Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:52, 29 August 2009

	Persian Empire (dynasty) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 12, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted

This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Iran Top‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran Top This redirect has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Afghanistan This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the redirect attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan Zoroastrianism Mid‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Zoroastrianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Zoroastrianism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ZoroastrianismWikipedia:WikiProject ZoroastrianismTemplate:WikiProject ZoroastrianismZoroastrianism Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Central Asia High‑importance Persian Empire (dynasty) 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, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan 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.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia High This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country

Template:FAOL

Good Job! "Robust, well-linked introduction" — Sunday Times (London), 4 September, 2005

	Software: Computing
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware This redirect is supported by WikiProject Computing.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 21, 2005 and March 21, 2006.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This should be a disambiguation page

Persian Empire may refer to Persia in general or Achaemenid Empire, Sassanid Empire, Samanid Empire, Safavid Empire etc. So in order to avoid controversy and WP:SYNTHESIS, we should just turn this into a disambiguation page with links to all those pages. --Kurdo777 (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

See User:R'n'B's comment in the top section of the talk page. Dekimasuよ! 11:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A (fact conform) reason why we can't have a disambig is the one provided by Dekimasu (17:17, 21 August); i.e. because most users do not know what PE refers to, so a description is necessary, which is not really possible with a disambig. And (17:25, 21 August) because there are 1800 links pointing here, all of which would need clean up. Also, it needs sourcing to keep OR at bay, but sourcing is not "normal" in a disambig. -- Fullstop (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

I've rewritten the introduction for a start. I'm sure there are problems with my formulations, please play around with it. I also commented out the sections on the Medes and Seleucids, as I've not seen anyone defending their inclusion within the article. john k (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

They could easily be mentioned within other sections as background for what the imperial systems develop out of if necessary (without any real need for detail). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible structure

I've been talking to Warrior directly and this was my idea for how to structure the page (note, there should be a strong political focus): 1. Culture - short background on Iran, Afghanistan, India, Iraq, and other territories along with language and religions in a general sense 2. Imperial system - use of the term Shah, various common attributes, originating territory, and its original background. 3. History - discusses rulers, types of rule, styles of imperial states, and size (a. Achaemenid - discusses pre-Achaemenid and fall, b. Sassanid - discusses pre-Sassanid and fall, c. Islamic conquest to Mongol conquest - the various dynasties competing for the imperial title, inner war, trying to create a new Persian state, d. Mongol conquest to present - taking over imperial title by Mongols to reclaiming by Persians up until the formation of the Iranian nation state and end of the imperial system). 4. Legacy covering use of the term and views of the term of both Persian Empire and shah in the modern (post WW1) world. The actual size of each can be up for discussion, but I feel that there is enough in the Scope discussion that would allow everyone to accept a discussion on the dynasties attempting to become -imperial- if they weren't imperial according to everyone's definition. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. But the key to a good article on an important term such as "Persian empire" is the use of the term "Greater Iran" much before "culture" of a group of people who lived under systems of "imperial dynasties with certain common idea of unification" each with certain "specific historical relevance". The very undisputed fact that "Persian empire" is a referential term to "unique territorial boundaries more or less" unchanged in "different and changing periods of history" may show the problem with this article--Xashaiar (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems fairly reasonable, although I think the proposed sections 3c and 3d need to be short and focused so as to avoid duplicating History of Iran, as should any background about the Medes, Seleucids, and Parthians in the sections on the Achaemenids and Sassanids. john k (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Already covered by Culture of Iran, Greater Iran and/or Persianate society; 2. Already covered by Shah and History of Iran (among other pages); 3. Already covered by History of Iran and relevant sub-articles on various empires etc.; 4. Don't really understand what this is about. --Folantin (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

