Template talk:History of 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 Template:History of Greater Iran page.

Contents

[edit] Hotaki

What is the reason that this dynasty should not be included on the template? The Hotaki ruled in Iran for fourteen years, making them very clearly an important part of the history of Iran. Are there others that are missing from this template of similar importance? (i.e., is there a precedent?) As it is, I don't see any reason to not include them, if for no other reason for the sake of completeness. siafu 03:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about Persian history, so exactly how much of Iranian controlled territory did they take and rule? The article isn't completely clear in this regard (it states some regions without giving an idea of how large that area is, how large in comparison to Iran at the time, and how much of that territory was formerly controlled by Iran). If it was simply the rebellion of a province that was able to control parts of eastern Iran, then I don't think it merits inclusion. Unless, of course, it was a significant event in Iranian history (which it may be, I don't know, but it doesn't seem like it is as significant as the other items listed). — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 03:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Again 1719-29 is not 14 years, and as i said in the edit history and Yom said above, the hotaki was not a ruling dynasty, they rebelled against the persians, toke control of parts of eastern persia, killed a bunch of civilians and finally 10 years after they were defeated by nader shah. And every one of them including their leader ashraf were hunted down and killed by nader shahs army. varable i think reading about the hotaki should answer your questions. Furthermore if this were to be included in the list, then you might for examlpe include every single invation and temporary conquest on the romans and europe by the turks and mogols and persians and moors and arabs. Or perhaps include the invation and slauther of vietnam and its people by US troops as a ruling dynasty! --213.113.242.74 04:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

1722-1736 is 14 years, per the entry on the template. The article has 1709-1738, 19 years. We're not talking about Vietnam, btw, and I'm really thinking that inflammatory arguments aren't going to help anything. I ask again, are there any dynasties that ruled in Iran on a par with the Hotaki that are not included? siafu 04:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The entry on the template might say 1722-36 but thats wrong, its 1719-29, however how long the invation lasted does not change a thing, they still were not a ruling dynasty. Again reading about the hotaki and history of iran should answer your questions. --213.113.242.74 04:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you unable or unwilling to answer the question? So far the argument you are presenting doesn't make sense without a context; it's just an opinion. You don't think that the Hotaki should be listed because they're not a big deal and are just "an invation." Reading about the Hotaki is not going to tell me if there are other dynasties not included in this template, and that's the piece of information that would lend credence to your argument. siafu 13:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Why insist on having hotaki dynasty on the template when obviously you don't have any knowledge about them or irans history. And i believe i answered your question on the template history. --213.113.242.74 00:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So you've gone from a slippery slope to an ad hominem. You haven't answered the question, all you've said so far is that you don't think that the Hotaki are important enough-- I'm asking very simply how important is important enough? Is it just your opinion you're operating on, or is there some weight to it? siafu 00:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Further down the page where, exactly? There haven't been any answers to my objections, and no explanation for the removal of the one entry beyond an arbitrary personal opion. Some further weight is in order. siafu 20:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
No explanation? lol, look up, how many times did i explain to you what hotaki really was, and how much of iran they conquered. You keep asking questions about them without even considering reading about them yourself, and i really fail to see why you keep insisting their existence on the template, when like your saying yourself you dont have any knowledge about them. You keep asking me if the safavids were still the rulers after they attacked and i keep telling you the answer is infront of my edit on the history page for the article, you see the long explanation edit? this edit: 06:46, 6 July 2006 213.113.242.74. Dear user if you want answers you have to look for them, instead of asking or telling me to show them to you. --Spahbod 20:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I've asked you nothing of the sort. In particular, I am asking why the Hotaki dynasty entry does not belong on this template. The only reason you've presented is that you don't think that they are important enough. Now it's very simple-- how important is important enough? Does the slippery slope you've referred to (on 6 July, among other places) actually exist, and are there other, similiarly rated entries that are not included, or is this the only one? Moreover, whatever knowledge I may or may not have is irrelevant, as it isn't about me, it's about the template. The entry was added here, in May, and resided there without any objections from anyone else, so it's not unreasonable for me to challenge for the particulars of your objection. siafu 20:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This is what you said above: I ask again, are there any dynasties that ruled in Iran on a par with the Hotaki that are not included? siafu 04:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC). And i said i answered you in the history section infront of the edit i shown below. Now can you please tell me what does it say infront of this edit in the history section?: 06:46, 6 July 2006 213.113.242.74 --Spahbod 11:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
This is absurd; either you don't speak English sufficiently well, or you're being intentionally difficult. The answer to my query that you cited is the following: The entry on the template might say 1722-36 but thats wrong, its 1719-29, however how long the invation lasted does not change a thing, they still were not a ruling dynasty. Again reading about the hotaki and history of iran should answer your questions. --213.113.242.74 04:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC) I did read the article about the Hotaki dynasty, and it didn't say anything at all about any other dynasties or periods, which is what I was, and am asking about. So no, you didn't answer, and your objections aren't making much sense, but just for the sake of being completely clear, I'll go over them again. You've objected to having the Hotaki listed on this template for four reasons:
  1. The Hotaki were not a "ruling dynasty".
  2. The Hotaki's reign did not last very long.
  3. I "don't know much about Iranian history."
  4. If we include the Hotaki, we might as well include other insignificant groups or periods.
One at a time. As for the first, neight were the Provisional Government, the Iranian Revolution, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Proto-Elamite civilization or the Jiroft Civilization, so I fail to see how that makes a difference as those are all include (IMO, justifiably). As for the second, two of the ones I just listed were much shorter indeed, but we'll return to this in #4. Number 3 is a ridiculous ad hominem based on knowledge of expertise that not only do you not have, but is irrelevant. Number 4 is a slippery slope, and this is the reason I have been asking again and again whether or not there really are any other entries that are being omitted and which we would apparently be forced to include if we include the Hotaki. Are there? Are you going to answer that, since you're claiming to so much more of an expert on Iranian history than me, or are you going to continue to insist that you've answered, when you've done nothing of the sort. The ball remains in your court, and until you can prove your slippery slope is real, there's no reason not to include the Hotaki in this template are the period is very much a part of the history of Iran and very much belongs in a template on the history of Iran. siafu 14:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
You accuse me of ad hominem and slippery slope, then you say this: This is absurd; either you don't speak English sufficiently well, or you're being intentionally difficult.?
For the fifth time the answer to your question: I ask again, are there any dynasties that ruled in Iran on a par with the Hotaki that are not included? siafu 04:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC). Is infront of this edit: [1] 06:46, 6 July 2006 213.113.242.74, in the edit history of the template itself.
And Not in the discussion page as you shown me here: The entry on the template might say 1722-36 but thats wrong, its 1719-29, however how long the invation lasted does not change a thing, they still were not a ruling dynasty. Again reading about the hotaki and history of iran should answer your questions. --213.113.242.74 04:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC) --Spahbod 15:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The link you are pointing to does not point to an edit, but the edit history, and there are no edits listed for 6 July. At all. siafu 15:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes i said before that it is in the edit history and it is an edit summary. You say there are no edits listed for 6 july? There are six edits listed for 6 july. This is the latest one, thus 06:46, 6 July 2006 213.113.242.74. The edit after it is :21:41, 10 July 2006 81.214.113.115. I suggest you Keep looking. --Spahbod 17:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Alternately, you could not play this childish game of hide and seek and just say what your amazing message is. siafu 17:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
No, because you know very well where my message is, and it is you that is playing hide and seek with me. --Spahbod 17:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Right, that's exactly what I'm doing. What the hell are you talking about? I don't see any such edit summary, so you might as well repeat yourself as it doesn't cost you anything. siafu 17:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Lol, for gods sake, fine here is the message: 06:46, 6 July 2006 213.113.242.74 (Talk) (even tho hotaki toke control of parts of eastern persia the safavids were still the ruling dynasty of that time period).

