Talk:Greater Iran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greater Iran article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
WikiProject Iran Greater Iran is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] Greater Iran = Pan-Iranism??

look this site: http://www.pan-iranism.com

i think greater iran is the same as pan-iranism, thats right?

There can be differences. One is political and/or an activist movement. The other is merely a designation of something past and gone. The article mentions the "cultural continent" aspect of it in fine detail. So they do overlap in many ways, but theyre not the same.--Zereshk 01:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Important Article

The term, "Greater Iran" has always been recognized and respected by scholars and historians. Greater Iran is the area where the Persian culture to this day still dominates. This article must be kept intact and expanded on. As it is a different issue than "Iranian Langauges" this article must remain.

I suggest delete for this article. It is not a recognized term in the context of cultural background as the article claims. Google search brings up 14 sources, out of which:

[4], [5], [6] .

  • These three (about Iranian languages) do not contain the exact phrase [7], [8], [9]. (they appear in the search probably because they contain the line, Continent of orgin right after Branch: Iranian)
  • The only ones using the term in cultural sense are [10] (religious personal weblog), and [11](cinema) which are not academic sources.
  • This one also does not contain the exact phrase[12].
  • The last two sources are from Wikipedia, without evidence: [13], [14].

So out of 14 sources, 6 are geological, 4 do not contain the exact phrase, 2 from Wikipedia, and 2 are not academic (one about cinema, and one some religious stuff). Hence I strongly recommend to delete this article due to lack of evidence, or it can be re-written in the context of geology. Heja Helweda 18:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanx. But I added sources, none of which you mentioned. In fact, we should move the title of the page to "Greater Iran" as it correctly should be.--Zereshk 21:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The sources mention Greater Iran which makes more sense. I suggest changing the name of the article to Greater Iran.Heja Helweda 01:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree.--Zereshk 01:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree Diyako Talk + 02:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that the term Greater Iran' refers to Afghanistan, Iran/Persia and Tajikistan [15]. It does not cover Kurdish areas of Iraq and Turkey, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Caucasus and China. Remove those areas please.Heja Helweda 03:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I dont think the sources agree with you. Like I said, youre free to add opposing evidence. But you will not remove anything that is documented.--Zereshk 03:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Where is the evidence for China and Pakistan and Uzbekistan being categorized under Greater Iran?Heja Helweda 03:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
It says it here.--Zereshk 03:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
That isnot a history reference, rather an online news website. Provide neutral academic sources please.Heja Helweda 04:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
You do not have the authority to judge sources. That is a violation of Wikipedia laws.
When you are talking about history, you have to bring evidence from established academic sources, not newspapers!Heja Helweda 05:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Not really. Wikipedia's stated policy says: "Editors are not expected to verify, for example, whether the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research."--Zereshk 00:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
So Heja, do you honestly expect me to believe you that you dont hate Persians? You very well know that every mosque in Samarqand and Bukhara has a Persian name and is adorned with Persian poetry. Im sure you know that Rudaki and numerous other poets were from what is today called Uzbekistan. And that where "Iran-veij" was. And the Samanids. And that there are Tajiks in China. The more you push. The more we will push back.--Zereshk 04:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I amnot disputing the fact that Rudaki was persian or he lived in Mavara-ol-nahr. But I am saying is there any evidence that those areas are/were categorized under the term Greater Iran?.Heja Helweda 05:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
What do you think "Greater Iran" means heja? It means an "Iran" that transcends its current boundaries. Now either you agree that the Iranian lands were spread out far and wide in antiquity, or you dont. Because if you dont, you are denying history one more time, and wasting my time. Maybe Afrasyab is not a Persian city name in Uzbekistan. Maybe "Shah e zendeh", "Goor e Amir", "Madreseh ye Bibi", ...are not Persian names in Uzbekistan. Maybe theyre Martian.--Zereshk 05:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
And besides Heja, youre wasting my fuckin time, and Im pretty pissed about it, because I know youre doing this deliberately. Go read the damn book by Frye. The book's fuckin title is "Greater Iran" for crying out loud. He talks about all Central Asian territories from top to bottom.--Zereshk 05:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear all, I started this page based on encyclopedia iranica. The original title of the article was :Iranian cultural continent or Iranian continent. This is an academic term used by the encyclopedia which is by now the highest ranking Iranology project. Please contact Pejman Akbarzadeh or any other associates of the encyclopedia if you have any question. --Mensen09:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanx for the info.--Zereshk 00:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