And History of Iran is covered in multiple pages. etc etc etc. Should we have no page on the US because all of the information is covered in other pages? You are forgetting something - those are forks of -this- page. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What? "Should we have no page on the US because all of the information is covered in other pages?"Again, I don't understand what you are talking about. --Folantin (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea is that there is overlapping all over Misplaced Pages. Why is this particular overlap so unacceptable? Personally, I think this article is very problematic in that, at the moment, it generally just repeats material that is also in History of Iran, and is not clear about what its purpose is which is different from that page's. I think that, in general, it would be a perfectly appropriate solution to turn this page into a short setlist, because its contents are largely covered in other articles. That being said, I don't think an article set out in the way Ottava suggests above is necessarily unacceptable just because the material it covers is in other articles - as Ottava pointed out, all the material in History of Iran is covered in other articles, as well. That being said, an article whose contents are going to be largely duplicative of other articles needs to have a very clear purpose - we need to have good sources for what we're doing with this article, and why. Why do we need a Persian Empire article which is separate from History of Iran? And how can we insure that this article avoids any original research - particularly non-standard claims that various dynasties which ruled between 800 and 1500 should be described as "the Persian Empire?" john k (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's been the point I and others have been making all along. There is no real justification for this page's existence. At most it should be no more than a short article with a bunch of links to the relevant content elsewhere.--Folantin (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There is what we would prefer, and what we can actually achieve. I'm not really convinced there's a need for an article to do much more than that, either, but we clearly have a substantial number of people, beyond just Ottava, who feel differently. The article as it stands is unacceptable, for reasons we've gotten into before, but that doesn't mean it can't be turned into something that's relatively decent. If the only obstacle to that is fear of duplicating material elsewhere, I don't know that that should be the stumbling block. That being said, I think it remains to be demonstrated whether the article can be turned into something that's relatively decent - but engaging constructively with proposals seeking to do that seems like the best way forward. In the near term, we're not going to be able to turn the article into a setlist, or short disambiguation page, or whatever. Seeing how things have gone so far, insisting on that as the only option seems like a road to constant edit warring, a very unstable page, and probably some sort of arbitration, eventually. It'd be best to avoid that, if possible. As such, I think it's best to at least work to see if the article can be salvaged in anything like its present form. If not, we can go back to edit warring, instability, personal attacks, and eventual arbitration. john k (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree we should compromise on quality and accuracy in this way. Again, it seems like duplication for the sake of it.--Folantin (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that we should see if we really need to compromise on quality and accuracy. If so, that's unacceptable, but maybe something can be worked out which would be acceptable to everyone. john k (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

@John K: So you mean we should accept this crappy page just because someone like Ottava persistently defends it with some absurd arguments? If solving this problem need arbitration, then go for it. A topic ban (on Iran-related pages) is the best solution for someone like Ottava who hasn't been previously involved in any Iran-related page (and hasn't contributed anything in this broad topic) and is now disrupting this discussion (just because of some old dispute with Folantin). Alefbe (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I am definitely not saying we should accept this crappy page. I'm saying there might be a way to make it into something worthwhile without so much drama. If I'm wrong, arbitration always remains available. john k (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

John - The History of Iran page is missing quite a bit of information, such as cultural and religious views that are left out. The focus should be shifted more towards culture (swapping out 5 k of one for 5k of the other spread evenly). The Pre-historical section should be the general model for the rest of the historical sections (to accomplish the emphasis on culture). That would allow a clearer different when this page focuses on politics, governmental changes, rulership, extent, etc. This page can also allow for the intersection between History of Iran and History of Afghanistan or to other countries. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that I would agree with this. The political history of Iran after the Arab Conquest is not the same thing as the history of the concept of the Persian Empire after the Arab conquest. The basic political narrative ought to be given at History of Iran. If this article is not to be turned into a setlist, it ought to focus on the Achaemenids and Sassanids, on the later usage of the term "Persian Empire" and on the ways Islamic dynasties in Iran looked back to the legacy of the ancient Persian Empires. The complicated political narrative of the seventh to twentieth centuries ought to be based in History of Iran. john k (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

John, with what space? Articles are limited by the MoS in size. There is no way to discuss the history of Iran, which involves thousands of years before the empires, the various cultures, language, and other aspects, plus the current history in addition to in-depth discussions of politics. The page should probably have a summary in the middle of it of the -Persian Empire- page to deal with the political history. History is more than politics and government. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