As said in the message, the safavids were still rulers, they lost a battle forcing them to flee the capital to western iran and regrouping, after 10 years they under Nader shah's command defeated the afghans to the very last man, even hunted down the leader Ashraf and killed him, thus ending the rebellion, and later nader shah overthrew the last safavid king and declared himself king, beginning the afsharid dynasty. --Spahbod 17:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This does not matter. The Hotaki dynasty (under Ashraf Ghilzai) was the "de facto" ruling dynasty of Persia, and they were considered the new Shahs of Persia by both Zarist Russia and by the Ottoman Empire. In fact, the Ottomans even wanted to re-install the surviving Safavids as puppets - that's why Ashraf was forced to kill them. Later on, he had to fight the Ottomans in Azerbaijan, where he defeated them and strengthened his position as new Shah of Persia. It was 7 years later that Nadir Shah, nominally a "slave of the Safavids" ("=Quli Beg") defeated the Hotaki and proclaimed himself Shah of Persia. You are totally underestimating the role of the Hotakis in Persia who were not just "rebells", as you claim, but a ruling family who considered themselvs the legitimate inheritors of the Safavids and old Shahs of Iran. Here is an article about this in the famous Encyclopaedia Iranica: [2] (note that the article is called "Ashraf Ghilzai, Shah of Persia"). I am going to revert the template to the old version. Since the Encyclopaedia Iranica is authoritative, I do not think that you can disprove its information. Tājik 23:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a big difference between proclaiming oneself king and being king, and thats exactly what the afghans did, they were never accepted as rulers of Persia by the persians nor by the ruling dynasty at the time which were the safavids. Whether or not foreign powers recognized their rule is irrelevant. Yes we all know that Encyclopaedia Iranica is a legitimate source. The article in Iranica conforms that they did proclaim themselfs Shahs of Iran, and also does mention that they were never accepted as a ruling dynasty by the Iranians, however it does also mention that they did rule in Iran, so i am not going to dispute the matter any furhter. However they were defetead in 1729 and not 1736 as the template said, also there is no need to include the word pasthun, if we do that then we might as well rewrite all dynasties. Reason why i and many more see them as rebels is that it takes more than killing thousands of civilians, setting the capital on fire, and proclaiming onself king to be a ruling dynasty. Also nader shah was originally along with his mother a slave of the "Ozbegs". There is extended info about nader shah and the afghans here: [3]. --Spahbod 12:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tajik

As i mentioned in your talk page, i have changed back their name to original international name, and there is no need to single out a dynasty by naming both their family and ethnic name like you did for hotaki Ghilzai. We cant name dynasties here like that. Then someone else will come and say this safavid dynasty must be renamed to savafid turkic dynasty etc. I think we understand eachother --Spahbod 16:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Hotaki" is not a family name, but a sub-clan of the Ghilzai-Pashtun clan. So, the correct name is Hotaki Ghilzai dynasty, the same way the Afghan kings became known as Sodozai Abdali/Sadozai Durrani (because Ahmad Shah Abdalis was from the "Sadozai" clan of the Abdali Pashtuns). Tājik 17:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, in that case let it be hotaki ghilzai then. But as you are probably aware the long name singles them out, drawing all attention to the only two named dynasty. I am sure you agree. --Spahbod 17:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khwarezm

I don't know which scholars you are refering to tajik, but Encyclopedia Britannica calls them Khwarezm-shah dynasty and the website Allempires.com calls them Khwarezm-Shâh Empire: [4]. However since Britannica is a reliable source we should follow, and i agree that they were a dynasty not an empire. But then again variable you make a good point, pointing out that khwarezm-shah empire is redundant. So i suggest we call them "Khwarezmid dynasty", all agree? --Spahbod 23:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as Khwarezm was a province and not a family or dynastic name, that seems somewhat inappropriate. Almost all sources on the Mongol conquest refer to it as "Khwarezmian Empire" or "the Khwarezm Shah" (i.e., making war on the Muhammed II himself). I'd suggest Khwarezmian Empire as this is the English wikipedia, and this is an English term.
On another note, regardless of what we decide here no one should move Khwarezmian Empire without discussing it and gaining consensus on that page first. The two do not necessarily need to be consistent. siafu 00:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Well khwarezmid is not far from khwarezmian but i agree with tajik that they were not a real empire. It also seems that various sources say different things then, so my suggestion is still Khwarezmid dynasty, perhaps we should vote! --Spahbod 00:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
There are only three of us. If you want a straw poll, you should probably put a note on Wikipedia:Current surveys and/or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography to get some more opinions. Between Khwarezmid and Khwarezmian I have no preference, but it seems fair to call it an empire. It was a rather large state, larger than the Seljuq province of Khwarezmia that spawned it, and seems to fit the basic definition of empire... even if it was short-lived. There are plenty of sources that refer to it this way, as well, but as mentioned all the ones I know about are about the Mongols principally, and not Khwarezmia. siafu 00:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The name either way should be Khwarezmid since this is proper form in English like Achaemenid or Sassanid. Question: why is it important if it is "empire" or "Shahs"? Maybe you should move article to Kingdom of Khwarezmia. If it was kingdom and not empire, then that would be more correct. Khorshid 03:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The correct name of the dynasty was "Khwarizm Shahs" - they were not an "Empire". "Khwarizm" is the Persian name of the Central Asian lands close to the Caspian Sea. And since they were a dynasty of Seljuq vasals who ruled in Khwarizm, they became known as "Shahs of Khwarizm". They did not have a tribal name or a family name, as the Seljuqs or Qarakhanids had (this is one of the strongest arguments against the "Turkic origin" theory of the dynasty), and thus were simply known as "the Shahs". Their kingdom did not have the creteria for an "Empire" and was absolutely no comparison to the Sassanid, Byzantinian, Abbasid, or Seljuq Empires. Richard N. Frye uses the term "Khwarizm Shahs" in his book "Persia" (Zürich, 1963) and I suggest to use it here, too. Tājik 12:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
From Empire:

Generally, an empire is defined as a state that extends dominion over areas and populations that are culturally and ethnically distinct from the culture at the center of power. Like other states, an empire maintains its political structure at least partly by coercion.

Seems like Khwarezmia was an empire, reasonably enough. But it's not so important; "Khwarezm Shahs" is used often in other sources as well. siafu 13:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not Khwarezm shahs is used by some historians, i believe it will cause confusion in this template, becasue it is not a usual name for a dynasty or a kingdom or an empire for that matter. Also it steals attention from the rest of the dynasties in the template. --Spahbod 13:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persian dominance

Regarding Alphros' last edit, where he deleted the entire template because it was "biased":

1. You should not completely delete an article or template simply because you feel it is biased. There are several alternative methods, such as changing the parts that you think are biased, discussing any alleged bias on a discussion page, or putting an appropriate tag onto the article.

2. The template is not a list of Persian dynasties that were dominant. It is instead a list of dynasties that controlled Iran or a substancial part of it. There are several non-Persian dynasties on the list: Timurids, the Ak and Kara Koyunlu federations, Ilkhans, Ghaznavids, etc. They all belong on the list because at some point in history they incorporated at least a large part of Iran into their dominions. This is why the Seljuks are up there, which leads me to:

3. The Seljuk dates on the template are mostly accurate. The Rum Seljuks, which survived as Ilkhan vassals until 1307, are not included on the template. I changed the end date of the Seljuks from 1187 to 1194; this was the year when the Khwarazmshah Tekish defeated and killed the Seljuk sultan of Hamadan, Toghril III, and annexed his territories (I believe the 1187 date was based off when the Seljuks of Kerman were expelled by the Oghuz? Anyway, the Seljuk page itself is extremely messed up and could use some real work on it. That has no bearing on this template however).

Ro4444 09:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] revert

I had to revert to the version of 9 January. People apparently gave in to the ever-present temptation to pile on clutter. "Avesatan Period (c. 4000BCE)" is complete nonsense (the Avestan period dates to roughly 1000 BC, and is not so much a "period" as a philological/liturgical corpus). dab (𒁳) 10:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Tajik, the main article for this template is History of Iran. If you want to change name or scope of the template, change name and scope of that article first (such as "history of Greater Iran" or similar, I'm not absolutely opposed to such a course, but you should avoid inflating the size of the template to ridiculous proportions in any case). dab (𒁳) 14:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Tajik, am I having a monologue here? You know perfectly well that you should check for consensus before doing controversial moves. If you must move it, move it to "History of Greater Iran", not just "Greater Iran", this is a history template for mithrassake. Also, it has been stable for many months, and it is a major and evolved template. Seek consensus if you want to redecorate it. dab (𒁳) 15:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually Avestan period exists and it is an academic term used by Iranists (Iranologists) and dated to c. 4000 BCE- this the term is sometimes being used for proto-Indo-Iranian, particularly deals with proto-Iranians (Eastern) to separate them with their Indic brethren – formerly, in turn of last century the ter was also used for proto-Zoroastrian and early Zoroastrian communities. Consult Encyclopaedia Iranica as well as CAIS to obtain further info. Surena 22:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
"dated to ca 4000 BCE" by whom? I realize there must be an "Avestan period", that is, the period when the Avestan langauge was alive, only it's not a "historical" period, since no culture is mapped to it, it's a linguistic term. The Avestan langauge dates to roughly 1000 BC, give or take a couple of centuries. Its geographical location is completely unknown. dab (𒁳) 08:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

