Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:33, 22 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.

A Section on Persian Defeats is much needed

How Persians were defeated by Arabs? How Arabs could never be defeated by Persians? Introduction of Islam to Persia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marhabbah (talk • contribs) 17:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan was Eastern Boder of Persian Empire

I think information regarding Pakistan's important contributions to the Persian Empire should be added to the article and all Greater Persia/Persian Empire articles. The trans-indus region as well the provinces of Sindh and Panj-Ab(Land of 5 Rivers in Persian) where the richest provinces(Satraps) of the Persian Empire. Furthermore, the Iranian plateau naturally extends into Pakistan making the region the natural extension and limit of Persian dominations until the desert regions and river canals seperate this country from South Asia. It is due to the important influence of Persia on the country, that it is in many ways an independent entity today and not just like any other South Asian Country. Furthermore, the settling of Iranic peoples(Ancient Aryans) along the trans-indus region in successive waves shows the importance the area had to ancient Iranic peoples. Pakistan is an important and integral part of Persian culture, Persian history and the Persian Empire. There should be more information on this topic within the article. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.164.238 (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Concession

It was Mozzafar-al-Din Shah who had granted a concession to William Knox D'Arcy not Mohammad Ali Shah!

Persia discussion page

ha this place lies and Chaldæans with the Persian "Good Religion" proper is beyond me. Since this is a Persian page I think we could also use the correct terms of Dastur or Mobed (I'm in the process of writing Zoroastrian pages, don't worry about a dead link) or clear up the confusion in the Magus page; and at least get the basic theology right. Otherwise, the later mention of its influence on Judaism (and thus later Abrahamic religions) in the Hellenistic period section loses its impact (not to mention it was first during Cyrus the Great's reign!). Also, Islam replacing Zoroastrianism was not a bloodless and casual affair. A big deal doesn't have to be made of it, but a sentence or two might be added about the persecution and "persuasion" to become Muslim, so as not to "skim" over this sensitive detail. They were dhimmis in name, but not in practice. There was brief mention of how Muslims were humiliated, well, that doesn't even begin to compare with the humiliation Zoroastrians were later put through. I haven't changed anything on the page, rather, I hope some of my constructive criticism might be considered. I did add the University of Chicago link though ;-) Khirad 07:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Did I miss it or was there really no mention of the crusades? From what I remember they hit shortly before the mongols did. --24.83.182.3 23:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The heading and article is wrong

There are sources to suggest that the Persian Empire is a multiple of different empires. All reliable sources conclude different rulers and dynasties carrying on the Persian Empire. Do we see Caesar and other rulers of the Roman Empire as different empires?= NO. Similarly, the Persian Empire had different dynasties, rulers but all of them operated and ruled for and under the Persian Empire. Do we call President Bush's America and Lincoln's America as 2 different countries/empires? NO. I don't know who came up with this semi-false use of words and perception in regards to the Persian Empire, but I urge factual information opposed to what we have there now. Editor/Admin - Please rectify the introduction of this article, if you need help, text and sources please reply here for me to provide with an correct opening. Lets help keep Misplaced Pages unbiased and factual.

I would tend to agree with you, however the appellation "Persian" is nothing but hellenic provencialism. There never was any Persian, until modern convention rode over all local right to be reffered to as what you consider yourself. When one reads Persian, it is nothing but a hellenic confusion of the term Fars. The Fars overcame and took over what was essentially the Medean empire of the Medes. (At least to my understanding) and using your line of argument the whole thing should really be called the Medean empire. We do not refer to it in that form due to: 1. convieniance, just as Nippon is still called Japan and we call the Hellenes Greeks, to ask people to change this practice would be impossible for anybody brought up in todays world. 2. The article neglects to mention that the Archemenid dynaty was much more culturally advanced in art and the graces of life than the Parthians. This distinction is almost great enough to justify the consideration of two different civilizations, if one considers Parthia civilized.

For centuries, it is, and was called the Persian Empire, what gives us the right to change it? The word Persia and Persian dates back since the establisment of the empire, this can be seen from maps, ancient books and materials, which of copies can be found in the British Library. Its not about What we think we should call it; many scholars, historians, and professors have written truly great books on the Persian Empire which is distinctly different from this confusing version on Misplaced Pages. The Persian Empire infact collapsed at the invasion of Alexandra.

To correct you on another note, Fars is infact the Arabic saying for the word Pars. Farsi is the Arabic for Parsi. Parsi means Persian. Arabs do not have "P" in their vocabulary, which is why Fars is widely used. Even til recently, Arabs pronounce Pepsi as Bebsi in their local lands. Only in the recent modern devlopment of the area have they learned to pronounce P, although it is still not in their vocabulary.

An to be precise, it is a joke to call the Persian Empire, the Achamenid Empire, the definition of "achamenid" from the dictionary is: "Of or relating to the dynasty that ruled the Persian Empire". It is not a name nor a place. It is a description of the dynasty that ruled the Perisan Empire. Its like calling the Roman Empire the Ceasar Empire, or the Emperors Empire. I am in the process of preparing a refute to Misplaced Pages and have polished this article which I will soon push through. We are not here to fabricate or change history through confusing goggles, we are here to represent historical facts, facts and information in their true form. Bear that in mind. Thank You.

i beg to differ in regards to the comments made above. putting aside all these translational problems, the fact of the matter is that Persia is the angelised version of the Greek word Persis which means pars the land where the Achamenids rose firs. it is just a translational error on the Greek part to confuse the land of the particular time period's ruling dynasty with the name of the whole empire, it has always been the Iranian empire ( aryanam, iranshahr, or many other names in which in different times the native people called their land ). the Medians (madian), Achamenids (Hakhamaneshian) selucids (solukian), parthians (Ashkanian), Sassanids (sasanian) and ..... many other small and big kingdoms and empires that rose after a destruction and was destroyed after another, inherited the language, culture, world view, customs and system of government of iran, ruling over land of iran, and over iranian (iranic) people and other migratory groups (eg: Turks, Greeks, Arabs, Semites and ...) are essentially Iranian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack666 145 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Fall of the Persian Empire 330 B.C.

The fall of the Persian Empire came after the defeat by Alexander the Great, and the killing of Darius the Great III. Why does this article carry on further? Let me remind people this article is about the Persian Empire, NOT Iran's (Persia's) history. The Persian Empire was 1 entity, 1 empire, 1 system, which began 550 B.C. with Cyrus the Great after defeating Astyages, the ruler of Media and taking over the Median Empire and lasted until 330 B.C. This article should NOT go any further. The current article is preposterous carrying a disambiguation of history and the Persian Empire. Perhaps the admins need to make another article stating Iran's / Persia's history, but mixing them up with the Persian Empire is playing with historical facts. Admin - Please pay attention and reply possible steps we can take to rectify the misroute of this article.