And so you know, 5k would be roughly one or two lines of text from each of the sections. It would not be a major change. But it -would- show a different emphasis. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

John - The focus will be on political first and foremost, and the condensing of the dynasties into one section should keep all of it down to about 3/4 paragraphs that focus on the fighting for dominance and the attempt at restoration. That would definitely keep it different than the history page (which, itself would need to be further reduced according to summary style). Ottava Rima (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on what you point 4 would involve? john k (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that it would partly discuss how the Iranian government (both pre and post 1979) viewed the Empire in political, social, and religious terms. The other part would be how non-Iranian government (both pre and post 1979) did the same. This could easily discuss the "common use" of the word as someone argued above about how it was used as a "romanticized view of the past". Ottava Rima (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What does the post 1979 Iranian government have anything to do with Persian empire!? What you are suggesting, would be a clear violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. --Kurdo777 (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis is to create something not directly mentioned in a source. There are -many- sources discussing the modern Iranian view of the past. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I still believe that this should be turned into a disambiguation page, but Fullstop`s proposed version is the next best thing. The old version is poorly written and not encyclopedic at all. --Kurdo777 (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wont happen. You don't turn a top priority and high priority page linked to over 1500 pages into a disambiguation in any possible way, especially when most people are against that. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, what is this obsession with keeping this page as a full article when all the content is already available elsewhere (and summarised at History of Iran)? "Point 4" and statements like "I was thinking that it would partly discuss how the Iranian government (both pre and post 1979) viewed the Empire in political, social, and religious terms" are meaningless - it just sounds as though you are making stuff up off the top of your head in a desperate attempt to justify this page's existence in long form.--Folantin (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

About building a consensus

As I've mentioned earlier, most of users who now insist on preserving the old version (which is full of misinformation and nonsense) haven't been previously involved in any Iran-related page and all of a sudden have become interested in this page. I prefer to see more opinions from those who have been previously contributed in Iran-related pages (or pages related to the history of Middle East and Central Asia). Alefbe (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Does contributing two featured pictures about Iranian culture count? File:Layla_and_Majnun2.jpg, File:Ijazah3.jpg. Please explain exactly what is "misinformation and nonsense" and provide sources. Best wishes, Durova 19:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No, importing pictures doesn't count. We are talking about articles and disputes over the content of pages. About the "misinformation and nonsense", you can spend some time and read the whole discussion. Alefbe (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually those were both careful digital restorations rather than mere imports. It helps to practice what one preaches about taking a moment to read the context. :) Durova 20:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: In the last week, Wizardman, Ottava Rima, Nathan, NuclearWarfare and Durora have insisted to reverting back to to the old crappy version. None of them have been previously involved in any Iran-related article. Building a consensus shouldn't be about just counting people (who all of a sudden have become interested in this content dispute). I haven't seen anyone who has previously contributed in Iran-related articles and now support preserving that 56k crappy page or defending Ottava's arguments. Alefbe (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, but your massive edits of this encyclopaedia are so far just reverting and moving/renaming like "xyz->al-xyz". So maybe counting is not all that matters, and "contribution" should matter too.--Xashaiar (talk)

For those who don't know what Xashaiar is talking about: He is upset about this previous discussion. Alefbe (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No I am not upset about that, I am trying to show "only those who make contributions] have the encyclopaedic authority to dismiss relevance of others' presence in this discussion". clear?--Xashaiar (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is really tedious. Accusing other people of not having the credentials to contribute gets us nowhere. john k (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That was not my idea. That was a response to those who say "...None of them have been previously involved in any Iran-related article" so not credentials to contribute and I answered, maybe.. but the person making those statement do not qualify either if we see things from their point of view.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Xashaiar, you came back? I thought you left Misplaced Pages? As well, you didn't change your talk page. Warrior4321 20:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Who told you I am back?--Xashaiar (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