we cannot have half of this template about the modern history of half a dozen nations. This used to be the "history of Iran" template. Now Tajik has made it the "history of Greater Iran" one. This means that we need a new "modern history of Iran" template to cover the history of Iran proper. After all, there is a history of Tajikistan article now, but no history of Iran one. That's ridiculous. dab (𒁳) 08:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We cannot have all the pre-modern era in all 3 templates. We should either put the modern history of all modern nations belonging to "Greater Iran" in (this) ONE templae, or we reduce the "History of Greater Iran" template to the pre-modern era and create different templates for the MODERN nations Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, etc.
The pre-modern era is shared by all of these countries ... there is no need to create 4-6 different templates for different nations, and then add the SAME names and SAME dynasties to each one. Tājik 10:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
This template was made for History of Iran and please keep it THAT WAY. For history of any other nation create their own, or use the same tamplate, and change it as the moment they became seprated for their own article. For example keep this as it is for Iran and for Afghanistan or Tajikistan, just change the few centuries that is different but we do not need a ridicously huge template for all those countrie who shared a large amount of their history with iran. --Arad 02:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is history of Iran, not tajikistan or what ever.

For any other country than Iran, create a different template. --66.36.135.19 22:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's the history of "Greater Iran" and since until the 18th century the history of these nations was shared, it does not make sense to have 5-7 different templates about the SAME thing. Tājik 22:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
What about Turkmenistan, shouldnt that be included in the list? That has also been a part of greater Iran has it not? Others to consider would be Armenia and Georgia.Azerbaijani 01:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's wait an see where the discussion leads. Since the history of all of these countries is shared - at least until the 18th century, I suggest that we keep a single template for a time-preiod of pre-history to the 18th century (with the Afsharid dynasty being the last). Then, we either include the modern histories of these nations into the same template, or we create 5-7 seperate templates about the MODERN history (starting in the 18th century). What do you think? Tājik 02:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. If that is the case, we should put all those dozens of nations who shared the history of Iran in one template, such as Iraq. I mean common, Afghanistan after it was separated in 18th century has nothing to do with Iran. And the main article is History of Iran and not Greater Iran. Or at least Iran and Greater Iran, putting Iran in first priority. If you want an article about greater Iran's history, then create one but today's Afghanistan has nothing to do with today's Uzbekistan or Iran or what so ever. --Arad 02:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
"Greater Iran" is not "Iran", and the article "History of Iran" is about the entire region. Just check the first sentense of it.
We need an acceptable consensus. But the present vesrions - namely Iran's claim over all historical dynasties (of which many were not even within the boundaries of modern Iran) - is rediculous and wrong. We have an on-going edit-war in various articles (for example Ghaznavids) about this. Users either delete or insert templates about "History of Afghanistan" and "History of Iran". And if both are added, we have two templates about the SAME thing.
I suggest we create a history of "Greater Iran" and seperate it from the history of modern Iran. Then we create different templates for the modern histories of these (modern) nations. But the history of "Greater Iran" is shared by all of these nations,. including Iraq, Turkmenistan, and parts of Pakistan. It does not make any sense to have 7 templates about the SAME thing.
Please do not change this template until we agree on an acceptable consensus. Tājik 08:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Even if i agreed, the proportion of this huge template destroys every article it appears in. Look at History of Iran article and you see that the proportion of the article is destroyed by this huge template. --Arad 12:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Plus what the .... Taliban has to do with Iran? Just create a different template because it's not going to be the same thing. --Arad 12:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Also Iran doesn't claim anything. Ghaznavid Was turkic ruling Iran not Afghanistan because Afghanistan was part of Iran. It's just in the recent centuries hat it's separated, so it's first of all history of Iran, then Afghanistan. And we don't need the same template for all these 7 countries. It's like we have the same template for history of Britain and Canada and Australia and US because they shared a lot of their history together --Arad 13:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't change the template until we reach a census. And the template should be as it was, until the problem is solved. --Arad 22:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The new template is already integrated in many articles. If you change the template, then also change the respective articles. Or just leave it the way it is for now.
We do not have any alternative templates for the parts you had deleted. Just wait until we reach a consensus. Otherwise, countless edit-wars will start again (your claim that "Ghaznavids rather belong to Iran than to Afghanistan or Pakistan" is totally rediculous, keeping in mind that modern Iran did not exist before the 18th century, and that the successors of the Afsharids - Zands, Qajars, Durranis, etc - all claimed to be rulers of the entire "Greater Iran" region). That's exactly what I mean: since the pre-modern history of the region is shared by all of these countries, this template is not OK Tājik 22:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no modern Iran as if Iran is not Persia. Iran was Iran for thousands of years. Just the king change it's international name, doesn't mean it's like Afghanistan, who is a very young nation. --Arad 11:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move to the previous title

I think both templates ("History of Iran" and "History of Greater Iran") are needed. This template should be under its previous title "History of Iran" (because of its content and its edit history). Another template should be made for "History of Greater Iran" which should only cover from Achaemenids to Afsharids. For pages such as Samanids, it's better to put a template for "History of Greater Iran", instead of "History of Iran", "History of Afghanistan", "History of Tajikistan" or "History of Uzbekistan". Jahangard 23:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Support - Thank you. This is exactly what I was proposing. We need a template "History of Greater Iran", independent from the modern national history of Iran. Tājik 23:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Then that mean exactly what i was saying. We leave this template alone for Iran, we create a Greater Iran from Achaemenids to Afsharids and then we create (you hadn't mention this but i propose it) several template for each independent state. --Arad 11:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
No, what you are saying is NOT the same. What Jahangard (and me) suggest is that were create a NEW template for Iran, while we leave this one for "Greater Iran". Tājik 12:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Then you simply can't read. --Arad 23:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If you don't want to make a decision, mine is maid, and I'm going to keep this for Iran.