^^^^1. When Alexander invaded persia he pronounced himself an Achaememnid king since he was an admiarer of Persia.

2. Iran is the current state of what was once the Persian empire. All the different "stages" and empires are described as being different "ages" of the Persian Empire since they all have links and ties in many ways to what was started by Cyrus the great.

3. The multiple invasions and blows Persian suffered still had a "shallow grave" effect, where in the Empire would naturaly "rise up" again carry on to it's original state.

4. If the Persian empire was destroyed, it's language no longer used, it's culture no longer alive, and it's people no longer of the same origin,then your argument may have held some weight. How ever thatis not the case. The term "Persian Empire" itself referes to all it's ages, continuing all the way up to thecurrent state of Iran.

This article needs to include:

1. Rise of the Persian Empire
2. The Kings of the Persian Empire
3. Their Architecture
4. The People and Society
5. The Persian Army
6. Arts, Crafts and Culture
7. Mythology, Beliefs and Customs of the Persian Empire
8. Clothing and the Way of Life
9. The Fall of the Persian Empire

This article doesn't or harldy, covers any of the above which are the crude form of information for the Persian Empire, unfortunately it has turned into a battle field of illusional historical facts.

The above looks good but is beyond me! However, I don't know of any reason to suppose that the Achaemenid empire was particularly decadent just before its fall. I guess that the suggestion is a piece of retrospective hypothesizing, related perhaps to "Decline and Fall" of empires as a trope available to any educated English speaker. I'd ascribe the fall to the unification of most of Greece under Philip and Alexander, to their highly effective army, and to the extraordinary generalship of Alexander. Rewritten those two paragraphs accordingly. Richard Keatinge 14:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

this is a joke! The last fall of persian empire was in 1979 Iran revolution! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.191.122.15 (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy

One thing I know all admins will check on in order to get this article featured are the pics and their proper tagging. So we have to take care of those before anything. Some pics in the article will easily be marked red by admins. Either we have to change the tags, give additional proper info, or replace them.--Zereshk 21:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I went thru the images. Fixed some. I'll ask wikiacc to doublecheck. Then we'll be OK.--Zereshk 00:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong tone

The Persian Empire is not an empire of many empires. The Persian Empire had different era's with different rulers; similar to the Roman Empire who had different rulers at different points in time. To call it "a series of historical empires" is misleading, false and unfactual. I will change this misleading tone and stand point from this article soon, if there are any objections regarding this vital change, I am open for discussions, but the change is inevitable. - Sina

Certain problems in this article

1) The introduction paragraph is highly misleading. Persian Empire does not refer to all empires that once ruled Iranian plateau. In fact, Arab Caliphate ruled over all of Iran for centuries (from mid 7th century to early 11th century) , and it can not be considered as a Persian one.

2) The term Aryan Kingdom is misleading and incorrect. There is no such term in history books. Achaemenids Empire is referred to as a Persian Empire not Aryan Kingdom in references. - Agree, there has been attempts to disfigure the Persian Empire from one entity to fractures which needs to be rectified at once.

Heja Helweda 19:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I Agree aswell - I have posted an objection. I am shocked to see such false information. If there are no changes, we will have to write an letter to Misplaced Pages offices.

A citation is needed for the WWI section, especially the account of German Agents claiming that Kaiser Wilhelm had converted to Islam!

Would it be proper, maybe, to refer to it as a conglomeration of many kingdoms created by the semitic expansion of the Summerians and those conquered or created by the very obvious expansion of the Aryan tribes of the "Russian" steppes? There is very little question that the people of the eastern Iranian plateau were either conquered by, or of Aryan decent. Gods like Mitra (i.e. Indra) and the symbols such as the swastika confirm this. Even the word Iranian is nothing but a corruption of Aryan. I am all for accuracy on the details as well as the general outline but to say that ther was a Persian ethnic type entirely seperate of the Aryan ethnic type is disingenuous. Look where we are in the dawn of the 21st century, still arguing about incignificant things like the ethnic make-up of a people who are gone at least 2000 years. Let us advance forward please and realie that all origins are a mystery and be content with the beauty that this civilization has bequethed to untold generations. Stop letting old prejudices and carelessness get in the way of scholarship. With love and respect G-Money the Funkster

Persia, Parthia, or Iran?

Misrepresenting one of the most glorious and influential times in Iranian history, and for that matter world history, the dynasty of Achaemenids, Ashkanian, and Sassanids in all called the Persian Empire--the first global empire; the largest the world had seen yet--the empire that gave humanity for the first time the ideas of monotheism, the "Wise Men from the East" in the Bible, which in English, the term may refer to a shaman, sorcerer, or wizard; it is the origin of the English words magic and magician, angelology, demonology, eschatological teachings, apocalyptical notions , that would later be transferred to their newly freed Jewish subjects that in return would adapt these ideas, that would in turn enormously influence Judaism and later Christianity should not be encouraged. Misrepresenting the second Iranian dynasty, the Ashkanian, or Parthian Empire who reunited Iran and made it into a global power again, and who have had tremendous impact on the Iranian culture, should not be an aim of yours, just because it is simply more ``convenient`` for Western literature to do so.

From its birth, Iran was called Iran (land of Aryans) by Cyrus the Great, not Persia, which is simply a province in Iran, yet so much inaccuracies have risen that the West thinks Persia is extinct, and the modern nation of Iran is different, which is false, in fact--from 525 BC up to 1979 AD, the country was called `Kingdom of Iran`; there is archeological proof of that. After the 1979 revolution, the country is now called `The Islamic Republic of Iran`. There are numerous articles and books that state Parthia was a country in Asia, or that the second Persian, i.e., Iranian dynasty was the Sassanid, or even more erroneously, and shockingly, that Parthian were foreign rulers of Persia. That is absurd; it is very much like saying Yankees in Boston in the north rose to power and formed Bostonia, later native Texans took back their land, and were the second American dynasty.