@Xahsiar: Other than your old dispute with me (in another page), do you see any reason to preserve the 56k crappy version of this page or defending Ottava's arguments? If yes, please explain. Alefbe (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a top priority article. It shows up on a lot of lists and a reduction of 59k as originally happened sets off a lot of alarms on various filters. Furthermore, you ignore John K, and you also ignore that you, Kurdo and Fullstop have operated together on multiple pages which would show a problem. This page has also been listed at RPP, ANI, multiple wikiprojects, and an RfC was going on above. Did you forget about that RfC? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you just being your usual charming self? Or was there something other than yet another value judgment in the ignorant "you, Kurdo and Fullstop have operated together on multiple pages which would show a problem"? (btw, pleased to meet you Kurdo77) -- Fullstop (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, a search on my name reveals quite a bit of me responding to other situations or, when I am brought up, it being shot down as pointless or people not understanding rules. But it doesn't take much to see that you three have been siding on quite a few of the same sides on many of the same pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

None of these people came here because of that RfC. Alefbe (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Pool A here is interesting. Ottava's on it and three other names from that one short list have appeared here. Ottava has made several references to conversations made off-wiki.WP:CANVASS (campaigning)) is the relevant policy here. OR has been busy poisoning the well. --Folantin (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That conversation took place on Misplaced Pages Review. If you had any experience on Misplaced Pages, you would know that Misplaced Pages Review is not my friend, nor do they like me in any regard. And Folantin, there is a blatant RfC going on with this topic and it is a top priority page. Now, if you want to go on and on about canvassing, there is quite a bit of evidence of meat puppetry and sock puppetry by you and your defenders. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

And did you forget that this was mentioned at ANI and my talk page? Do you know how many admin read my talk page? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

