location. -- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 23:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not convinced and I have no more points to make. I'm not convinced so others must decide. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 18:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough! I would like to tell every wikipedian to check the details and if there are any concerns mention it! Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 21:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I personally support your changes, but we have to do these things democratically and properly. Otherwise we would be encouraging less established editors to change pages as they please. Let's start a discussion now. I am in favour for all of the above reasons and also because it is like the one on the Turkey (FA) page. I wanted to ask if the list of provinces next to it is necessary? Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 15:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
As no-one has objected to the new map then i will put it back in the article. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 18:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The links on the map are enough and a list of provinces isn't necessary. I'll get rid of the list now. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 19:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There are currently THREE Achaemenid image in the early statehood section and one sassanid image. What happened to the medians, greeks and parthians? i'm going to replace the lion image with a Parthian image. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 16:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Pejman47. Your image is more relevant, but I think that there are much more relevant Sassanid images than the Shapur bust. I'll search for some. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 20:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking it would be better if we merged Early History and Pre-Islamic statehood and title it Pre-Islamic history. "Statehood" seems like an inaccurate term, since there was no such thing as citizenship or a nation state until the modern era, at least we understand it today. - Rosywounds ( talk) 21:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Iranians generally agree that the Medians started the chain of Iranian dynasties, and other states were smaller and didn't merit a "State of Iran" but merited an "Iranian State". Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 16:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't make this political. they were states. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 16:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There are two pictures in the geography section showing green grass. As most of you know, Iran isn't like that. There are some places like that but it is 2/3 desert and 1/3 mountainous, but it is hard to find a picture of a desert in Iran. I think one should be deleted so I'll delete the fars one(the damavand one kills two birds with one stone). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardeshire Babakan ( talk • contribs) 16:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
>>> Iran is like that. Much grass, only central Iran is arid. North and West have much "grass". -- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 16:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
ok. to simplify it greatly, the Northwestern half of Iran is green and the south-eastern half is desert/mountains. I think one image full of greenery is enough.(forgive me for my unscientific terms but i can't be bothered to use them.) Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
In the pagge's infobox there is a unification section; but clearly, someone has made some mistakes. Someone has added the first constitution, Islamic revolution and the sassanid dynasty! These weren't unifications or even reunifications!The Parthian and Safavid dynasties are noted as reunifications but the section in the infobox is called Unification! Why does it say unified under Cyrus tG? In the text it says that the medians made the first emipre/state of iran. It should only have the Median dynasty. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 19:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Unification is very easy. The Median Empire unified Iran. It was kept untill the end of the sassanids. Even Alexander and Seleucides did not disintegrate Iran. In the middle ages the Iranian unity was lost and the safavids reunified it and it is still kept.-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 17:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the terms Unification and reunification as it is used here are not useful. It should be Established by the Median Empire and Restored or if you like unified by the Safavids. But we should keep in mind that the Safavids did not restore the Median or Achamenid Empire but the Sassanid Empire. their political system as well as the territories over which they ruled is virtually the same as the sasanid empire (proper)-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 17:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
So let's just mention the Medians and Safavids then. It feels strange. we're on at the same time doing the same thing! Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 17:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think Unification(I mean of Iran) is good enough for now. I don't think restoration is a good word here, but establishment seems better than unification, because if you say Iran was unified, it might mean Iran within it's current borders or historic borders or Iranian people or people of greater of iran or the unification of people who practice persian culture, but when you say Iran was established fewer questions are asked. You could say the Safavids Reestablished Iran (as a state) but restored suggests that they redid what was done in the median times. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 18:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Why not just copy Turkey's format... and please summarize the history section... overall this page is very shambly. lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micronie ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
We do generally look at other pages (which are featured) for guidance, but to copy another page is deeply immoral as we both undermine the work of the contributors of the Turkey page, and the work of people constantly improving the Iran page. There is also the fact that they are two different countries and to "Understand" Iran we may need to focus more on factors of Iran like the History and Culture sections, as all Iranians are proud of our history and culture. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 18:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'm getting you right but, but if by two different countries you mean the historical Persia and modern Iran, I suggest you divide the history topic into to subs 'historical Persia' and 'Modern Iran', that would help everyone "understand" the difference between the two. I checked a number of other page's, all of them have much shorter history topics (e.g. Greece, Egypt, Britain) except for china which doesn't even have an economy topic. There is too much detail right now, I believe there is a page dedicated to 'History of Iran' isn't there? I'm Iranian, But I don't feel the need to force-feed our culture and history to others. You really look at other page's? Featured pages look nothing like this one. Thank y'all anyway , I'm not even helping, I feel kind of guilty I'm just being whiny. I don't know how to sign by the way March 12th
I meant Turkey and Iran are different. I know how you feel about force-feeding people and many times I've been frustrated by this. But the page has improved a lot. If you look at older editions of the page you would see what we were dealing with. It felt like they were trying to convert people or something. The history section is big but people think it should remain big, and these people have demoralized people who want to shorten it; by reverting edits and expanding it.. It should be big but not as big as it is now. About three screen-fulls is about right.The Turkey history section is about this big. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 15:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. below the box thing where you write it says GFDL. go directly down and there are four wavy lines. click on that and save.