Ashkanian, who came from the north of Iran and were from the ancient Iranian tribe of Ashkuzi (Scythians), reunited Iran, and revitalized Persian customs. Macedonia that was not even part of Greece, is under Ancient Greece, yet, people seem to have separated Persia, Parthia, and Iran. As such, because Wikepedia gives people a chance to make wrongs right, it is essential that right in the beginning of the sentence, the empire’s real name be embedded in there, so when a reader studies it for the first time, he or she would know the origin of the empire. Calling that era of Iran, Persia and Parthia is absolutely confusing, and above all false. The correct name for the country was, and is simply, Iran. Zmmz 22:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Huh? The whole world, from the English "Persia and Persian" to the Danish "Persisk" to the Hindi and Persian "Parsi" the era, nationality, and global representation of Iran (Land of Aryans) has always and will always be known as Persia. From Persian Carpets to Persian Poets to the Persian Caviar, the word Persian is what the world has used so far to describe derivatives from the land of Iran. In History, Iran has been used to describe the Persian land as Persians considered their land the land of Aryans. Iran is a description of the Persian Land, not a name. Iran is Persia, Persia is Iran. Reza Shah only declared the world to use the word Iran to refer to Persia. The country Persia didn't change, nor was it taken over or invaded. The ruling goverment only changed. Your arguement is weak, England or United Kingdom or Great Britian has more names than any other country, one can respectively argue the true name for Britian, England or whatever, to a deeper level than Persia. Is the British Empire or English Empire or United Kingdom Empire??? People living in Iran are NOT Iranians, they are Persians. Does the word Arab exist? Yes, the same way people in Qatar and Jordan are Arab and speak Arabic, the same way people in Iran and some parts of Afganistan are Persians. Do you call people in Qatar, Qatari's or Jordanese? No, they are Arabs. The word Persia and Iran are intertwined and will be forever. As long as the Persian people see them selves as Persians living in Iran the land of Aryans so will the world.

We have spent a lot of time debating and deciding what name the article should be under (See above on this talk page along with Talk:Persia). We've called the article "Persia" simply because this is normal English usage for pre-1935 Iran, and consequently hundreds or even thousands of articles link to Persia, not Iran. This is the way that results in the most user-friendly encyclopedia. But if the lead section is not clear enough in that respect, it should be changed. Fishal 05:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Iranians are a groups of people who mainly live in the countries of Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikastan, Azarbiagan, and patially Turkmanestan and Uzbakestan(who are partially Turk). A region in Iran is called Pars(or persia). Cyrus the Great was half Persian and half Median( a differnt Iranian group). When he became king, he united the Persians and the Medians so from then on with in his country is was known as Iran( the combination of the Persians and Medians). However outside of Iran it was known as Persia. Which remained that way till Reza Shah made everyone outside of Iran not call it Persia, but Iran in instead, which occured in 1935. Now people don't even relate Iran and Persia to each other. Everyone who knows this should always try to stress this so that the history of Iran is not fogotten. If you are talking about someone who is Iranian use the word Persian. Eventhough that person might not necessarily be 100 pecent Persian, this helps maintain the connectian between Iran and Persia. Parthia is just a differnt Iranian group, who are from the Khorasan region. The Parthians are not to be called uncivilized, for they freed Iranians from Greek rule. And even over powered the Romans in many battles. In Iran the Parthian Empire is knowen as the Askanian dynasty. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mehrimehr (talk • contribs) 04:53, 22 October 2006.

The above section was inserted in the discussion to inform the reader of the true title and/or the name given to ancient Iran.Zmmz 22:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Some contradictions.
The article says "... the Persian vassal king Ardashir revolted. Two years later, he took Ctesiphon, and this time, it meant the end of Parthia. It also meant the beginning of the second Persian Empire ..."
Now, if the SECOND Persian Empire started AFTER the Parthian Empire ended then the Parthian Empire coudn't be Persian ...
Further to it, why did Ardashir destroyed 360 churches built during the Parthian period? Because they were Christian (NOT judeo Christian!) churches. The Parthians were tolerant of religions - Ardashir was not. Parthians were a different culture even if the Persian-Iranian nationalistic feelings are hurt. Akura Mazda, Phoenix, Tur-ullu, Ra, all originated in the Sumerian culture. (Tur-ullu is the name of the rising Sun in Sumerian symbolised as a bird. Ardashir prayed to Akura Mazda. Yes, the Japanese car called Mazda has a bird symbol. Anybody cares to explain, how did the Tur-ullu become Akura Mazda, Phoenix and arrived into Japan?) Name them as you like: Babilonians, Sumerians, Scythians, Mahgar, Huns, Huni, Suni and another 30 or so names they are the same people with the same culture manifesting in their religion. Hurts or not, facts are facts and history is what it is. PLS! don't distort it for nationalistic reasons.
It was said above, magicians come from these times and land. So, anybody would like to give it a go and give the etimology of the word 'magus' or 'magic'? No, it is not Jewis, not Greek, nor Latin. Not even Sanskrit. Try the oldest of all languages, one that is common to Sanskrit, Greek and partially Latin and English too. It is spoken today. One more clue: the aryan and indoeuropean culture/pride is getting in your way. Cheers: magus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.112.117 (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

bockspur 9th of esfand 1384Sol-e-Hajj, 28 of feb 2006PostIssa

The study of history should be the pursuit of knowledge unbiased by culture , religion, or politics. To call Iran anything other then the name chosen by it's people thru two and a half milennia of common usage would betray that goal. Many reasons have been put put forward for using the term "persian", but they seem to break down into two dominant categories: i)continuity;people in english speaking contries have used the latin word germany for deutchland, MesR is commonly labeled egypt outside of it's borders, etc.. Why shouldn't Iran be called persia? Mainly because Iran hasn't given up on itself;It hasn't lost two world wars back to back or had to endure two millenia, more or less, of foreign rule. Iran still views itelf as nation whose destiny is in it's own hands, free to make it's own mistakes and learn from them, proud enough to not be called by some european "nickname". That of course is not true of all people who can claim iranian ancestry and to those people my heart truly goes out. I understand that it's almost a national sport in the west to demonize all things iranian and quite a number of people just want to assimilate and be accepted by their neighbors, friends, co-workers etc.. and they feel that being "persian" will result in fewer questions about islam , nuclear weapons and terrorism. I wish you did not have to feel this burden that makes you choose such a path, but alas, you too must understand that many people of iranian ancestry can distinguish between a particular government , expousing a particular religion , at a particular time in national history and the name their mothers taught them to call their homeland. If being iranian is too much mass to bear upon your shoulders, then replace it with a pebble but not an imaginary one named persia. For the rest of us we like the mass on our shoulders it makes us feel important at dinner parties. :) ii)history; the history books call it persia, uh isn't that the right name, it's written down by some old geriatric european dude, 'nough said, right? Goebbels, the nazi minister of information, claimed that if you say a lie enough times it will become the truth. That may very well be so with propaganda, but it is the diametric opposite of historical research. In the study of history it is the one discovery upon a shard of pottery that upsets a previous gestalt and forces the academically honest to rewrite all the history books. The name Iran is no different, you may bury it with bigotry disguised as journalism and self hatred masquerading as historical accuracy but it will always rise again and again to reassert itself and upset the world view of others simply because love will always triumph over hate and those who love Iran will always love it more than those who hate it can ever hate it. Hatred exhausts itself and those who practise it, whereas love is self sustaining and a source of nourishment to giver and reciever. I can't remember the name of the iranian poet who said those words but my mom use to read them to me whenever i didn't smile at lifes little hiccups.