So they're here because of you rather than the subject matter. That figures. ANI has never previously been noted for its burning interest in Iranian history topics.--Folantin (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No, they are here because of the dispute by people like you that is causing disruption. Then, when they do come here, they realize that you are trying to justify large scale removal of text and edit warring it out of existence. The average person is disgusted and offended by such actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it's just pure coincidence there are a large number of newcomers here associated with WP:WIKICUP, WP:DYK and Featured Pictures, areas where you tend to hang out. --Folantin (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikicup, DYK, FP, and you forgot GA, FAC, FAR, ANI, etc. The people who have responded above tend to deal with most topics, especially top priority topics. There aren't that many top priority topics and most admin watchlist them for vandalism. I'm sure that if Cluebot would have beaten Wizardman to reverting the blanking you would claim some bot conspiracy against you too. But the simple fact is that you were caught POV pushing and edit warring across multiple pages and you are desperate to not get banned. However, you are just digging deeper. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, a "Top Priority" article that has been marked for clean-up since March and unverified claims since April. Somehow I think my interpretation of events is more convincing. Anyhow, enough. Either make good on your threat to have me banned for editing Iranian history articles or shut up about it. --Folantin (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between people cleaning up a page and blanking a page. If that statement has been there since March, why do you suddenly come in now and then suddenly decide that there is nothing salvageable? Sure seems like your own argument only reveals you are a troll that seeks only to wipe out a top priority page than to actually contribute. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really want to be thrown in with any side here - my preference would still be for a short article, but I don't think continuing to revert to a short article that doesn't have consensus is productive. Perhaps instead of throwing accusations back and forth it would be best to hold off and take a deep breath. Continuing to revert is just going to result in protecting the page again, which doesn't help anybody. The page was in its current state for a long time before - I don't see the harm in leaving it like that while we figure out what to do. That is what's going to happen anyway, but it would be better to leave the article open so that it can be improved by editing. Ottava has suggested a program for revising the article; perhaps he could edit the existing article to incorporate what he wishes to dowhich would allow us to have a better sense of what he wants to do to it. At that point, we could have a more educated discussion of what the preferable course would be. john k (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the discussion above and comments by some, the issue of the format of the article was supposed to be resolved (with a rough consensus on the "Bulgarian model"). Since people haven't seen fit to comment with a point of view in the RfC about it above, and argued that the discussion should move on to discussing specific content, we can assume that this is still correct. No one should be attempting, then, to remove 60k of the article without achieving a separate and superior consensus. Nathan 20:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Both John K and Nathan raise good points. Durova 20:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Where does this "Bulgarian model" means preserving that 60k crap? That "Bulgarian model" was Folantin's suggestion and he is totally against preserving that 60k crappy version. Alefbe (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The responsibility rests on your shoulders to persuade a consensus that 60k of material is so seriously flawed that it ought to be removed rather than revised. Editors are willing to be persuaded, but a hostile/dismissive tone and epithets such as "crap" aren't helpful. At Misplaced Pages, the burden of responsibility always rests with editors who want to make substantial changes to the existing status quo (particularly when that means 60k reduction rather than 60k expansion). Slow down and assemble an organized and referenced presentation for why you think that change would be better. I, for one, am not going to take time from my day to read old threads if they carry a similar tone to Alefbe's statements in this thread. But an organized and systematic presentation would be welcome. Durova 21:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No, Durova. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." (WP:BURDEN). This article is "crap", a pov fork (by someone on a soapbox) of another article. The "blanking" mantra is a myth, and has been addressed several times. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That is verifiability. WP:VAND has an entry on blanking, which includes the unjustified mass deletion of text that consensus has deemed needed to stay. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Nathan, I think that the Bulgarian model has many flaws and only deals with a handful of groups. In either situation, it is too tiny to really effectively discuss the page. I will put together something in subspace on a possible condensing of the page later. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"No idea whether this is misinformation or not". This doesn't exactly inspire confidence in your revert to the current version. This page has been marked for "clean-up" since March and "unverified claims" since April. The moment people with experience editing Iranian history articles try to fix this dreck once and for all, a whole load of people turn up out of the blue trying to preserve said dreck in aspic. --Folantin (talk) 08:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes when you try to do a huge cleanup project all in one go, it fails spectacularly and results in a small riot. It's happened to me in the past more than once - most of the time it sticks, once in awhile everything goes pear shaped. The leftover path, then, is the one that takes a long time and involves civil discussion. You can't, of course, control whether other people do the same thing - be the voice of reason, and the contrast will be as clear as it can be. Nathan 15:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is by this stage I'm having my doubts that the "Misplaced Pages way" really works. This discussion has produced far too many examples of the Sword-skeleton theory at work. --Folantin (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

first sentence

The article is in bad shape. The first sentence is "The Persian Empire was a series of successive Iranian or Iraniate empires that ruled over the Iranian plateau, the original Persian homeland, and beyond in Western Asia, South Asia, Central Asia and the Caucasus." This is un-sourced. I could not find a definition of the tern Persian empire as it is always used as clear from context. I propose changing to The Persian empire is a term used by scholars of ancient, medieval, and modern history of Iran and near east to refer to various consecutive and non-consecutive dynastic states as well as their territories and domains of cultural and political influence.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That is much better, although I think the Iranian plateau would need to be mentioned. john k (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So maybe: The Persian empire is a term used by scholars of ancient, medieval, and modern history of Greater Iran and near east to refer to various consecutive and non-consecutive dynastic states centred around the Iranian plateau as well as their territories and domains of cultural and political influence.--Xashaiar (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

another potential way of organizing the article

I thought I'd suggest the following as a proposed organization for the article. Three main sections of comparable length:

1. Achaemenid Empire
2. Sassanid Empire
3. Use of the term and idea with respect to different regimes ruling Iran after the Islamic conquest

Thoughts? john k (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

First we have to define the term "Persian empire" (see above). The geography of Persian empire should not be defined because it is impossible.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds ok to me, aslong as this doesnt become a disam page. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's fine. That's the "Bulgarian model", btw. (ps: BritishWatcher: how do you feel about a pseudo-setindex?). -- Fullstop (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, is everyone happy?