This is totally racist article. Where did you get that Uzbekistan is part of Iranian culture. If you read the history, Uzbekistan is not birthplace of Persian but also many Turkic empires. Guri-Amir, Shahe-Zinda are Persian names???Do you ever know that Uzbek languages 60% words are Persin and Arabian origin!!! Secondly, Samarkand and Bukhara were capitals of every empire.Not only persians. If you think Khwarezma and Sogdiana are Iranian states or cultures then your mind in very big trouble. You don't know anything about these ancient states and culture.... You dont have blood of Khwarezmians and Sogdians. Modern Uzbeks and Tajiks have preserved some cultural and linguistic characteristics of those states. If you dont know who are Uzbeks or Tajiks, dont write such boolshet. Don't claim for our zamin, Central Asia is not waiting for you.

"Gur-i-Amir" and "Shahe-Zinda" are not Arabic nor Turkish phrases. They are Persian. And by the way, the Tajiks are Persian. That's why BBC's website for Tajikis is in Persian: [16]. And if you still dont believe, try asking Tajik editors themselves on Wikipedia. --> User:Tajik.Peace. --Zereshk 02:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Native name

Are you sure it's In Persian Iran-e boziorg or Iran-e Bozorgtar? I think in Iran th term Iran-e Bozorg refers to the same current Iran.Diyako Talk + 20:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Iran e Bozorg is correct. Even the Farsi Wikipedia mentions this.--Zereshk 04:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If in Iranica it is referred to as "Iranian continent", then perhaps we should rename it back to that, as it is the most authorative academic source on the matter --Kash 00:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illegal activities

User:Diyako has proposed this article for deletion without mentioning it on this talk page: [17]

Things like this are not acceptable on Wikipedia.--Zereshk 00:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Map

We need a map, like the other articles have (e.g. Greater Israel or Greater Syria of Greater Austria).--Zereshk 04:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll be on it :) --Kash 21:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Greater" 's

Do any of the "Greater" regions listed in the "See also" section actually have any connection to Greater Iran besides in name? If not, they need to be removed. --InShaneee 22:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There is an obvious connection. "Greater Iran" is not the only irredentist article of WP. The very presence of these links absolves the article of "Persian nationalist editing" accusations, which was used as a reason to try and delete the article.
In other words, they are just there to help with your argument with another user, and don't actually add anything to the article about Greater Iran itself. I'm going to remove them, unless that's really not the case. --InShaneee 03:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, they are related. Like "Greater Iran", they are similar "Greater" nation entities. I oppose removing them unless a list or article is made for them.--Zereshk 14:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Instead, I propose we make a list of such "Greater" states, and list them all there, or make a category for them, and list them in the category, and then take off the links from this article. But not all of them. Some will have to stay as they are directly related to Iran, such as Greater Khorasan or Greater Mongolia.--Zereshk 00:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] map

Great article but I am not really in favor of the maps, especially the second one, it does not look like the Greater Iran to me but simply a map of Persian Empire. That is not what greater Iran means. Here we have countries that were never part of Iran/greater Iran; rather they were occupied by the Iranian army. I think the map gives the wrong idea. It might make some readers think that by Greater Iran we simply mean the land that were once under the rule of Iranian leaders. I suggest removing it.

Gol 07:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That map is temporary of course. We'll replace it.--Zereshk 21:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Iranian nations?