What could be comparable were Egypt and China, but those articles are not featured either. We are dealing here with Historic nations, so we should set different criteria with regard to the length of history section.-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 09:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect to Babakexorramdin but the history section is still a bit big. No one was Forced to shorten the article. Most people agreed that it was too big. Also, none of the information was lost as the information is already in their respective MAIN ARTICLES!!!!! Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 20:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
we Iranian wikipedians admitted to shortening only reluctantly, giving in to the demands of administrators hoping to elevate the article to the featured status. I do not know how many Iranian wikipedians were of this opinion. I was, and I know some. You can tyrace their discussion even in this talk page. -- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 10:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I am also an Iranian Wikipedian and I support shortening the whole page and I know other people who share my point of view. Stop implying that Wikipedia is wrong and a few proud editors are right. I am also proud but that doesn't affect my view on the issue. We don't have to force-feed and impose our history onto readers. If you want to expand Wikipedia's information on Iranian history PLEASE edit History of Iran. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 16:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that I am very important but maybe I act like it and I'm sorry if I do. The only thing I need to say is that main articles are there for a reason. I appreciate that you make your comments with no harm intended. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 11:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Very important, not important... too much drama! I'm a nobody here by that account, so what? The history section is way too big. there is a HISTORY OF IRAN article, designated to inform anyone who wants to study History of Iran! this is the Iran page. it should be balanced. Nobody said remove the history section but man o man that's biiiig! no offense but keeping it this way for the sake of a group of people's "pride" is both selfish and foolish. I have no say on this though. Just giving an observer's opinion. Micronie ( talk) 18:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right. It is big and we should shorten it to around the size of the Turkey history section. Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 11:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a mistake at the very beginning of the paragraph, as it says that Reza Khan overthrew the Qajar dynasty and became the Shah in 1921. This is not the case.
He overthrew the Dynasty in 1921, and what was left was effectively a constitutional monarchy without a monarch. He was Head of the Army for four years, if I am not mistaken, and then he was made Minister of War in 1925 by the Majlis. At the end of 1925, the Majlis passed a bill declaring that the constitutional monarchy would remain, and the foundation for Reza Khan to become the Shah was laid. Early in 1926, he was made the first Shah of the Pahlavi dynasty, not in 1921 directly after the coup.
In fact, the Iran article and the Reza Khan article on wikipedia contradict themselves. The Reza Khan article is more accurate in stating that Reza Khan was made Shah in 1925.
Albi 217.201.108.108 ( talk) 11:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You are right-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 12:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The brief section on the main Iran page devoted to sports contains errors. The sentences explaining that Iran is the origin of polo and the youthful demographic aren't well written.
More importantly, the following blurb about football claims that Iran was a World Cup finalist three times, which is not true. As the Sports in Iran article states, they've qualified for the tournament three times, not reached the finals. There should probably also be a line break between the football paragraph and the details of Iran's mountains. Thanks.
SunMachine (
talk)
09:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Picture of a book is not very interesting by itself (btw what are those glasses doing there?)
Why not replace the book's picture with something else. Any opinion/idea? 69.116.243.83 ( talk) 14:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, what about this picture (from Timurid era) for a change?:
Dorood guys. Great job on this article, I am very proud of the great work here. Can you also give some attention to Persian people? That article is very poor right now and needs some improvement considering how important an ethnic group Persians have been and still are.
Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Iranica and Encyclopedia of Islam use the term Persian and it is has been the common name used by scholars and scholarly material. -- alidoostzadeh ( talk) 11:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Why my example of gender inequality (that male are only 30% of students) is frequently removed?