So now the current version, which I think everybody at least theoretically agrees is flawed, is protected for a week. I hope everyone is proud of themselves. I would suggest that anyone interested in a long version of the article prepare a draft for what you're actually contemplating here. I also suggest archiving talk. john k (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggested it earlier, but no one cared. Alefbe (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, putting full protection on articles like this is the hallmark of the novice admin, or at least of admins with no sort of experience with these ethnic feuds. Note how the template says "protected from editing until disputes have been resolved". Allow me to chuckle. It appears that NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) expects the community to "resolve the dispute" with the Persian nationalist crowd. I suggest you come back in 2050 or so and see it is going, NuclearWarfare. Great username for patrolling Iran-related articles, btw.

What admins need to do instead in cases like this is enforce project principles and clamp down on editors pushing an idfeology. Of course this isn't easy, first you need to invest time in understanding what is going on, and then nobody will thank you for your pains, and you may even be dragged to arbcom, and arbcom after months of a vitriolic "case" will mildly admonish everyone to please be nice. This is what you are asking for if you take admin action on an article infested by nationalism. Take it or leave it, I suppose, but protecting an article for a few days and hoping things will sort themselves out is assuming a level of good faith encyclopedicity that may simply not exist in your audience. --dab (𒁳) 09:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

At least one person seeking the blanking of the page has been pointed out to operate multiple secondary accounts and have a strong Kurdish anti-Iranian agenda. If you want to talk about "nationalism", please don't act like there are Iranian nationalists here, as that is clearly not the case. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

@dab: Well said. Enforcing project principles (e.g. the V/OR/RS plane) seems to have taken a backseat to everything else. The "please be nice" superficiality is the fundamental flaw in the system because people who are out to misuse WP don't play nice to begin with (whether to further their agenda, or just to be insufferable jerks on an ego trip). They have learned to game the system, and -- if they scream loudly enough, and misrepresent issues often enough (e.g. "vandal!", "blanking!", "troll!") -- sometimes even manage to be feted as great wikipedians.

It is true that admins are rarely thanked for their pains. This is a serious shortcoming (also on my part) and I'm going to take this opportunity to thank Moreschi, Dbachmann, Doug Weller, Ev, FutPerf, ChrisO and a host of other old hands for keeping the abuse in check. You guys are appreciated, even if this isn't expressed as often as it ought to be. -- Fullstop (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it has taken a back seat because you are unwilling to recognize sources and promote many different ideas that are contradictory to what Misplaced Pages is about. Fullstop, your comments about "misusing WP" apply to you and the others that are pushing an agenda that flies in the face of everything Wikipedai stands for. You can claim -I- misrepresent issues, but comparing my edits with yours shows that I have done far more for Misplaced Pages than you have, especially when considering that stunts like this are all you have really accomplished here. I love how you mention Moreschi, Doug, and the rest, who have been tag teaming on various pages for a long time and most people know that it would be best for the project if all of you were kept away. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This is just a list of talk pages that you guys have tag teamed on. There is far more evidence showing that you guys have been acting inappropriate in terms of edit warring and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

In my "Possible structure" section, I defined a structure. User:Ottava_Rima/Persian_Empire is half way through the condensing of the history sections per what I am proposing. As you can see, the sections are tight and focused on the empire building and important aspects of the empire. I am not past the Sassanids. As I mentioned on John's page, There should be four paragraphs for a lead, 2 on the term "Persian Empire" (and use of "Iran") along with common uses and how it appears in other uses. The section after will deal with imperial aspects, such as the term "shah" and other defining characteristics. The first two sections are the first two of the four proposed history sections. As you can see, I condensed them quite a bit. I would like it for people not to edit the page so I can work on the proposal quickly. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