You're not going to make a decision. Mine is maid and I'm going to make this template for Iran ONLY. If you want one for Greater Iran create one. And Modern Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Armenia, etc etc has NOTIHING to do with history of Iran. I don't care if those countries history is too short for a template. --Arad 23:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as I said above: you claim all kind of history for Iran only, and the ONLY result will be duzens of "national templates" in the respective articles, ALL about the same thing. The article about the Achaemenids will have an "Iran", "Tajikistan", "Afghanistan", "Azerbaijan", etc template, so will the "Ghaznavids" and "Ghorids" and "Safavids" articles. The history of these dynasties and peoples is shared by so many modern nations in the region, and it does not make ANY SENSE to have 5-7 DIFFERENT templates about the SAME THING.
This template includes many historical dynasties and peoples, and the best thing would be to keep this one for the "History of Greater Iran" and then create new templates for the MODERN histories of Iran, Afgahnistan, Azerbaijan, etc. You are totally wrong if you believe that the modern Islamic Republic Iran has the right to claim all of these historical kingdoms and dynasties for itself ... all the other nations mentioned have the same right and same claim. The only thing that differs is the modern history. If you can't accept this simple fact, then it's your problem. Tājik 16:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry my friend but you're wrong. Same as US cannot claim the history of Britain because they shared some of it. It's the problem of those nations who got separated, but will or force. Afghanistan (as an independent nation) has a young history. Iran is one of the few Real Nations in the middle east region. The few i can count is India and Iran. The rest are separated from these two countries and some of them are younger than a century. The Time line of these empires all continue down to Iran but they stop at other nations, because Iran was the mother land. Same as USSR. For example Kazakhstan has no right to claim the history of USSR as it's own because it shared it. But they can say we were part of USSR. --Arad 00:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Your assumption is wrong. Modern "Islamic Republic of Iran" with its current borders was shaped during the time of the Qajars. The Qajars were - like the Zands and Durranis only one of the successor states of the former Safavid and Afsharid Empires. While the Qajars - originally local rulers of Azerbaijan - managed to defeat the Zands of Fars and Kerman and conquer their lands (previously, the Zand family was appointed governor of Fars, Kerman, and Bahrain), they failed to annect the Durrani lands.
Claiming that "Afghanistan seperated from Iran" is pure nonsense. Until the reign of Amir Abdul Rahman Khan in Afghanistan, all kings of Afghanistan ruled as "Shahs of Iran" and "Kings of Khorasan", claiming to be the only "true successors of the Afsharids" (just like the Qajars). It was during the British occupation and the creation of European-inspired Pashtun nationalism that Afghanistan adopted the name "Afghanistan" (meaning "Land of Pashtuns").
So, just like Afghanistan, Iran's history starts exactly with the fall of the Afsharid dynasty and the creation of small local kingdoms of which only the Qajars (modern Iran) and Durranis (modern Afghanistan) survived. The pre-Qajar history of the region is as much part of Afghanistan's, Azerbaijan's, Tajikistan's, Uzbekistan's, and Bahrain's history as it is part of Iran's history. Besides that, may I remind you that the first 2 important Persian dynasties after the Islamic conquest of Persia - the Barmakids and Samanids of Balkh - were centered in what is now Afghanistan and Central Asia!? So - to be correct - the revival of Persian nationalism and identity goes back to this region. And - following your own logic - Iran should have no claim on these two dynasties. Tājik 02:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
In most of their written history, Afghanistan, republic of Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Turkomenistan and etc. shared the same history with Iran during the Achaemenid, Sassanid, Parthian, Samanid, Ghaznavid, Seljuqid, Mongol, Safavid and even Qajar era. Thus an article discussing this greater common shared history is great. The common infighting about say what was Avicenna (Tajik, Uzbek, Persian, Iranian, Afghan..etc) is due to the fact that many of these countries believe that their shared history is solely theirs. --alidoostzadeh 03:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear Tajik, I understand what you are saying, but I think we need to separate the History of Greater Iran and histories of modern nations. My suggestion is that we make a template for history of Greater Iran and put the links to Histories of modern nations that were part of Greater Iran once, at the end of the template. How about that? - Marmoulak 17:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
First, Iran's history does not begins with Qajars. And thank you Siamak for making this clear once again that this template if for Iran. For Greater Iran we need another one. --Arad 18:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for being late to this, BUT I think there is some misunderstanding here as it doesn't make sense for a single modern state to "claim" historical events that effect other areas as well. Greater Iran is and isn't a viable concept. It is in that if we are referring to kindred Iranian peoples, then it makes sense to some extent, but not as an all consuming article. Iranian based empires is distinct from Iran. Also, I have to agree with Tājik in that many dynasties also have a historical influence over their own regional areas. During the Abbasid period we see Khorasan gain in importance, but it is distinct from other regions. Incorporting all of the collective histories of modern nation-states that have their own regional histories is simply hegemonic rather than logical. In addition, Afghanistan, the Caucasus, Transoxiana have their own histories that span centuries without direct involvement with Iran in the center. The usage of Greater Iran in a historical context is something of a new nationalist perspective that doesn't make sense. It is more effective to write the histories of modern nation-states and discuss the articles that involve other regions of course, but not exclusively. Tombseye 01:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is a template not an article

Somebody wrote "(3000–5th c. BCE still unkown. Is Equal or even older than Sumer civilization)" in the template but it's too long so I'll shorten it.--Sa.vakilian 04:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is funny

Now we're going to have dozens of Nations added to this template. If all these nations were part of Iran, they still cannot be in Iran's template. Iran was so big that we cannot fit all those Nations of it in same template. --Arad 18:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not a "phantasie-wonderland" für Iranian nationalists, this is an encyclopedia. Iran's modern history as a nation-state starts exactly after the death of Nadir Shah Afshar (the last ruler of a more or less "united Greater Iran"). But so does also the history of Afghanistan, and the history of Azerbaijan. Just like the Zand and Qajar rulers, the Durranis were personal body-guards of Nadir Shah and claimed the Persian throne for themselvs. Just take a look at old coins from the Durrani era in Afghanistan. They all say: "Shahs of Khorasan".
We need to seperate the shared history of "Greater Iran" from that of the modern nations. And Iran's history as a nation-state with its current borders, politics, and position in the word began with the rule of the Turcoman Qajars - this is fact.
This template should be kept for the "History of Greater Iran", meraning from pre-history to the end of the Afsharid dynasty. All the successor states and dynasty should be mentioned in templates concerning the modern national history of the respective states ... from A, i.e. Afghanistan, to U, i.e. Uzbekistan.
This is only fair and the only "scientifically" correct and logical way.
Tājik 19:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

How about changing the template to the following form and creating separate templates for the modern history of each nation?

History of Greater Iran
Empires of Persia - Kings of Persia

Modern period:
edit


- Marmoulak 00:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we thought of something like that. Now, what we need to do is to seperate the "History of Greater Iran" part from the History of Iran article, and to minimize the national histories of Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, etc to the point when the actual nation-states came to existance. Please do not change the main template until the respective articles are prepared. Tājik 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
For every country, the history template should start with the prehistoric period and cover all the major eras in the history of that region. History template of a country should show the historical background of that region, not just the modern history of that country. For each page, only the most relevant template should be included (not all the templates that include a link to that page). So, for example, for both Iran and Afghanistan, their history templates should have links to pages such as Achaemenids or Samanids, but in these pages, only the template for "History of Greater Iran" should be included. Jahangard 06:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
"Greater Iran" begins with Achaemenids. So, there is no reason to include the early local civilizations such as the Siyalk civilization or Elamites. Indeed, if we include them, we should also include all the other archaeological sites in other regions (e.g. Alakul site, related to the Andronovo culture, and Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex). Jahangard 06:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
My attention is only on Iran. You can put this template for history of Greater Iran. But for History of Iran, the template MUST be as it was 1 month ago. --Arad 22:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Arad jan, I know what you are saying, this template is too long and makes the articles kinda messy. But using the History of Iran template for periods of history, shared btw modern nations that were once part of Greater Iran, will also results in a mess, since a separate template can be created for each modern nation and inserted in those articles. So I think the best way to deal with this matter is to use a History of Greater Iran template for the periods shared btw modern nations that were once part of Greater Iran. Sepas - Marmoulak 06:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course Siamak. You're right as always. But for Iran History article this one is a mess. We just need 2 template, (it's nothing messy) one for Iran, another for Greater Iran. --Arad 22:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is history of Iran not afghanistan

This template has no place in history of Iran articles, this is about history of Iran as we know it, not about the lands it once conquered like Bahrain or Iraq which have nothing to do with Iran. If you want to show a template about Greater Iran do it in its own article only. This is both insulting to Arabs and Iranians. --Tellthetrue22 12:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If only Tajik would understand. --Arad 22:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So it mean (Persia) doesn't exist anymore

What your saying, that Qajars started the Nation of the so called Modern Iran, also means that currently, Persia doesn't exist anymore? And if that is so, you surly know that Persia is Iran and only the name changed during Reza Shah's rule. And If you agree that Persia is in fact Iran, it means all those ancient empire are Persia (Iranian). And Afghanistan, Iraq, Tajikistan, etc, are just new Nations after that Persian Empire was split. And in this case this template remains for Iran only. --Arad 22:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do not think it's any help to continue this discussion with you. It's absolutely useless to talk to people who do not even have a basic knowledge of history. Tājik 08:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unilateral actions

Such moves on hotly disputed issues must be absolutely avoided. Tajik, what you've done smells quite a lot of pov-pushing and can't be condoned, especially, as said, with templates of this sort, as such actions are rightly considered disruptive. Until there is consensus, the template will remain at "History of Iran". If you want to do things correctly, make a WP:RM.--Aldux 17:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"POV-pushing"?! Because of what?! Because of pointing to the fact that Iran does not own history, and that this history is shared by millions of peoples who are not nationals of the Islamic Republic of Iran?! Tājik 18:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
With this I don't mean you're conspiring with the forces of evil, but that you're attempting to ram through your positon (legitimate like all positions) without having built consensus, which on contentious issues as here must be particularly discouraged. While I have no doubt you acted in good faith, your actions remain unilateral. From the talk page I read that your move has generated considerable opposition; for this I must ask you to not remove article without previous consensus, or better still a a WP:RM.--Aldux 18:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Concensus is important but so is making some comparisons. A group of like-minded people can put forth any view they want to on wikipedia (and we've all seen it) so the better approach is to look at OTHER encyclopedias and parallel what they do. As far as I can tell none of them use the term History of Greater Iran (Iranica refers to a concept of an Iranian cultural continent, but this is NOT a Persian centered view but rather one that encompasses the Iranian peoples anyway and is beyond the borders of Iran). A professional and academic approach would be to keep the article as the History of Iran and not subsume other countries' histories as that is just not what encyclopedias do. I'm simply asking that people be objective. Forget where you are from and look at how other reference books are written. In fact, look at how METICULOUS Iranica is and then compare it to the disorganization of wikipedia in comparison. How will this article help? These are important questions to ask before embarking upon a plan to expand the scope of articles or build articles around contentious concepts. Tombseye 05:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Tombseye and Tajik, please add a short comment and your name to the "Title Survey" I've created at the bottom of the page. --Mardavich 18:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Discussing this with Tajik is no use. With all due respect. I agree with both users. --Arad 22:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise suggestion