An article, Iranian nations was nominated for deletion. The article was not deleted, but it has been suggested that it be merged here. The AFD discussion for that article has been archived here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greater Iran

National Geographic talks about this concept as do a lot of European institutions. Can anyone find any sources? 69.196.139.250 05:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article should be deleted, it promotes an ultranationalistic new term.

The idea of “Greater Iran”, was first promoted by the Pan-Iranist ultra-nationalist party of Pahlavi (mid 1940s). This was natural extension of Nazi ideology that caused abdication of the Reza Shah, following his support for Nazi Germany. Non of authoritative sources would entertain this idea as a serious subject. Till 14th century there was no real country or region called Iran. The name Iran was mentioned in Persian epic of Shahnameh as a mythical country along with anther mythical country called Turan. Safavids dynasty, in trying to build an empire used these and other elements such as Shiat religious sects to make a unify nation made of Persians, Turks, Kurds, Arabs, Turkmen, Baluch, Armenians to name few.

It is sad to see that few ultra right nationalist, in trying to promote their political view, soil the good character of all Iranians as some Arian loving racists.

As an Iranian, I support deletion of this article, or at least changing the content to a brief presentation of the short history for this term.

md 12:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the first part of your argument, I'm afraid you are wrong, my friend. Pan-Iranist ideology came about before Reza Shah came to power (early 1920s), and he was not supportive of it, nor did he have anything to do with the development of the ideology. If you want the story behind the early years of Pan-Iranism and how it came to be, you should read the book Hezbe Pan Iranist by Ali Kabar Razmjoo. Pan-Iranism is a nationalist ideology, but it is not "ultra-nationalist" nor is it racist.
I believe you are thinking of a different group, the Kabud Party, which was actually modeled after the National Socialist (Nazi) German Workers Party of Germany and dissolved after the fall of the Third Reich. This party had literally no connection to Pan-Iranism or any Pan-Iranist groups (which weren't formed until after WW2). And aside from a number of Iranian military officers in the Kabud Party (no intellectuals or academics or politicians were members), there was no tacit government approval of the party's ideology. It was very much an unpopular group with a small membership.
There is a book which you might be interested in, entitled [18], entitled Blood & Oil, which explains clearly why Reza Shah's government became close with Nazi Germany (trade-wise, Iran remained neutral when WW2 broke out). It also has some interesting accounts of how Reza Shah's government, along with the Persian Jewish community in Paris, helped save French Jews from being sent to the gas chambers. SouthernComfort 02:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not really

Image:Zora says Iran did not exist--The Persians.jpg
From the book: "The Persians", by Gene R. Garthwaite, 2005
  • Mehrdad says: "There was no region called Iran before the 14th century."
I dont think so. See this scan I made.--Zereshk 22:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
What you say is true, but the source is only taling about Persians. I don't think Kurds, Afghans, or people in Pakistan have ever called their land Iran. The article might have to be re-written to make sure this is a historical term, not a political one. But I have to get a copy of your source first. AucamanTalk 02:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Those ethnicities called their land Iran when they were part of Iran, unless you can prove otherwise. --ManiF 08:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
No you're saying they called their land Iran so you have to prove it. I'm not claiming anything here. AucamanTalk 11:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Your are making claims that "the source is only taling about Persians" and the other ethnicities may not have called the land Iran. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you. We have already provided evidence that the land was called Iran. --ManiF 12:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)