Well, that`s right. But, also it is not just a naming dispute, it gets much more serious than that. It is the fact that many in the West think that Persia or the people who lived in it are extinct. In fact, they feel modern day Iranians are Arabs, or at best relatives of Arabs, which is inaccurate. The fact is that both the people and the culture have survived, and modern day Iranians are decendents of the so called Persians. Furthermore, it is still different than other naming controversies in that Persia was and still is an ancient state in the country Iran, so naming a country after one of its states from which the first dynasty arose, certainly cause mass confusions.Zmmz 05:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Eurpoeans and their imitators have this belief that all the magnificint monuments they encounter around the world are the product of extinct peoples and that the current inhabitants are the descendants of nomadic tribes or what have you. Take the example of Mesr, the population has not changed for 4 milennia, the ruling class may be a combination of greek,bedouin,turk, and albanian but the other 99% percent , the ones who constructed the pyramids and laid down the plans for the first suez canal as requested by cambysis so long ago still remain, waiting to be released from the yoke of post colonial tyranny and begin the long hard road to true national freedom. The palestinians who the current leadership of the world treats as human garbage to be driven from their lands and labelled foreign ,much in the same spirit the welsh were treated by angles-saxon-jutes or native americans by various post columbian states, are in fact in the most part the descendents of ancient palestine. If you could do a genetic analysis of the palestinian population you'd find the descendants of cannan, jiburu " the pre-israelite inhabitants of jerusalem", and even the 13th hebrew tribes. In fact any appreciation of genetics will tell you that the palestinians are more genetically hebrew than any group of people taking a two thousand year tour of the world. Yet ancient european bigotries prevent the modern israeli from embracing his blood relatives and making a fair peace based on familial reconcilation.

Then we come to Iran and Iranians, we follow in the spirit of our ancestors;we embrace them and they live thru our actions . They don't need the countless relics scattered thru out Iran, the middleast, central asia, asia minor, the balkans and the indian sub-continent to attest to their greatness, we, the Iranian people, are their monuments. In our lives and accomplishments, whether as physicians,engineers, scientist,etc.. we carry on thier thirst for knowledge which launched them on thier conquests at the dawn of civilization, their sense of fairness which brings us to loggerheads with superpowers, and thier love of culture which transformed an iliterate military culture into the gem of human civilization. In my travels i have encountered people of various genetic disposition who tell me strories of their common ancestory, they tell me of their long dead king kowrowz and of heroes named rustam and of their beloved warrior saint Ali. Their stories and the pride they have in them have taught me that Iran is not a merely a nationality or a race but rather something more a kin to an operating system that runs on the soul of a person. And calling that OS by any other name is copyright infringement. Zendibod Iran Bockspur 14th of Esfand 1384 Sol-e-Hajj , 5th of mar 2006 Post Issa

You have made many great points, just as Hellenes are called Greeks because of Roman ignorance, so many refer to Iran as Persians. This is incorrect and only creates ignorance, but shows the subjectivity of labels. We will always be reffered to by some generalization only to keep us sane. What is an Iranian what is a Persain, what is a Coloradoan what is an American? In the end it is not very important and please, all Iranians and anyone who has been mislabled, lets get beyond that and realize that there are entire cultures that historians have discounted and forgotten at least yours continues and the world is in a debt to it for the many items of beauty produced by it. Anyway, do you have a special time machine that lets you know beyond a doubt what people in 500 b.c.e. considered themselves?

As this naming dispute has not been resolved and probably never will, it will look better if this article present this dispute in a neutral way. The statement "An anology would be demanding Germany be called Deutschland" seems overly biased and unnecessary. Seymore Fry 19:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ive never really understood why, for example, Germany shouldn't be called Deutschland. The name that a country uses for itself should be the name everyone else uses. If you meet some French man called Jean-Pierre you wouldn't say "Oh hello, I will call you John-Peter because it makes life easier for me" would you?

Too Wide

This page is too wide for 800x600. It's the "Dynasties of Iran" image. --Grocer 10:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Persepolis Recreated - The Movie Documentary

Seized and burned by Alexander the Great's conquering army, shaken by uncounted earthquakes, eroded by 25 centuries of rain, fluctuating temperatures and scouring winds, Persepolis-the greatest of the royal residences of ancient Persia-is a definitive ancient ruin.

Yet, the place remains an awesomely impressive sight 2,500 years after it was built. Even today, those who step up to its gigantic terrace of 125,000 square meters and see its majestic columns are filled with a sense of awe drifting into a dream-like trance.

A dream in which one tries to visualize the beauty and dazzling splendor of Persepolitan palaces before their sad destruction.

"Persepolis Recreated" is the name of the most recent documentary film , which is available and you can view here online at this site: Persepolis Recreated - Reconstruction of Persepolis

Timeline

The Timeline of Iran looked pretty bad in the beginning of the article, I moved it down. The Unknown 23:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Dates in the timeline overlap; that is the Zand dynasty and the Quajar dynasty overlap. Are the supposed to? -selfparody

Another serious problem with the timeline is that it indicates a year "0". There was no year 0; 1 BCE was followed by 1 CE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.13.228 (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Post-Achaemenid Period

"Alexander's empire broke up shortly after his death, but Persia remained in Persian hands."

I don't understand that sentence. Wasn't it in Macedonian hands before the death?

From Persepolis to Vanak

Hey guys, I read an article that said director Maziar Miri has created a documentory about how the clothing and culture of Iran has changed from the times of the achamaenids to the present. It will be shown on Channel 4 on the Iranian TV in 13 eposides, each 30 mins. I thought everyone might be intrested in seeing it. Now here is the problem.I don't know when it'll be shown and what time it will be on. If anyone knows anything please let us know, thank you. --(Aytakin) | Talk 00:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Help keep the Tehran places page alive!

Hello, the page List_of_the_localities_around_Tehran is about to be deleted. Everyone, please help in turning the red links into blue and help keep the page alive and also in the talk page state your opinion on the page. Thanks --(Aytakin) | Talk 18:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It was no problem at all and you're welcome.

Persia in Fiction: Arabian Nights?

In the section Persia in fiction I saw the name Arabian Nights used instead of the original, Persian name of the book, 1001 Nights. I changed it and please, don't make these mistakes in any Iran related article. Thank you. 66.36.149.183 17:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Great Game

The section on European influence in the region reminded my of references to The Great Game in the Afghanistan article. I added a See also. Bear475 16:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Persian Empire by Pejman Azadi

Persian Empire by Pejman Azadi

For more information about Persian Empire plesse visit http://pejman.azadi.googlepages.com/Iran

other Languages

This page is closed, please add the correct intern link for persian: fa:تاریخ ایران پیش از اسلام .Thank u. Habib_abi.