How about if we change the title to "History of Greater Persia"? I mean, come to think of it, officially, that's what it was called b4 1935. I understand what Tajik is pointing at, but I dont know of any other solution that will generate a compromise.--Zereshk 22:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea at first thought, although I'm not sure such an article is necessary as we already have a good article on Greater Iran and the histories of the various nation-states cover everything. The Persian Empire article also makes a History of Greater Persia unnecessary. This seems like a superfluous addition and before everyone reacts, I'm just trying to be neutral here. Sharing the history between the countries makes more sense and the concept of a Greater Iran is as much connected to similar languages and cultures as anything historical (although that is somewhat sporadic). In addition, although I can see academics discussing the concept of a Greater Iran (or Greater Russia, India, Rome etc.), I don't see Encyclopedia Britannica or Americana or any even Iranica rendering a History of Greater Iran (I know some of the people who have worked on Iranica from Columbia myself and I believe they'd agree). It's a divisive way to go and a better activity would be to improve the Greater Iran article with more of Richard Frye's work (and his disciples). In fact, a short history section could be added to the Greater Iran article that describes some of the common historical currents without trying to force the facts to fit the concept (by that I mean just explain what happened and do not try to create a continuity that isn't there). Also, keep in mind that this terminology has a lot to do with MODERN nationalism. A prof. of mine (who happens to be Persian) believes Iran has several histories and she often uses geography (the Iranian plateau) to discuss a larger area, but points out that dialects and distance also made a difference over time. Tombseye 05:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As a passing visitor who hasn't studied this subject, it does seem odd that a template with the title "History of Iran" includes sections on Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, etc. So, in lieu of further knowledge, I'd've thought a name identifying a wider and/or more general region would seem appropriate; "Persia", "Mesopotamia"...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I still support the name Greater Iran (and thus "History of Greater Iran"), since this term is also used by leading scholars, such as Richard Nelson Frye (in 2005, Frye published a book called "Greater Iran").
A good alternative would be "History of the Iranian Cultural Continent". In my opinion, this one is almost better than "History of Greater Iran". Tājik 18:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm basically in favor of any solution that would prevent us running into a perception of the "Modern Nationalism" that Tombseye mentions. We already have enough of ethno-nationalistic disputes ruining articles on WP. Tajik's "History of Iranian Cultural Continent" sounds like a good idea.--Zereshk 18:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that "Iranian Cultural Continent" is not widely used. Jahangard 19:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title Survey

[edit] History of Greater Iran

  1. I think "History of Greater Iran" or "History of Greater Persia" are the more appropriate titles with a drop-down menu for the modern states such as Afghanistan, Iran, Tajikistan, etc. --Mardavich 18:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Pro. It is more fittingly and appropriate term – It will assist the Persianate societies to find a common ground. Surena 18:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Pro (conditioned on restricting its coverage to Achaemenids-Afsharids and removing links to the modern nations, or the early local civilizations such as Elamites). Also, it shouldn't be included in any country page (such as Iran). We need another template for "History of Iran", covering its history from the prehistoric time to present (similar to the history templates of other countries).
  4. I agree with above. But I support leaving this template for Iran and create another one for Greater Iran. --Arad 22:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Seems fine -if- the sections on other countries removed. David Kernow (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. --Pejman47 14:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Pro - Ariana310 12:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Iranian Cultural Continent

  1. Pro Tājik 18:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Pro because it avoids any "Modern nationalism" perceptions by troublemakers.--Zereshk 19:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Pro Khorshid 21:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Weak Pro.Support small history section in Greater Iran instead I'm okay with this selection out of all the choices, but this seems like a lot of work to retread the histories that are already in other articles. It would be better to just have a small history section in the Greater Iran article. This though, corresponds somewhat to the core Iranian cultural area, BUT I would advise against forcing the Iranian peoples to fit together historically as they often share little history together (the Ossetians for example are more European than Mideastern) and the outer Iranians like the Kurds and Pashtuns often diverge and have independent histories and development. Tombseye 03:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Pro seems like a good idea - Marmoulak 05:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Pro Behnam 06:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Not convinced; per Jahangard in the thread above, this strikes me (a non-specialist) as a neologism and/or esoteric and/or contrived... David Kernow (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Pro Seems like the better choice here. I don't understand the current "pre-modern" section, I think that should be changed --Rayis 14:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. --Pejman47 14:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Iran

  1. Pro - Leave this template for Iran (and articles related to Iran and Persian Empire) and create another one for Greater Iran. Some one else proposed this also (anonymous - above) --Arad 22:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Pro - Good idea, I am noticing more and more Orientalist, Eurochauvinist trends on WP. Instead of having a true international perspective, they are attempting to limit and define us the way they want to define and see us. They attack anything they dont like as "nationalism" when they themselves live in nation-states and are from peoples who created the idea of nationalism in the first place. Khorshid 05:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Would be possible if sections on other countries removed and the list of pre-modern dynasties/empires all pertained to "Iran" as popularly (i.e. generally) understood today. (Is the current Iran section in the table what would remain...?)  David Kernow (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Persia

  1. To this non-specialist, "Persia" identifies an area broader than any particular country, so would seem appropriate given the template's (current) contents. David Kernow (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Greater Persia

  1. Pro "Persia" and "Iran" are both regional names also, but I agree with Zereshk and Tajik, so in my opinion this one or "Iranian Cultural Contininent" or "Persian Cultural Continent" is best. Even though I am sure someone will come along and call anything we do "Persian chauvinism" or "Persian nationalism"! Khorshid 21:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Per "History of Persia" above, this would seem appropriate, espcially if the area popularly (generally) identified as "Persia" doesn't touch all the countries etc currently appearing in the template. David Kernow (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Persian Cultural Continent

  1. Pro "Persia" and "Iran" are both regional names also, but I agree with Zereshk and Tajik, so in my opinion this one or "Iranian Cultural Contininent" or "Persian Cultural Continent" is best. Even though I am sure someone will come along and call anything we do "Persian chauvinism" or "Persian nationalism"! Khorshid 21:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Per "Iranian Cultural Continent" above, this seems contrived and/or esoteric and/or a neologism. I can't recall "continent" referring to anything other than land mass, so "cultural continent" seems odd... Sorry if I appear something of a "philistine" as regards this subject – except I guess Philistia might lie within this "cultural continent"...?...!  Smile, David Kernow (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with David Kernow. The terminology and usage for a Greater Iran is also a reference to more ancient times when the groups were still very similar to each other and shared mutually intelligible languages and cultures etc. That quickly changed as the groups branched off and they have had often divergent histories. Seems like a waste of time frankly as the regular articles (such as those in the history of Iran could be further fixed and turned into good or featured articles rather than wasting all this effort on "ideational" concepts that aren't widely used or accepted in academia. Tombseye 15:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • Comment: Modern Iran is established by Ismaill I and Safavids, it must somehow be shown. and (History of the Iranian Cultural Continent and History of Greater Iran) both are good for me--Pejman47 21:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
"Modern Iran" was not established by Ismail Safavid ... the Safavids were just the last dynasty in a long line of monarchs, shared by the history of all modern neighbouring countries of Iran. Besides that, just vote for the name you like. Tājik 21:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I strongly oppose every thing with "Persia" tag, the local citizens of this land never called it persia (called it Iranshahr and Iran). now when I think about it. guys! Reza Shah was correct: Iran is much better than persia for obvious reasons that you know. --Pejman47 22:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Iran is better than Persia indeed. But it was better to leave others to name Iran as Persia. In this way they wouldn't confuse us with Arab sates and also they could relate Persia with it's history of Persian Empire. And they could easy spell it and not make fun of it by spelling Iran as I Ran or Iron or whatever. --Arad 22:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Iraq used to be part of Iran and in fact "Iraq" means something like "Minor Iran". Iraq is not just an Arab state, it is also a Kurdish and Assyrian state, and original homeland of Assyrians. No offense, its history is connected to Iran whether you or anyone likes it or not. BTW I think Ossetian peoples call their country as "Iron". It means same thing as "Iran". Khorshid 05:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The Ossetians aren't part of the cultural continent though. They are part of the Russian sphere and/or Eastern European area. The only link is their language. Force fitting groups to fit the narrative is just shoddy scholarship. You'd never see this stuff on Iranica for example. Tombseye 14:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I never talked about Iraq. --Arad 18:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