Please don't put things I haven't said in quotes and make it sound like I've said them. This is extremely inappropriate. AucamanTalk/e 12:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I quoted your EXACT words [19]: ...the source is only taling about Persians. --ManiF 13:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay there's nothing to prove here. The source is talking about Persians of course. It says the Sassanids used the term Iranshahr. It doesn't even talk about Afghans or Kurds or anyone else. AucamanTalk/e 13:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, those are merly your assumptions, the source says the land was called Iran by several ruling dynasties of Iran. Any other conclusion would have to be supported by direct quotes from authoritative sources. --ManiF 13:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
It's my assumption that the source is talking about the Sassanids and the Achaemenids? Just read it yourself. This is the end of out discussion here. I'm going to get a copy of the source provided in the article and see how it defines the term "Greater Iran". We can then discuss the differences (if any). Right now I'm not challenging anything. AucamanTalk/e 13:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Fair enough. I made some slight changes from "persian" into "Iranian" in the text to accomodate Aucaman's objection.--Zereshk 23:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Please pay attention that due to historical reasons, what we (within the country) call Iran, has been in the west referred to as Persia for a very long time, and likewise the people were mistakenly called Persian, where in fact Iranian was meant. In reading books by western authors one has to be very careful as to what meaning of Persia/Persian is meant. Sometimes it specifically talks about Persians (as opposed to Mededs, for example, or Azaris, in modern times), and sometimes it is just a sloppy substitution for the term Iran/Iranian which includes all of these people. In that sense, many times you see the word Persian in a situation where actually Kurds and Lurs and the others are included. It might be considered a misnoming, but it is still common practice. Unfortunately things are usually not very standardized. Shervink 15:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)shervink


I would like to attract your attentions to the scanned page of the book "The Persians", by Gene R. Garthwaite who Zereshk loaded to this discussion page. Just beneath the bright red outline and a line before that it mentions "Interestingly Achaemenians appear not to have had a general designation for the whole ... empire" (can't read the doted word or two. Part of the text cleverly covered by the bright colour as it was not helping Zereshk's argument. This text proves that the name Iran was not used to designate a real country or empire before at the time Achaemenians. Now regarding the Sasanians this text is an evidence that the term Iran , same as Persian, is a Greek (3rd century BC) term "The designation Iran was used by the Greek historian, Erastothens " and not a name given by natives of the land. "Sasanians however called core of their empire Iranshahr" then the writer translates the "shahr" to "empire", where as this is more like the extension of the same Greek word designating a city as "city of Iran". The word shahr ("city" in modern Farsi) has no affinity with the word "Emperaturiامپراطوری " a word derived from Latin. md 17:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the Iranian Cultural Continent, not Iran. We have an article for your polemic. It is: Iran naming dispute. We can discuss this matter there. Khosh Keisin.--Zereshk 21:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


Well Iranian Cultural Continent souds like a proper name for this article then, why not call it so. Zereshk, I would like to know your openion on Garthwaite caliming that Achaemenians did not have a designation for all their empire and consider it collection of regions. md 08:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I think Garthwaite's claim is valid. But I dont think it's relevant here. You claimed: "There was no region called Iran before the 14th century". And that's not right.--Zereshk 00:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia Iranica

Somebody here said that they had seen Encyclopedia Iranica talk about the "Iranian cultural continent". Could that person please provide me reference so I can also see that source? Thanx again.--Zereshk 00:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Afghans or any other country east of iran is NOT "Persian" by either race, culture, or linguistically this is a Iranian person who is writing these baseless nonsense. Note that there are Iranians taht write the history books now, we should not believe everything that is said.

[edit] Western Persian Gulf Coast

Was this area also a part of Iran Zamin (Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, North Oman, Bahrain, Saudi coast, etc...)? Even today, many can trace their roots back to Iranians and specifically Persians (Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, northern Oman, and even in Yemen).Khosrow II 00:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afghanistan defeated Persia

I find it very offensive that my country Afghanistan is included in the map of Greater Iran...as we are not Iranians or Persians. Although we have minority ethnic Tajiks, some of whom claim they are Persian decendants. The over all majority Pashtuns are not Persians or Iranians. We Afghans (Pashtuns) defeated Persian empire several times in the past. In fact, we Afghans even ruled Iran in 1722 for over 10 years (see. Hotaki Dynasty). The last time we defeated Persia was in 1800s, with the help of Britian. I am not racist against anyone but I think Iranians are getting carried away with this Greater Iran stuff. We Afghans lived in Afghanistan for ages and we have a much longer history than Iran or former Persia...type on your search engine Excavation of pre-historic sites suggest that early humans lived in Afghanistan at least 50,000 years ago and see how many hits you get. Or better yet, click on this LINK NisarKand 13:01, 25 October 2006