Done. Khoikhoi 02:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Persian Use of Cannabis

If someone could put together some information regarding the Persians use of cannabis it would make this page more complete. Calicheese23 23:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong information on some parts

The information about islamic persian is not totally correct.As a person with great knowledge background on Turkish history, I can simply say there was never a turkish aid to persians against arab armies. Besides, there is no reference on the information.Just a statement.Morover,Arabs allied with Turks against chinese armies in battle of Talas which led Turks to be muslim in mass numbers.The event which led turks to islam is battle of Talas.This is a perfectly known fact stated by every historical source.

Those parts should be corrected and at least given realiable and neutral reference.

Why does this article about Persia contain two paragraphs about the world's Jewish population

Under "Name", there are two irrelevant paragraphs about the world's Jewish population in the midst of an explanation about the meaning of "Persia". This is a page about the Persian Empire, not Jews. If I wanted to learn about the world's Jewish population, I would go to a page about Jews or religious populations. This should be edited out, especially as it seems to have been inserted for divisive and pernicious purposes. 66.108.25.214 04:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

New name of the country

On March 21, 1935, Iran was officially accepted as the new name of the country.

This sentence implies that the name of the country was Persia before Iran, which is incorrect. The name of the country among its people has always been Iran. The name of the country in the west or maybe in the international community changed from Persia to Iran. I think this sentence is ambiguous. I also think a link to the "Iran naming dispute" page is very appropriate in any article that refers to the country as I know there is a lot of confusion among english-speaking public and even among Iranians/Persians. Please consider these comments. --Definite 05:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Mongols and their successors (1219–1500)"

The heading "Mongols and their successors (1219–1500)" should be changed -- why should Turkic Aq-Qoyunlu, Qara-Qoyunlu, Ilkhanids and Timurids be grouped together like this, whilst all other dynasties are listed out separately? Equal approach should be afforded to all. --AdilBaguirov 06:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Darius I and Xerxes I using the same picture?

Perhaps I'm crazy or don't know enough about the topic, but it appears as though the image being used for Darius I in this article and his article appears to be the same one being identified as an engraving of Xerxes I in that article. confusing. --74.97.142.249 21:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good call. I believe that sculpture is from the central panel on the east side of the Apadana at Persepolis. It isn't labelled but our best authority on the subject, Michael Roaf, discusses it in Sculptures and Sculptors at Persepolis. The received view is that Darius had a crenellated crown and Xerxes a plain cylindrical one, however this isn't perfectly clear cut as Xerxes has also been caught wearing a crenellated one. Yet it seems Darius did not wear a plain crown during his reign (still with me?), so the best guess is that that sculpture is of Xerxes early in his reign. Hope that helps. Twospoonfuls 21:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

answer: all i know is that that is Darius the Greats image.

It's because we're not sure if which one is whom because the Greeks and Arabs burned most Persian history records. So... --Arad 02:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam blacklist

These two links are apparently on the spam blacklist, and caused an issue when I tried to save the page. (The braces have been added by me.)

Cheers. --MZMcBride 05:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

History of Iran and Persian empire

There's another article which talk about similar issues. I propose remove some parts of this article comprising Turkic rule (1037–1219), Mongols and their successors (1219–1500) and World War I and the interbellum (1914–1935). Of course, we can merge these two article instead.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Zarinkoob

Abdolhossein Zarinkoob seems to be a biased source. Is there any english versions for his book (the one referenced for sources 4 - 6) ?

Wrong wrong and wrong

"Most of the successive states in Greater Iran prior to March 1935 are collectively called the Persian Empire by Western historians." < No citations, and I am a history professor, and the only credible books I can find call the Achaemenid dynasty the Persian Empire, not the history nor the successive states of Iran.

But what cracks the nut, is the poor usage of English in this article: an "Empire" is 1 Empire, not a collective of empires or states. If you want to call this article the Persian Empire"s" with an S, it would make sense, but to state that successive states of Iran collectively are called the Persian Empire is wrong, both historically but more importantly, lingually. Its like calling a bunch of apples... Apple.

Did a kid write this article? Me and the history department

have made a petition and a report pointing out the the countless of flaws in this article which we will forward to the moderating team and the Misplaced Pages office's as this has gotten out of hand. This article is an good example of why Misplaced Pages keeps on failing academically and why you should rely on other sources for citations or important work. If you renamed the article to "The Persian Empires" or similar, it would perhaps match the shape of the content more correctly, even then, there are countless of detailed mistakes in this article such as calling the Achaemenid Dynasty, an Empire < Wrong. It's like calling the Bush U.S. Era, the Bush Empire. Anyway, lets await the outcome of the push from our department. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Source for meaning of Parsa

Please replace:

It derives from the ancient Greek name for Iran's maritime province, called Fars in the modern Persian language, Pars in Middle Persian and Pārsa (𐎱𐎠𐎼𐎿) in Old Persian, a word meaning "above reproach".

with:

It derives from the ancient Greek name for Iran's maritime province, called Fars in the modern Persian language, Pars in Middle Persian and Pārsa (𐎱𐎠𐎼𐎿) in Old Persian, a word meaning "above reproach."

Consequence

Am Ithe only one who thinks the effects of the multiple assults on Persia should be better mentioned. Durring the time when Persia was attacked by alexander it was several years ahead of other empires,and valuble information was burned down in the destructionof Persepolis.

The same goes with the attack by the mongoles,who were known to warm their baths by burning Persion rare and valuble books. Apparently after several years centuries worth of information was lost.

Specific error in timeline

There is a minor discrepancy between the information given in the paragraph just before the "Sassanid Empire (226-651)" subheading and just after it: First it is said that the Sassanid Empire was the third Persian Empire, but then the next paragraph claims it was the second.

It also meant the beginning of the third Persian Empire, ruled by the Sassanid kings. Sassanids were from the province of Persis, native to the first Persian Empire, the Achaemenids.

Sassanid Empire (226–651)

The Sassanid Persian Empire in 610.The Sassanid Empire or Sassanian Dynasty (Persian: ساسانیان ) is the name used for the fourth imperial Iranian dynasty, and the second Persian Empire (226–651).

I know very little about this topic, so I don't presume to know which is correct and which isn't. Someone who does, however, should correct it.

"Raid?

The initial invasion of Greece by Darius is described as a "punitive raid". Consideering Persian brough 60-100 thousand troops and 500-600 ships, I would think their objective was more than just a quick "smash and grab." This was an attempt at conquest that failed. If Marathon had been lost by the Greeks, does anyone really think the Persian Army would have turned around and gone home? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.181.47.130 (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong wrong and wrong

"Most of the successive states in Greater Iran prior to March 1935 are collectively called the Persian Empire by Western historians." < No citations, and I am a history professor, and the only credible books I can find call the Achaemenid dynasty the Persian Empire, not the history nor the successive states of Iran.