@ Tombseye: Who says we are "Mideastern"?? That is a Eurocentric Orientalist idea. "West" and "East" is your peoples creation, not ours. We have no such native idea for "Middle East" in our own languages. And please show a source for idea that Ossetians are more "European" - what is "Europe"? Western Europe" Eastern Europe? Is it all the same? Last I check, West and East Europe are totally different cultures and civilizations. East Europe has more in common with Iran and Iranian peoples than West Europe! More and more Orientalism. Khorshid 05:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Orientalism is a nice theory, but that's not the point. Even if one is to discount the term Mideastern, the simple fact of the matter is that the Iranian peoples are closely linked to their Semitic and Turkic neighbors anyway so that is where the Near Eastern context comes from. One could also say Islamic world, but I digress. I also don't know what "my people" means as that's just irrelevant. If you know anything about the Ossetians, they orient themselves towards Russia (they are largely Russian Orthodox) and do not view themselves as "Iranians", especially in the cultural sense. Their history also is generally outside the south Iranic scope (usually independent or part of empires in the Caucasus or those stemming from Russia) and they view themselves as descendents of the Alans etc. This is exactly the problem I was talking about, creating a grand narrative to create a history that brings every group that speaks an Iranian language or a country that borders Iran into the Greater Iranian historical context. That's original research and that's where this article is headed. It's just a bad idea overall and a small section in Greater Iran is as far as this should go (and even there it should focus upon some historical currents rather than create some notion of an always united region which is just fiction). The Kurds, for example, also show links to Asia Minor and the Caucasus as well as Semitic peoples moreso than most other Iranians. Tombseye 14:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Azerbaijan

The table is not very precise:

Azerbaijan 
Independent Khanates 1722 – 1813 
Russian Azerbaijan 1813 – 1917 
Democratic Republic 1918 – 1920 
Azerbaijan SSR 1936 – 1991 
Republic of Azerbaijan 1991 to date

First off, the Turkmanchay Treaty was concluded in 1828, and that one finally sealed the fate of Irevan, Naxcivan and Talysh khanates. So the Independent Khanates period should be extended to 1828. Then, the Azerbaijan SSR should be not from 1936, when it became constituent Republic of USSR, but 1920, when it was Sovietized and formed as a Soviet Republic and entered into a sort of a union with other Soviet republics, such as Russia. USSR was formed only in 1922. I will fix those. --AdilBaguirov 12:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

We should just wait for a while. In my opinion, the template is way to long. This template should only be about the pre-modern history of the region, i.e. prehistorical past until the Afsharid dynasty. Everything that came after the Afsharids - meaning the modern nations named in the template - should get their seperate templates. Tājik 19:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
You are probably right, as it doesn't make sense to include them -- otherwise, a similar table should be created for many other empires, such as Ottoman, Seljuk, Mongol, etc. But in the meantime, the correct dates should be displayed nevertheless so as to reflect the facts to the best possible degree. --AdilBaguirov 20:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
This template ist concerned with the geographical region of Greater Iran. I think that many people misinterprete this as some kind of "ethnic template". This template should cover the pre-modern history of the region. I initiated this, because I believe that it does not make any sense to include 6 different templates of 6 different nations in the article Seljuqs, for example. The legacy of the Seljuqs is shared by many countries of the region, and it does not make sense to claim them either "Turkish", "Iranian", "Afghan", or "Turkmen". To avoid an overload of templates, the pre-modern history of the region should besummed up in one single neutral template: the "History of the Iranian Cultural Continent" template. Tājik 20:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
for now, i agree with AdilBaguirov, this template is more correct than what you propose. For example, Republic of Azerbaijan has the same history as the main land of Iran until 200 years ago. (that is well after the modern time that you mentioned). this also applies to Bahrain and eastern parts of Afghanistan. This template for now is the best form that can show the history. --Pejman47 20:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Tajik, then what about "History of the Turkic Cultural Continent" and chronology denoting "Greater Turkistan/Turan", or "Geographic and modern legacy of Turkic empires" or smth like that? I think the History of Iran template should be devoid of politics and reflect facts, reflect dynasties that ruled Iran -- which should be defined more properly. It should also denote when it ruled much more than what is understood as Iran, and when it was reduced to ruling small parts of lands. Anyhow, the template is an outstanding job, but just needs more clarification and similar templates for other cultures. --AdilBaguirov 20:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Yu will hardly find a justification for such a template, except maybe WP:POINT. There has never been a "Turkic cultural continent", "Greater Turkistan" is a myth, and "History of Turkic Empires" was deleted before because it contained POV. That'S also the reason why I would never support POV-templates such as "Iranic Empires" or "Indo-European dynasties".
"Iranian cultural continent" or "Greater Iran" is a term used by scholars and experts (see Richard Nelson Frye's "Greater Iran"), and Persianate culture is the base of what we today know as "Iranian culture", "Turkish culture", "Afghan culture" or even "Pakistani culture". Tājik 01:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
"Greater Iran" is not commonly used. It exists as a term and it is used here and there, but that's all. It is not a coined term like "Anglo-Saxon world" or the "Arab world". It is extremely rare to find the term "Greater Iran" used by foreigners in everyday language. I don't even understand why such a template should exist really. History of Iran should be enough and it should only concern the history of the modern state of Iran.
Following the same logic, we can also create a template for "History of Latin lands/Europe/Mediterranean" and include all the countries that were colonized and assimilated by the Roman Empire. It can make sense but it would be so unneccessary and a waste of time except per POINT. And keep in mind that "Latin Med/Europe" is a term that is twenty times more on sound academic footing than "Greater Iran" or "Iranian Cultural Continent". Baristarim 02:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Baristarim, the logic behind the idea is to avoid useless edit-wars such as recently in the articles Ghurids and Ghaznavids. User:NisarKand, a Pashtun from Afghanistan who does not identify himself with the modern nation Iran, removed the template "History of Iran" and replaced it with "History of Afghanistan". While the legacy of these two dynasties is shared by both Iran and Afghanistan (as well as neighbouring countries), it is totally useless and annyoing to have 6 or 7 templates of different nation-states in one article. At the end, it would be even worse than this long template. That'S why I suggested to put the pre-modern history of the region - that means: the era before the modern nation-states were created - into one single neutral template. The modern history of each nation-state, from the beginning till present day (in case of Iran: Zand dynasty till Iranian revolution), should have its own seperate template. Tājik 02:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you are giving too much credit to one culture over all others, despite her having impact only from 6th century BC, long after Media, Manna, Urartu, Shumers, Akkads, etc. Not to mention that after the advent of Islam and Arabization of both languages of the region and cultures, claiming some exclusive or even overwhelming influence over non-Iranian peoples, dynasties, and nations is not correct.
Also, "Greater Turkistan/Turan" is definitely better known than "Greater Iran", and of course saying there is no "Turkic(/sh) culture" is not credible, and you just need to run a search in any searching engine to find that out for yourself.
But most importantly, the template never denotes any "Greater Iran" or otherwise any mythological or cultural connotations. Being titled "History of Iran", it displays a very ethno-centric view, and attempts to spread its influence farther than it should. You can't attempt to exclusively associate such dynasties as Aq Qoyunlu and Qara Qoyunlu with Iran. Neither can you do that with Seljuks, Great Atabeks of Azerbaijan, Ilkhanids and Mongols in general. Yes, they ruled Iran, but they were not Iranian, at least not exclusively and not mostly so. Parthians and Safavids also offer a challenge, although others, like Aghameneids, Sassanids, Afsharids, Zands, Pehlevi, etc., are of course Iranian. --AdilBaguirov 04:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems there is a mature discussion here. I wanted to add some comments with regards to some civilizations. Adil I do not think Urartu, Summer, Akkad are mentioned in the template. Media and Manna are of course part of what is considered Iranian Plateu. Although this is not an ethnic article but the Medes and Parthians are classified firmly as Iranian speakers. Parthian specially has enough manuscripts(Nisa, Manichean Parthian text, Avromana..) that leaves no doubt for any scholar. I have looked at Parthian Manichean texts myself and I can partly recall the first sentence of Mani. Medes are pretty clear as well from the words found in Herodotus, names found in Old Persian as well as the history of Herodotus (directly refers to them as Arian), Geography of Strabo and History of Moses of Khoren. The Mannea of south west urmia seem to have had 10-15% Indo-Iranian names [5] but were mainly of non-Iranian stock whose language is still not determined clearly but probably could be linked to Hurrian. They were a more of a tribal confederacy which include some Iranian elments. Now Turkistan/Turan is generally considered Central Asia above the Oxus in the Islamic period. In fact Iran in the Islamic period is mentioned from Oxus to Euphrates by different historians (including Biranu). Starting from Parthian times,these dynasties used the name Iran to refer to the area under control or part of the area they controlled: Parthian,Sassanid, Samanid, Ghaznavid, Ghori,Seljuqid, Ilkhanid,Qara Qoyunlu, Safavid, Afsharid, Qajar.. Safavids of course were of mixed ethnic origin (Kurdish, Turkic, Greek, Gilak..), but they considered themselves Shahanshah's of Iran and use Iran to refer to their land. Going back to the discussion at hand, I agree we need correct dates. But now the question I have is that where all the khanates of the republic of Azerbaijan independent or some where semi-independent and some totally dependent on the Qajars? Perhaps Tajik's suggestion to have it end with Afsharids is best since Nader Shah was the last great conquerer who controlled the vast lands that the Parthians, Seljuqids, Sassanids, Achaemenids, ..controlled. --alidoostzadeh 05:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Tajik I like your template. Here is an interesting poem by Ghaznavid poet (Farrokhi Sistani) praising Sultan Mahmud after his exploits in central asia: ز ایرانی چگونه شاد خواهد بود تورانی پس از چندین بلا کامد ز ایران بر سر توران Praising the king, Farrokh says: How can a Turani be happy from an Irani, after all the calamities brought from Iran on Turan (referring to Sultan Mamhud). Thus Ghaznavids really considered their rivals (I believe the Qarakhanids) as kings of Turans and themselves as king of Iran. Note this was in the Khorasan domain. In the western lands Khaghani and Nizami and Qatran praise their rulers as kings of Iran.. Qatran has a very nice poem on Sassanids while praising the Shaddadid ruler, considering him a successor to them. Note it mentions Iran twice and considers Rome, Georgia (Gorjistan), Hend (Idnia) and Torkestan (Turkistan)(beyond Oxus) as domains to be controlled by Iran. I think the template is missing minor dynasties like Shaddadis, Rawwadids, Kakawyah..although some of these were officially part of the Abbassid empire.