... no comment. Sometimes, words are simply not enough to educate people. NisarKand is such a hopeless person. But, hey ... this one is just for you:
  • Prehistoric archaological findings in Iran, dating back to 100,000 BC: [20] Even the Encyclopaedia Britannica states:
  • "... Enigmatic evidence of human presence on the Iranian plateau as early as Lower Paleolithic times comes from a surface find in the Bakhtaran valley. The first well-documented evidence of human habitation is in deposits from several excavated cave and rock-shelter sites, located mainly in the Zagros Mountains of western Iran and dated to Middle Paleolithic ..." [21]
NisarKand, you are just uneducated and annoying!
Tājik 23:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Tajik. Nisarkhand, I suggest you do some research before making edits/comments like this.Khosrow II 23:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afghanistan was ruled by Persia for most of it's history

Afghans speak a Persian dialect...you do not have your own language. Afghanistan was created by the Persians and we ruled that land for over THREE THOUSAND YEARS, it belongs to Iran.

Everyone knows that Iran is MUCH more ancient than afghanistan. Scientific and archeolgical evidence proves that humans have been living in Iran for hundreds of thousands of years.

[edit] Map is not accurate

According to the present article, the term Greater Iran applies to the entire region where Iranian languages are today spoken as a first language, or as a second language by a significant minority. Obviously based on the above definition, Armenia and Georgia are NOT parts of this region. So the question is why they have been included in the map?Heja Helweda 22:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats incorrect, Greater Iran, on top of including regions where people speak Iranic langauges as a first or second language, also includes territories that are historically an integral part of the Iranic Empire. By the definition, we should also include the rest of Eastern Iraq.Khosrow II 22:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Then your guys have to change the definition to something like this, ...regions where majority of people speak Iranian languages, and territories that traditionally belonged to the Persian Empire.Heja Helweda 04:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Well actually, the above definition I mentioned is was I thought was the meaning of Greater Iran, it may not be correct.Khosrow II 14:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Heja, youre misquoting. The article says: "Iran means all lands and peoples where Iranian languages were and are spoken, and where in the past, multi-faceted Iranian cultures existed.".--Zereshk 14:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


Complelety not true its actually afghanistan Ruled iran. Iranian People Come from what is now afghanistan or aryana so actaully iranians come from Afghans. there is no persian influence in afghanistan whats so ever. They have been Escavating iran since the 1920"s and they found all the history of what we read today. Afghanistan has been Escavated less than 10 years And it has found more history in afghanistan than in Iran which it took close to 100 years. Now imagine if afghanistan had 100 years of exploration then We will see how much history it has. Pashtun786 07:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Pashtun786

[edit] Name change

I think that the article's name should be changed to Iranian Cultural Continent. Any comments? Tājik 00:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Current title seems more sensible to me. —Nightstallion (?) 21:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Since Iran is the name of an existing country today, the term greater Iran might be taken in a negative light, as its obvious from the discussions here. Iranian Cultural Continent or History of Iranian Plateau would remove the negative stigma associated with the word greater.--Gerash77 17:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I think both Iranian Cultural Continent and Greater Iran are ok, as far as the text clearly enough makes the distinction between the country and the subject of this article. I personally wouldn't mind the change, though, as Iranian Cultural Continent is also well established. Shervink 17:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)shervink
I also think the article is OK as it is, provided that the distinction be made between the "Islamic Republic of Iran" and "Greater Iran". Pretty similar to the difference between America and The United States of America.--Zereshk 16:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/e/Talk%7EGreater_Iran_2c0b.html"