Talk:Greater Iran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greater Iran article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	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.

	Greater Iran is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang, Tibet and Central Asian portions of Iran and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance 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.

Greater Iran is part of WikiProject Caucasia, an attempt to better improve articles related to Caucasia and Caucasians. If you would like to participate you can visit the project page.

[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:

6 are referring to geology [1], [2], [3],

[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 D iyako 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.D iyako 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. Aucaman^Talk 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. Aucaman^Talk 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. Aucaman^Talk/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. Aucaman^Talk/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. Aucaman^Talk/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)

[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. —Nightst a llion (?) 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.--Gerash 77 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)

"Greater Iran" is more common. There is absolutely no room for confusion, as far as I can tell. Sangak ^Talk 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greater Iran not Persia

Although too many Iranians in the USA live with the idea that Iran and Persia are the same, they are not. In fact there is no country called Persia. There are no evidences that there has been once an independent Persia either. Persia was a tributary/ or part of Median empire. Before that time it is generally believed to be part of the Elamian kingdom. The mis-usage of persia instead of iran stems from the fact that the capital of Iran during Achamenid was in Perisa (Ostan-e Fars), and according to the Greek historical tradition of city -states the name of a capital was given to the surrounding areas. So the fact that the capital was called Parse-kade (persepolis) (Takhte Jamshid is only the popular belives), then the whole empire was called as such. Then the Arabs and Westneres adpated the same reason. TRhe Old testament of Bible has used Median/Persian interchangeably and the Iranians themselves have always used Iran (and not persia or any other names) for this country. Babakexorramdin 10:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats why the article is called Greater Iran.--Zereshk 21:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

yes but someone has added Greater Persia this Persia that in some parts. Usually Iranian Amercians (of divrese ethnic backgrounds) doing this, but their motives stem from other than facts. (they simply do not want to be called Iranians). Babakexorramdin 06:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, what you say about the reason for the Greek originally saying Persia when they meant Iran is correct, but anyway Iran as a country was called Persia (in common English use) until 1935, and the official position of the Iranian government was that both names could be used interchangably until 1979. So it is not exactly right to condemn people for still using an old name which was in use until recently, nor is it correct to say that a country called Persia never existed. When an Iranian says he is Persian he means it the sense that the name was used in the west till recently, not as the name of a province of Iran. Shervink 15:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Iran was called Iran and not Persia. It is very simple. Early medieval poets such as Ferdowsi and Nizami Ganjavi used consciously Iran. Mongol invaders called it Ulus Iran. Safavi, Afshari, Zand and Qajar Kings also used the name Iran in all official documents, long before Reza Shah. The name Iran has its roots in Avesta. It is simply not only wrong but also harmful to call Iran as Persia --Babakexorramdin 09:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Look these things are all correct. The point is, however, that in common english use, the word Persia has been used for centuries as a substitute for Iran. So when you're speaking english, such as on the english wikipedia, there's nothing wrong with using the terms interchangably, since it is how the country was called until recently. Similarly, there's nothing wrong with saying Japan or Finland or Greece or Germany or China, even though none of these names are in fact used by the inhabitants of those countries. Shervink (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some other facts

Yes according to a popular theory Croats belive that they stem from ancient Iranian tribes (Sramathians most probably), the same theory says more or less that also Serbs and Bosnians are from this tribe. see this http://www.magma.ca/~rendic/chapter1.htm there dozens of srticles and books about this. A Romanian friend also once told me that there is a theory that the ancient Dacians of Romania were Iranians. I have not read it anywere but it makes sense, because as Ukraine (Scythia) was an Iranian land and they were also found in the Balkans so Romania most probably has been too. Also remember when Darius went to fight with the Scythians (Iranians) he crossed Danube (the border between the contemporary Bulgaria and Romania), while if there were no Scythians (Iranians) in Romania, then he could attack the scythians Via Central Asia or the Caucasus! He also pointed to some artifacts of Dacians which resembled those of Scythians. Anyway. Another people who you should not forget are the Jaszy of Hungary. As the name suggests they are releated to the Ossetians. In fact they are Alans who entered this region (Central Hungary). They have already forgotten their language but are still or (were for a long time) aware of their ethnicity. It is debated whether or not Armenians are Iranians. The Armenian language is very close to the Iranian languages. Things are similar which could not be said that they are taken over from (other) Iranian languages. Most probably Armenian is a separate branch of the Iranian languages (next to the west eg. persian, Kurdish etc... and East eg. Ossetian, Pamir etc...). Addinf to that the Armenian aristocracy and kings have been of parthian origins. So You can consider them as Iranian peoples or not. Most Armenians however do not like to be related to Iranians and a lot I have encountered are very hostile to Iranians. The main reason is the religiosu difference, not knowing that Ossetians (who do not deny their Iranianness)are also Orthodox Christians. Having said this Georgians who are a Kartvelian people have assimilated many ossetians (Alans) in them. Moreover the georgian ancient kings and aristocracy have been of Parthian origins too. So maybe you can only mention this without listing it. Babakexorramdin 12:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian World