این جهان بودست دایم ملک ساسانیان

   خواست سالارش خدا در ملک ساسان کند

نیست کست در گوهر ساسانیان چون لشکری

 تا پس آن چون نیاکان شاهی ایران کند

همچو افريدون بگيرد ملك عالم سر بسر

   و آنگهي تدبير ملك خيل فرزندان كند

روم و گرجستان به فرمان منوچهر آورد

هند و تركستان بزير حكم نوشروان آورد

او بتخت ملک ايران بر نشيند در سطخر

    کهترين فرزند خود را مهتر آران کند

تا همی فرمان داور خاک را ساکن کند

 تا همی تقدير يزدان چرخ را گردان کند

ملک او را از زوال ايمن همی گردون کند

 جان او را از فنا ایمن همی یزدان کند

شاد بنشيند بکام دل بر ايوان شهی

  وز فروغ روی خويش آراسته فرمان کند

--alidoostzadeh 06:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change style and/or content of template

I suggest the template be modified to be hidden at the bottom of articles, allowing users to expand using a "show" button like some of the other templates. As it is, this template is simply not justified in taking such a prominent position on some of the articles. Thanks, --A.Garnet 18:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I concur. It clutters the articles. E104421 02:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it actually very informative. It's position also is in the side of the articles and does not interfere with the main content--alidoostzadeh 01:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I see not many people are willing to discuss this. I still suggest this template be made a horizontal and hidden one to be placed at the bottom of articles. I'd like to get more views on this please. Thanks, --A.Garnet 19:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Tājik 23:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
No, the template is fine as it is, navigation templates are suppose to be visible to help the reader navigate between the articles on that subject, they can't be horizontal and hidden. However, I am working on making the template smaller by making the fonts smaller and the different sub-sections hidden. --Mardavich 23:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to David Kernow, the template's size has been drastically reduced. It looks great now. --Mardavich 11:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mitanni

Tajik I found this in Britannica about Mitanni.


Indo-Iranian empire centred in northern Mesopotamia that flourished from about 1500 to about 1360 BC. At its height the empire extended from Kirkuk (ancient Arrapkha) and the Zagros Mountains in the east through Assyria to the Mediterranean Sea in the west. Its heartland was the Khabur River region, where Wassukkani, its capital, was probably located. Mitanni was one of several kingdoms and small states (another being Hurri) founded by the Indo-Iranians in Mesopotamia and Syria. Although originally these Indo-Iranians were probably members of Aryan tribes that later settled in India, they apparently broke off from the main tribes on the way and migrated to Mesopotamia instead. There they settled among the Hurrian peoples and soon became the ruling noble class, called maryannu. The foreign policy of Mitanni during its early years was based largely on competition with Egypt for control of Syria, but amicable relations were established with the Egyptian king Thutmose IV (reigned 1425–17 BC). Perhaps the most outstanding Mitannian king was Saustatar (Shaushshatar; reigned c. 1500–c.1450 BC), who is said to have looted the Assyrian palace in Ashur. The last independent king of Mitanni was Tushratta (died c. 1360 BC), under whose reign Wassukkani was sacked by the Hittite king Suppiluliumas I. Tushratta was later assassinated, and dynastic struggles ensued until Mattiwaza, a son of Tushratta, was aided by Suppiluliumas against Shuttarna of Hurri; thereafter Mitanni became part of the Hittite empire and was called Hanigalbat. Shortly afterward, however, it was captured by the Assyrian Adad-nirari I (reigned c. 1307–c. 1275 BC) and again by Shalmaneser I (reigned c. 1275–c. 1245 BC), who turned the territory east of the Euphrates River into an Assyrian province. See also Hurrian. --alidoostzadeh 01:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why CE?

Common era does't have much importance in History of Iran. If you want to divide the pre-modren section to two subsections, it's much more appropriate to divide it to "Before Islam" and "After the advent of Islam". Jahangard