But what cracks the nut, is the poor usage of English in this article: an "Empire" is 1 Empire, not a collective of empires or states. If you want to call this article the Persian Empire"s" with an S, it would make sense, but to state that successive states of Iran collectively are called the Persian Empire is wrong, both historically but more importantly, lingually. Its like calling a bunch of apples... Apple. Did a kid write this article? Me and the history department have made a petition and a report pointing out the the countless of flaws in this article which we will forward to the moderating team and the Misplaced Pages office's as this has gotten out of hand. This article is an good example of why Misplaced Pages keeps on failing academically and why you should rely on other sources for citations or important work.

Headline text

it might be best to help the article out from the grammatical point of view, if there are any mistakes in the syntax and grammar of the article, we are here to broaden up the knowledge of history of avid researcher, student, professor and etc. though the statement above which i am trying to answer cant seem to address my statements as rebuttals but as one with the text.

seems to me that the writer of the text keeps posting the same text over and over again.

--ParthianPrince (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Spelling, transcription

Someone just changed a number of ordinary spellings to formal transcriptions using letters with non-English diacritics. It's my opinion that for words with established spellings in English, those spellings should be used in Misplaced Pages articles rather than expecting Misplaced Pages users to learn whole new, and perhaps arbitrary, sets of characters for each particular culture or region they are reading about, which in addition are not what the reader is likely to see when reading about the subject anywhere else. Other opinions? Revert or keep? Is there a Misplaced Pages policy on this? If not, it seems to me that it would be valuable to have one. —Largoplazo (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion of adding in the naming dispute

The Greeks from my recollection used the name Persia from deriving it from Perses, the son of Perseus, this added tidbit might add to the subject a little more, adding a little depth to the reasons why the name came about.

--ParthianPrince (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(Persian: شاهنشاهی ایران - Shahanshahi-e Iran) is not exactly the same as Persian Empire.

The term (Persian: شاهنشاهی ایران - Shahanshahi-e Iran) was used in recent history and recent literature of Iran referring to Pahlavi system of government. Although Shahanshah was the title of Emperors of Iran such in ancient times, however, in academic terms, Persian Empires such Achamenids, Arcacids etc. are rather called simply اشکانيان, هخامنشيان and so on or and the word Shahanshahi is not an academic word. Some texts in Persian might use the word "امپراطوري" instead for Empire. So even in case if those empires are referred to in a plural sense, a Persian academic text would use امپراطوريهاي ايران rather. Persian Magi (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Words "Iran" and "Iranian" should replace "Persia" and "Persian" in all cases to avoid confusion

In 1920's, the Iranian government requested the global community to refer to the country as "Iran", the Iranian word, instead of the "Persia" of Greek origin. They might have forgotten to ask for the same alteration for the word's derivatives, namely "Persian". That is why we currently see expressions like "Persian Empire" that make many, even academics, think Persia is an entity separate from Iran. Therefore, I suggest the same be practised in Misplaced Pages by redirecting "Persia" and "Persian" respectively to "Iran" and "Iranian". I look forward to hearing from you on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.191.70.33 (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Although Ghazan was a muslim, he was willing to reunite former connection between Mongol Khanates. He sent envoys to greet Temur.--Enerelt (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Rule of Persia

Is it me or has Persia been ruled by Turkic peoples beginning with the Ghaznavids and Seljuks up until the Qajars till 1925? 58.107.54.158 (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It is you. And the several dozen other patriot pov pushers who have been bogging us down over this red herring over the past five years. --dab (𒁳) 14:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

This page has just been sitting here tagged with cleanup tags for years. History of Iran should cover the period 1925 to present. This article should be renamed history of Persia and cover the period of 600 BC to 1925, plus a "prehistory / early history" section. Persian Empire can either redirect to history of Persia or it can be a disambiguation page. --dab (𒁳) 14:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I tend to disagree (not that I have the time or the inclination to do any work on this). The whole history of Iran/Persia should be under the "History of Iran", per the Cambridge History of Iran (and other works such as Michael Axworthy's recent Empire of the Mind: A History of Iran). "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)

I agree with Folantin (the whole history of Iran should be in history of Iran and History of Persia should be redirected to that). About this page Persian Empire, it's better to convert it to a disambiguation page. Alefbe (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find any useful material in this page which not already covered in Achaemenid empire, Sassanid empire or History of Iran. Alefbe (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

But this isn't a disambiguation page -- there aren't separate and distinct things that just coincidentally happen to all be called the "Persian Empire"; rather, there is a historical succession of different states within the same (or similar) territory and culture that have a clear relationship to each other. Can't this be formatted as a summary style article rather than having a misleading {{disambig}} tag? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There should be more here to explain the various meanings of the phrase "Persian Empire", but the summary article already exists: History of Iran. "Persian Empire" applies to several states, but the history wasn't continuous. I suppose what most people in the West regard as the ancient Persian Empire is the Achaemenid Empire, but that was destroyed in the 4th century BC, to be followed by the Graeco-Macedonian Seleucid Empire and then the Parthian Arsacid Empire (Iranian, not Persian - although Roman writers often referred to the Parthians as Persians). The next genuinely Persian empire, the Sassanids, only emerged in the 3rd century AD. That was destroyed by the Islamic conquests of the 7th century, then you have to wait until the 16th before you have the Safavids founding a new "Persian Empire" in Iran. After that, it's more or less much continuous (through the Afsharids, Zands, Qajars and Pahlavis) down to the Islamic Revolution of 1979. But this is best covered in summary style by the "History of Iran" article. --Folantin (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, this should simply redirect to the History of Iran article. I'm going to have to agree with Russ here that having a disambiguation page isn't helpful, in that it doesn't distinguish between different things individually referred to as "the Persian Empire". Most cases searches and links intend the various incarnations as a group (≈the history of Iran). Dekimasuよ! 13:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ummm i think these articles should be restored to their previous state until there is full agreement on what should happen. There seems to be well over 2000 links to this disam page now which will need sorting out. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really. The previous article was a dreadful fork of the History of Iran article. I think this page should be a short summary of the different meanings of the concept "Persian Empire" (somewhat similar to the Bulgarian Empire page). Looking at some of the links here, it's obvious people have been confusing the whole history of Iran and the "Persian Empire", e.g. Louis IX (there was no Persian Empire at this point of the Middle Ages). Those links need to be redirected to the specific Iranian empire they refer to or simply to the History of Iran article. --Folantin (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The Bulgarian example looks pretty good, that would certainly be better than this current disam page. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There isn't anything such as "first Persian empire" and "second Persian empire" (you won't find it in academic papers or books related to the history of Iran, and Misplaced Pages is not the right place to introduce such terms). "Persian empire" is a term that mostly refers to "Achaemenid empire" and to a lesser extent to the "Sassanid empire" and also occasionally is used by some authors to refer to Persia (in the sense of Historic Iran). So, this page should be a disambiguation page. I'm totally against making this page like Bulgarian empire. Alefbe (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, which is why I wrote "somewhat similar" rather than "identical". In the strictest sense, "Persian Empire" only applies to the Achaemenids and the Sassanids but it is often applied to the Arsacids as well as every dynasty from the Safavids to the Pahlavis. This page should explain that. --Folantin (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to write a stub, since no one replied to my suggestion that a simple redirect to History of Iran would be the best solution. I am not trying to imply that this is the best possible writeup. Please feel free to take a red pen to it; but it is still better than a disambiguation page, since there is no particular empire to disambiguate to in most cases. Dekimasuよ! 16:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that in this case, a disambiguation page (ordered by the frequency of relevant usage in English texts) is much better than a summary which is based on original research. If you want to have a summary page on this subject, it should be directly based on reliable sources, not personal interpretations. About your statement that "there is no particular empire to disambiguate to in most cases", there is indeed. "Persian empire" is primarily used to refer to Achaemenid and Sassanid empires (for referring to history of Persia in general, this term is only occasionally used, and is not common). We should look at the common usage in English books and academic articles, not the current usage in Misplaced Pages. Alefbe (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The disambiguation page as it stands is not ordered by the frequency of relevant usage in English texts as far as I can tell (is that your personal interpretation?). What's most clear is that this disambiguation page is nearly useless to the end user, and for for the purposes of navigation that disambiguation pages are meant to address. How does this page help the reader choose an article? (a) the previous article, despite its faults, (b) a redirect to History of Iran, and (c) a summary page all serve that purpose better. Dekimasuよ! 17:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