OR , so we have a few good editors finally trying to tackle this festering mess of an article, and all you can say to that is "won't happen"? Please let the people finish the job. Please try to listen to what Folantin has been saying. We have Achaemenid Empire for the actual "Persian Empire", Shah for Persian monarchy more generally, and History of Iran for anything else "Persian" and "Imperial". What you are proposing is simply {{duplication}}. --dab (𒁳) 09:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann, I don't think you understand how Misplaced Pages operates or even know what a "good" editor is. Seeing as how I have worked in good articles and FAC for over a year and have many, many more than most here have new articles. I think I know about how articles operate. This is a notable term. It must have its own article. It cannot be in a stub, as even the stub template says that the article must be expanded. You cannot simply redirect a notable term. This follows summary style with information directly linked to the term. Your claim above would remove Roman Empire because all information can be found on other pages. Hell, your claim would remove Samuel Johnson because of the same thing. Your claim shows a complete ignorance about encyclopedic matters or is merely a false justification to push a POV of many of your friends. The fact that you say "actual 'Persian Empire'" when above has many, many references that say the term is used elsewhere only verifies that you are pushing a POV and don't really care about our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann has been at Misplaced Pages forever and, in my experience, is almost always right. It is really poor form to simply accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being incompetent, or stupid, or a POV pusher, or what not. I don't think that anyone has been primarily pushing for this article to be a redirect, but turning it into a disambiguation page seems completely appropriate, and there are plenty of articles about "notable term" which are disambiguation pages (or redirects, for that matter). Persia, for instance, is a notable term which redirects to Iran. Imperial China is a notable term which is a disambiguation page. Via media is a notable concept in Anglicanism, but that redirects to Anglicanism. French Empire is a disambiguation page. And the proposal you've been putting together, so far, looks like it's just a slightly warmed over version of the current article, which there is clearly no consensus to maintain. You respond to the fact that people don't think there should be a section on the Medes by merely moving the section on the Medes to the beginning of the section on the Achaemenids, with no explanation; similarly for the Seleucids and Arsacids with the Sassanids section. These other dynasties probably deserve no more than a sentence each, if that. The post-Islamic conquest part of the article needs to be shortened drastically, because calling any of them "Persian Empire" is non-standard - there should be no more, I think, than a brief discussion of the ways these dynasties tried to connect themselves to the pre-Islamic past, and some brief note that some of them are occasionally referred to as "the Persian Empire." But brief - the discussions of the Achaemenids and Sassanids should each probably be longer than the discussion of the later period. I'll try to work up an almost certainly inadequate draft. john k (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I know a lot of people that would be happy when Dbachman is gone for his long history of blatant POV pushing. Just look at his talk page and you can see a long time involvement with the users who are pushing an anti-Iranian agenda here. "by merely moving the section on the Medes to the beginning of the section on the Achaemenids, with no explanation" Seeing as how the Achaemenid Empire was born out of the Medes, it is important to understand where it came from just as the Roman Republican is necessary to understanding the Roman Empire. That should have been obvious. If you noticed, I chopped out quite a bit. And as I proved above with many sources, many of the Post-Islam dynasties are called Persian Empire and Folantin has already conceeded past 1500 as being a Persian Empire. John, your recent comment on the matter contradicts a lot of what you have said before, which is really inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, John, consensus needs to be formed to -change- a page, and consensus below 60% is not consensus. There are 6 strong opposes to changing the page from the long format. So don't mouth off about consensus when it is clearly against you. If you want to take such a stance, fine. Your opinion will be ignored along with the other trolls because you are not here to actually fix the page but destroy it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

When Dbachmann says stuff like that where I am merely defending the argument that multiple admin, an Arbitrator, and many other editors have held, it is a sign that he doesn't even have a clue about Misplaced Pages or whats in the best interest. It seems apparent that Misplaced Pages would be better with 4 less people around here. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Um. "Folantin has already conceeded past 1500 as being a Persian Empire." I haven't "conceeded" this, I pointed out from the start that some sources have referred to Safavid Iran (and the states which followed down to 1979) as a "Persian Empire" (I'm the one who mentioned Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire? etc.). Please stop misrepresenting other people's arguments - again. It's not even worth bothering to address the rest of your comment.--Folantin (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"I pointed out from the start that some sources" Ahahaha. If you are going to lie, at least not do it on the same page that makes it clear that the contrary is true: ""Persia" is slightly outdated. (Only the Achaemenid and Sassanid empires were Persian in every sense of the word). --Folantin (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)" There are other instances in which you tried to erase everything post Islam. Hell, your stub version does just that. Funny how that happens. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's perfectly obvious what I said from the archives, so people can look at that rather than rely on your interpretations (and, yes, only the Achaemenids and Sassanids were from Persis). "Hell, your stub version does just that." No it doesn't. --Folantin (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