Iranian World for the name of this article is a legitimate one. There are a lot of Worlds which are less legitimate: 1- The Western world= It is too diverse and to vast with a very fragmented culture and political sphere 2- The Arab world: it is only based on the Arabic language. imposed pon so many non-Arab peoples who do not understand each other properly and moreover they are in value cultural terms very different. A lebanse or Egyptian is culturally too different from a Qatari or Saudi. 3- Turkish/ic world. This term is promoted by Anti-Iranianist agents. However it is true that there are a variety of Turkicspeaking people in the region, they nevertheless try to bring all these under the influence of turkey (whcih should be ruled by extremist elements). These Turkic peoples have not been part of the Ottoman empire however. Moreover Turkey and Iran are not antagonistic countries. They share a similar culture and are in friendly terms. Another fact is that the Turkic peoples who share cultural similarities, they do it also with non-Turkicspeaking Iranic people. Those Turkic peoples who did not come close to the Iranic people are distinct (Yakut, Chuvash etc...).

All and all if there are other worlds, the Iranian world sounds only more legitimate than the other ones. --Babakexorramdin 12:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greater Iran a JOKE

Let me tell you my brothers as long as there is afghans and Afghanistan This Greater Iran Garbage is a Dream and will be a dream for the rest of history. Right now no iranians has any Credibility in books or in person with afghans I can tell u that much. Iran can dream about this all they want its safe to say its not going to happen looool Pashtun786 (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Pashtun786 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pashtun786 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sir Afghan! you should understand that we Parsibaans are treated by the international community as villains, we feel very inferior to the rest of the world. So for this reason we want Afghans to protect us in case the west drops bombs on us, we want refugee status in Afghanistan because there is very good democracy in your country. Our country Iran is like hell, we can't do anything anymore without the radical Iranian government's watch. That's why too many people in Iran use drugs. We are in need of aid from Pashtuns of Afghanistan and to protect us from our government leaders. We are your servents and you are our masters, we love Hamid Karzai because he is a hero not just to Afghanistan but also to the people of Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and India. --Inferior-Parsibaan (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Afghanistani Tajiks"

"Afghanistani Tajiks" -wikipedia finds 84 hits. "Afghan Tajiks" -wikipedia finds 632 hits.

This is an English language encyclopedia, and we need to use what is most commonly used. Kingturtle (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It is oxymoronic to say Afghan Tajiks. Afghan means Pashtun. Tajiks cannot be Tajik ethnically and Afghan ethnically at the same time. The solution of this would be to use Afghanistani which literally means "from/of Afghanistan" and is analogous to Pakistani, Uzbekistani, etc. HuaijinYang (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The Online Etymology Dictionary says Oxymoron:

1657, from Gk. oxymoron, noun use of neut. of oxymoros (adj.) "pointedly foolish," from oxys "sharp" (see acrid) + moros "stupid." Rhetorical figure by which contradictory terms are conjoined so as to give point to the statement or expression; the word itself is an illustration of the thing. Now often used loosely to mean "contradiction in terms." Yes the use of the term Afghan Tajiks is pointed, it refers to Tajiks from Afghanistan as opposed to those who may dwell or come from other places. To see it as contradictory is to miss the point. --Bejnar (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Afghanistani literally means "from Afghanistan". The suffix "i" at the end of a country name means from that country. This is analogous to Pakistani, Uzbekistani, Tajikistani... etc.

Afghanistani is an English word according to Princeton University. HuaijinYang (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Again you miss the point. --Bejnar (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you solve the problem by saying "Tajiks in/from Afghanistan"?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.129.175 (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Afghan Tajiks is how we Tajiks from Afghanistan refer to ourselves. Man shuma ro meshnasam. --RomainSnd (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

RomainSnd, you are not a Tajik, but just another banned sockpuppet of the Pashtun-nationalist User:NisarKand. Your sockpuppetry is getting hillarious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.152.85 (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)