As you've so far insisted on reverting to the disambiguation page and you say that the links can be disambiguated, I suggest you take a look at WP:DAB#Links to disambiguated topics: "A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links." It is also suggested that this be done before creating the disambiguation page. Anyway, there are about 1800 links to go. Three users who work on disambiguation have commented here thus far, and all of them have objected to this dab on the grounds that it doesn't assist navigation. Can you prove us wrong? Dekimasuよ! 17:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

For those 1800 pages, the disambiguation page that I created works better than this edition and is also at least as good as your edition in disambiguating the term and guiding those who click on this link to the relevant page. Avoiding a disambiguation page is not a good reason for "original research". Alefbe (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The disambiguation page does not do anything for those 1800 pages–they are meant to be linked to applicable articles, and a disambiguation page is not an article. If this is a disambiguation page, the links all need to be altered. And there is nothing on the current disambiguation page to help the reader know which article is intended by the link he or she clicked on. That is a significant failing. Please note that I did not request my version remain intact. I only requested that the disambiguation page not return. Dekimasuよ! 17:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Dekimasu's stub was on the right lines. It can be modified if necessary. The disambiguation page was far too short and dry to be of any benefit to the general reader who wants to know what "Persian Empire" means. --Folantin (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: A lot of those links are going to need fixing anyway. Too many people have assumed "Persian Empire" is a synonym for Iran (plus we have really crazy stuff like the Safavids selling arms to the Allies in World War One!). --Folantin (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Roman Empire and History of Italy. Italy is a territory. Rome is an Empire. The Persian Empire was made up of many, many dynasties with some being Afghani. Afghanistan is -not- Iran. It is its own territory. I find it amusing that Folantin decries that "Persian Empire" is seen as a "synonym for Iran", when she has been edit warring to push such a claim. However, that is what happens when you have such people that are here only to cause disruptions. A block should probably allow for people who actually care about Misplaced Pages to put a page in place. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"Persian Empire" is not a synonym of Iran in an article on Louis IX. You have shown no prior interest in this topic so please leave it alone. Otherwise people will simply assume you have some kind of vendetta against me. --Folantin (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Vendetta? No, you are edit warring on two articles to promote your ignorance of the situation. Iran is a territory. It is also a country that was established in the modern period. When the Mongols attacked the Persian Empire, they did not limit themselves to Iran. And no prior knowledge? Look at the edits at the 18th century page. I -built- that page and I built every Persian related aspect of it. You are a troll and you should have been banned long ago. If you revert the Persian Empire to the stub again I will put you up for Edit Warring. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

And it is completely ridiculous and intellectually bankrupt for you to dare use an example you just put in against consensus. You have just become a POV pusher along with an edit warrer. You have a chance to revert all of your mass changes or I will put it up at ANI for such mass edit warring and POV pushing. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Go right ahead. Everybody else on this page has discussed this like an adult, whatever our intellectual and procedural disagreements. Now you appear out of the blue with threats of ANI and blocks. Obviously, it's nothing personal. You think there was an entity called the "Persian Empire" in the 13th century, do you? I'd be interested to know what it was called. Now you have restored a version of this page in which the Medes are apparently Persians. Genius. --Folantin (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Appear out of the blue? You are the one mass edit warring and changing pages inappropriately because you have some mistaken understanding of what an empire is versus what a territory is. Misplaced Pages is based on MoS structures and consensus precedent. It was already pointed out that the model is Roman Empire and History of Italy. That was the model that this page followed already. You started edit warring and claiming that the Persian Empire didn't exist. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't get it. I repeat, please tell me the name of the entity known as the "Persian Empire" in the time of Saint Louis. --Folantin (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that an empire does not have to be continuous, yes? China did not have a continuous series of Empires. However, during that time the Mongols destroyed the Persian Empire. Timurid dynasty. However, the Afsharid dynasty is a historian acknowledged dynasty of the Persian Empire. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I still prefer a disambiguation page. Nonetheless, Folantin's edition is still much better than the old crappy version of this page. Alefbe (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Good changes yes BritishWatcher (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The old crappy version was the consensus version, and we have rules against page blanking, especially when there are citations of the text. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ottava Rima. The "old crappy version" was a featured article candidate, now it's not even close. Perhaps this page should be moved to Persian Empires, and then speak about the Achamenid, Arsacid, and Sassanid Empires. Warrior4321 21:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The right place to speak about the Achaemenid empire is in the page Achaemenid empire and the right place to speak about the Sassanid empire is in the page Sassanid empire. For other dynasties, the term "Persian empire" is not very common and for them, just briefly mentioning the occasional usage of the term is enough. Alefbe (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Um, its being a Featured Article candidate is completely meaningless. It's whether it passes FA that counts (or should count in an ideal world). Any page can be nominated, however bad. This one didn't get too many "Support" votes (unsurprisingly). The "old crappy version" was a pointless fork of the History of Iran page, containing all kinds of howlers. The Medes were Persians? That's news to me. The Safavid dynasty began in 1500 and ended in 1722? I don't think so. It also managed to confuse the adjective "Iranian/Iranic" with "Persian", so every Islamic dynasty which had Iranic ethnic origins or a Persianate culture was magically transformed into a "Persian Empire". --Folantin (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