So, if they are the only "Persian Empire" then your claim that post 1500 is not a "Persian Empire". But then you said above that it was. Sure seems like you are saying two very different things at once. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Folantin said that only the Achaemenids and Sassanids were Persian Empires "in every sense of the word." That certainly leaves open the possibility that the Safavids, or any other group, might be a Persian Empire in some sense of the word. john k (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so, if someone was to give you money in "some sense of the word", do you expect it will be cash? If someone is not going to harm you in "some sense of the word" do you feel safe? If your dentist says it will be okay in "some sense of the word" are you going to relax? I sure as hell wouldn't because in the English language "some sense of the word" is a phrase to say that no, it isn't close to what word I am claiming it is like in "some sense of the word" and that there is only a loose connection. She knows exactly that she was blanking out everything but the first two and did just that. This is just revisionist history because she knows a ban is coming down soon against a few key players and she was helping them from the very beginning. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A tentative attempt at a draft

Alright, I've made a meager attempt at an alternate draft here. It's still 28K, which seems too long to me. I basically deleted all the material about the Medes, Seleucids, and Arsacids, as well as most of the previously existing material on the period after the Islamic conquest, which I replaced with (likely inadequate) text by myself. I basically kept the currently existing material on the Achaemenids and Sassanids without looking at it too closely. This is just an attempt, anyway, to which I am not committed in any way, so have at it, but the basic idea was to significantly shorten the article without replacing it entirely. I assume that the material on the Achaemenids and Sassanids can also be condensed, and I imagine that the material I wrote on the later periods needs to be subjected to considerable editing by those more familiar with the subject than me. I'd be open to completely replacing that material with an even shorter summary, as well, since I'm afraid it's largely just an incompetent rehash of material at History of Iran. It might, at any rate, be grievously flawed in any number of ways, but I'd be interested to know what people think. john k (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that, on the whole, this was an experiment, to see what such an article might look like. I'm not convinced it's the best way to deal with the article. A much more radical restructuring and shortening would probably be a better option. john k (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The Achaemenids are born out of the Medes and took over the Medes. To erase them would be completely ahistorical. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The Medes were not the "Persian Empire," nor were the Persians "born out of" them. And the Medes are mentioned in context of their relations with the Persians. john k (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Did I say that the Medes were Persian? No, I said that the Persian Empire came about through them. There was a close political relationship, and information like that matters when the Achaemenids took over their empire. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The Persians' relationship with the Medes is discussed, though. I don't see why this article needs a detailed history of the Medes. john k (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If you consider what I have as "detailed", I would suggest you buy a dictionary and look up the word. Detailed would be at least 10 or 20 times that much information. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at it more closely over the weekend. Thanks for the attempt. At first glance, I think it's a good basis but it should be reduced further, as you say (likewise, as you say, it still preserves some of the errors from the "protected version" of this page.--Folantin (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect-Class Iran pages
• Top-importance Iran articles
• WikiProject Iran articles
• Redirect-Class Afghanistan pages
• NA-importance Afghanistan pages
• WikiProject Afghanistan articles
• NA-Class Zoroastrianism pages
• Mid-importance Zoroastrianism articles
• WikiProject Zoroastrianism articles
• Redirect-Class Central Asia pages
• High-importance Central Asia articles
• WikiProject Central Asia articles
• Redirect-Class former country pages
• WikiProject Former countries articles
• Redirect-Class software pages
• NA-importance software pages
• Redirect-Class Computing pages
• NA-importance Computing pages
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles
• Selected anniversaries (March 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2006)