Well, this guy once told me that "the preference of the first major editor should be adhered to." I believe this template origianlly used CE (or at least it has for years), so we should probably stick to that. Khoikhoi 03:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The preference of the first major editor is only important for choosing among the common writing styles (for example choosing American or British spelling). For an issue like this, the preference of the first major editor is not important at all. Jahangard 03:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk. Khoikhoi 04:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's an example of what I said. Choosing between BCE/CE and BC/AD is choosing between two common writing styles (similar to choosing between American and British spelling). That's not the case here. Jahangard 04:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain why the preference of the first major editor is not important in this case? Khoikhoi 05:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Because it's more about the content, rather than the writing style. Let me explain it with an example: If you go a Wikipedia page the Japan and in the history section, change 57 AD to 57 CE, that's just a minor change which is only related to the writing style and for this minor issues, the preference of the first major contributor takes precedence (to avoid meaningless edit wars). But, if you see that in the first version, the history section is devided to "before CE", "after CE and before French revolution" and "After the French revolution", it's not just a minor issue about the writing style, and the first major contributor can not expect others to accept this nonsense categorization for History of Japan. Jahangard 05:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, you should note that even if you consider this kind categorizations as examples of different writing styles, to respect the preference of the first contributor, it should be common in the literature. There isn't any academic book on History of Iran which divides it to "Befor CE" and "After CE". Jahangard 05:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I see what you're saying now, but I'm not so sure if the Zoroastrians, Persian Jews, etc. would approve of this. I know that non-Muslims only account 2% of Iran's population, and that Iran is an Islamic Republic, but I don't think that everyone would agree that Islam is the most important thing in Iran's history. It has played a very important role in the 20th century, but many other factors have contributed to Iran's history as well. Am I on the right track? Khoikhoi 05:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not about being muslim or non-muslim. To categorize differents eras in the history of a country (or a region), the key historical dates should be used. For example, if we want to divide the post-Islamic history of Iran to 3 section, the Mongol invasion or Timur are natural choices for one of the dividing points (just because of their importance in Iranian history, not because we love Chengiz Khan or Timur). That's how the academicians categorize Iranian history (for example see the topics of different volumes of The Cambridge History of Iran). Jahangard 06:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
If anyone wants to categorize Iranian history to "Before CE" and "After CE", he/she should cite an academic source for that categorization (as reliable as "The Cambridge History of Iran" or "Iranica"). Jahangard 06:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • My impression from the above is not that Jahangard is suggesting that some other date system is used – I imagine the BC-AD / CE-BCE system is the system most commonly understood and used by English-speaking peoples – but that the "Before Common Era" and "Common Era" headings in the template would sit more appropriately on the right-hand side of the template, i.e. the column of dates (and probably as abbreviations). Would this work...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. It's fine. Jahangard 00:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
My concern is not about the date system. The main problem of the previous version was the way you had divided the pre-modern Iranian history. To divide the history of a region, the key turning points of its history should be used as the dividing points. For example, in History of Britain, "Roman conquest", "Anglo-saxon conquest" and "Norman conquest" are some of the key turning points, not the birth of Jesus. Jahangard 06:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
For the record, AD goes before the year, not after. siafu 00:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Before Islam is fine I guess, but if you say the bith of Jesus is not a key turning point, why did you change it to BC? Khoikhoi 07:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Because the difference between BC/BCE is not important for me. If you prefer BCE, change it to BCE. Jahangard 07:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Done. Khoikhoi 07:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that User:Jahangard is right. The Common Era is not a key point in Iran's history, however it is the Islamic conquest which played the major role. Ariana310 09:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please create another one for Iran

This template shows that History of Iran begins in 1700. This is wrong --Arad 15:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This template gives a wrong impression

This template give the wrong impression that the nations of Afghanistan - Bahrain - Iran, etc are founded when their history goes seperated which is wrong. For example Iran existed long time before Afsharid dynasty, but in this template, Asfsharid are the first for Iran. --Arad 17:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed

I think now I'm all right with this template. Please inform me if you dissagree with the current form. --Arad 17:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Arad's edits

I think you had already argued on this point before. If you take a look at the discussions here, you will find out that the main disputed point was whether to name the template as Greater Iran' or Iran, or whether to include other modern Persian-speaking countries, who were once a part of the ancient Persia, or not. You will find that the majority of members agreed for the current version of the template, so there is no need to re-bring the past problematic changes/edits, or re-create the past discussions. However, you already created another independent template for modern-day Iran.

You have to differentiate between "Greater Iran" (as an equivalent term for Iranian Cultural Continent) and "Iran" (as a modern-day country). Greater Iran refers to all the territories of ancient Persia which share the same civilisation and culture of Airyanem Vaejah (the Avestan name for Iran-Shahr). Thus, modern-day Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan all share equally the same civilisation. You cannot make one single country as the main holder of all Cultural heritage of ancient Iran or Ariana.

Today's modern-day Iran is not the same whole "Iran-Shahr", but a part of the ancient Iran/Ariana or great Persia, as like other Persian countries i.e. Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan or others. Conservation of the name "Iran" for a territory after the 18th century, cannot make it become the same grand Iran. It was after the 17th century that the modern history for all modern Persian countries began. So I suggest that the current version of the template be kept, on which the majority of the members are agreed. Ariana310 20:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm against the Premodern Modern concept. It doesn't make sens. Modern is after the Industrial revolution or anything very recent. 1700 isn't modern. So I decided to put Unified and Seperated. This thing is a whole different problem than the older discussion --Arad 21:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
You are the single person with this view. There's no difference, it's the same point which you already elaborated in this Talk page. The majority of members are agreed with this version, you personally cannot re-modify it.Ariana310 21:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you're new to wikipedia, but I can. You can't revert. --Arad 22:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq in the template

There's no doubt that Iraq was once under the reign of Parthian and Sassanid empires. Even later, it was ruled by many Persian empires for a long time. But traditionally Iraq is an Arabic state and no more a Persianate country.

After the 7th century, it went under the rule of Arabs by Umayyads and then Abbasids. Even later, it was fully controlled by the Turkish Ottoman Empire. So it is far away to consider Iraq as a Persianate state and put it among the modern Persian-countries in the Template. So if there was not disagreement, I will remove Iraq from the list.Ariana310 21:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

it seems that you don't know history well, what is now iraq was in the territory of Safavids and I think all the Shia shrines there are built in that time. --Pejman47 21:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I did state that it was ruled by the Persian empires for a long time. Regarding Safavids, they ruled on about half of today's Iraq, not at all of it. My point is at today's socio-cultural conditions in Iraq. Today, Iraq is no more a Persianate country, which would have reserved the Persian culture. The main point is the Persian culture NOT the Shi'ism. If you count on it as being ruled for some years by Persian empires in the past, then why not to add India and Pakistan. India and Pakistan were ruled by the Persianate empires, more than what Iraq was ruled. The Ghaznavids, Ghorids, Mughals, Delhi Sultanates, were all Persianate empires although whether they were originally Turkic or Pashtoon (like Lodhis).
So whether Iraq should be removed, or India and Pakistan should be added as well. So that there would be the same logic.Ariana310 21:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
first of all Baghdad was capital of Iran for a long time. Maybe the cultured changed but so what, they shared their history with Iran. If Iraq is removed, then please remove all other countries as well and create seperate templates (better idea). --Arad 21:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

So if only the fact that Iraq shares a short period of its history with Iran, puts it among the Persianate states, despite that it has no more the same culture, then please add India and Pakistan as well. They shared their history with Greater Iran as well, many Persian empires ruled there for several centuries.Ariana310 21:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if this template is about culture, not history, then remove Iraq. I think that includes Bahrain and Uzbakestan --Arad 22:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It's also important to note that Iraq means lower Iran --Arad 22:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Iraq is Arabized Iranian territory. Even Ibn Khaldun says that Iraq was one of the "Persian countries". The name Iraq is even Iranic, as were the names of many of the cities who have had their names changed since Arabization, such as Mosul. Not to mention, Baghdad comes from the Persian language. Iraq's history is tied to that of Iran's except for the past few centuries.Azerbaijani 22:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


it is not just about culture, for example Bahrain although a arabic state was part of the persian empire up to just 200 years ago. I don't see any reason for deleting them and there was no "complaint" about that. Ariana310, please take the tajik template as the basis. --Pejman47 22:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, agreed.Ariana310 09:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq should not be on this template

Absolute ridicules, Iraq and Bahrain are not part of Greater Iran, if these countries or part of them once a day was part of Sassanid Empire or any other Persian empire this does not make it Part of Grater Iran. Also this template is talking about modern and ancient history of Iraq so how is this related to Iran. Iraq was called Mesopotamia before the Persian invasion, and the native inhabitants of Iraq were Sumerian, Assyrians, Cheldans Not Persians. Arabs inhibited the southern and south western part of Mesopotamia before the Islamic conquests began .Despite the fact that they were under the Persian rulers (Al-Hira,Lakhmids)

From your view of point I can also say that Iran or China is Part of greater Syria or Arabia or what ever because Ummayad dynasty and Abbasid caliphs ruled China and Iran more than 300 years. Also you should know that we are not talking about Shi'ism you are talking here about Persian nationalism and national pride so how this to deal with Arabs!!?. As far as I know Safavid dynasty was Turkic or Kurdish. Anyway, Iraq and Bahrain should be removed or at least the After Islamic conquest of these countries. By the way, why don't you mention the Iran-Iraqi war as a civil war from your view of point for greater Iran! I know that Baghdad means something like garden of Dad but when Almansur built this city its name was Madinat alsalam (peace city) or Almudawwara (the round city). تيسفون‎ Ctesiphon is the name of the sassanid empire although this name is originally Aramaic not Persian, and Aramaic is well-know as the native language of ancient Syrian people. However this does not make ‎ Ctesiphon city Aramaic. For your own knowledge ‎ Ctesiphon is about 20km southern greater Baghdad.--Aziz1005 03:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/s/Template_talk%7EHistory_of_Greater_Iran_27ed.html"