History of Iran, like History of Italy, is about a territory, not an empire. Iran is not the Persian Empire. The Persian empire was one form of government that ruled over Iran at some point in time, just like Alexander's Empire and the Khan's Empire. Folantin, your membership in WikiProject Georgia and your history of user page proclamations of blatant POV makes it obvious that you are here pushing an agenda. You have already violated edit warring policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"My membership in WikiProject Georgia" makes me biased? LOL I'd forgotten I was even a member of that. That'd be why I argued that Shah Abbas' mother was Iranian not Georgian in the face of some persistent POV-pushing to the contrary. You're way out of your depth here. Take it to ANI if you want some drama. This really isn't the place per WP:TALK. You might want to refresh your acquaintance with our policies on assuming good faith before you do so. Or perhaps your own self-proclaimed philosophy, especially this bit: "Instead of judging others, I should focus on issues...I should seek to be a peacemaker, and not an instigator. I should keep my mouth shut and open up my ears more often. - Ottava Rima". --Folantin (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Labeling someone as a POV warrior is within Misplaced Pages standards, especially when you have made that apparently in some rather strong POV statements on your user page. Your edit warring, pushing for a one sided view, and inability to deal with scholarly standards is evident of the actions of people who are banned by Arbcom. WikiProject Georgia has a history of POV against both Russia and Persia, as both groups dominated the region over their history. This is the appropriate place to discuss your blanking of a encyclopedic page. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet more baseless slander. This is the talk page for discussing "Persian Empire". Last time I looked I wasn't a Persian Empire. If you want to discuss me, the archived version of the jokes on my user page or my reasons for joining Project Georgia, then take it to ANI. --Folantin (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You are involved in blanking the page. Saying that pointing it out is baseless slander is ridiculous. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

#1. Although I recognize the problem with the 1800 links, rephrasing a list as prose does not solve anything. Those 1800 ambiguous uses will continue to be ambiguous, regardless of how this page is phrased.

#2. But the short-article has its advantages: it would inform, and that is of course what an encyclopedia should do. The fact that there are 1800 ambiguous uses demonstrates how uninformed many editors are, and we obviously need to address that in the long run.

I propose the following both-ways solution:

*** disclaimer: this is an example ***

Persian empire may refer to:

• The Achaemenid empire (ca. 550 BCE–330 BCE) was the Persian empire, so named because its monarchs were from Persis (Persia proper), a region of southwestern Iran. It is also from this usage that the term "Persia" came to be a pars pro toto term for the western half of the Iranian plateau (and so also roughly corresponding to the present-day Republic of Iran).
• The Sassanid empire (ca. 224 CE–651 CE) was also a "Persian empire" in every sense of the word since the Sassanid monarchs were (like the Achaemenids) from Persia proper. Because the Sassanids allied themselves very closely to the Parthians, the Sassanid state was also described as "the empire of Persians and Parthians".

Less commonly, "Persian empire" may also refer to:

• The Arsacid Parthian Empire (ca. 248 BCE–224 CE), whose monarchs – though not Persians in any ethnic sense – claimed to descend from the Achaemenid Artaxerxes (the term "Arsacid" is itself a variation of "Artaxerxes").
• The five modern-era Islamic kingdoms that ruled from 1501 to 1979: the Safavids (1501–1722), Afsharids (1736–1750), Zands (1750–1794), Qajars (1781–1925) and Pahlavis (1925-1979). These five states are sometimes referred to as "Persian" kingdoms because their centers of power lay in the western half of the Iranian plateau.

Together, these would address the usability issues pointed out by Dekimasu (17:17, 21 August 2009) and simultaneously address the accuracy issues noted by Folantin and Alefbe. How about it? -- Fullstop (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Good job. I could live with that with just a few changes in the tone of the language (it's a bit too colloquial as is). --Folantin (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What Fullstop was exactly what I meant, a link to the empire with a little description. Warrior4321 22:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Fullstop, the above is not appropriate. The Persian Empire does not refer to Sassanids or Arsacids or anyone else. The Persian Empire refers to a series of dynasties. Please see: , , , , , etc. There are over 30 of these dynasties. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you're mistaken. Such concoctions (either on WP per the examples, or on the web in general) are expressions of the post-1979 exile Iranian desire to distance themselves from the name "Iran" because of the stigmatic associations with fundamentalism etc, and because those uninformed children get a romanticized version of a remote past drilled into them. Although their use of "Persian" is condonable when it serves as a less threatening political identity for them personally, their heartache is not something we need (or ought) to take into account here. What we need to do is stick to the precise scientific terms employed in academic discourse. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Where did you pull that bs from? Seriously. Historians and mainstream individuals have declared the above dynasties as part of the Persian Empire for hundreds of years. Even Gibbon refers to them as such. Post 79 exiles? Edward Gibbon was not a post 79 exile. Fullstop, you have revealed yourself to a POV warrior who lacks any academic integrity. I suggest you back away from this article immediately. The "Persian Empire" refers to a series of dynasties between 600 AD until the Ottoman Conquest. No more, no less. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Given comments like that, it seems highly unlikely that you are in a position to ascertain my academic integrity. But you are free to bang your head on the wall all you like. But please do that at a blog or newsgroup or whatever. Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Fullstop, please explain how a word used post 1930 to describe a territory can accurately label something that ended 100 years before? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You'r speaking in riddles. What word was used post 1930, and what ended 100 years before? -- Fullstop (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There are no riddles. This page claims that the "Persian Empire" are two different empires that existed before the "Persian Empire" existed. The Persian Empire was the series of dynasties following 600 AD. I already linked many of those dynasties above. Please look at the previous page and you will see that each of the dynasties was given a section. The removal of those dynasties is a serious case of blanking, which is a type of vandalism. To say that those pages are not part of the Persian Empire is not only going again 99.99% of historians and academics, but completely illogical and a violation of NPOV, V, and Fringe. I suggest this nonsense end immediately. Restore the page and improve the language. Anything less than having every single one of those dynasties listed with summaries of their pages is completely unacceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ottava's right, I think, after reading over this. There were many dynasties in the Persian Empire, to lump it as Iranian history would be like lumping the Roman Empire into Italy's history. Wizardman 00:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. The appropriate analogy would be "Roman empire is named after Rome, as Persian empire is named after Persis". -- Fullstop (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Persia was the name of the territory before 1935. The term "Iran" was created then in the same way the term "Italy" was created with its unification. Before then, it was a loosely defined region. The "Persian Empire" was about 1300 years worth of on and off dynasties that ruled over a government that was centered in the region. The land included Persia, Afghanistan, parts of Iraq, and other countries in the same way the Roman Empire included France, Spain, parts of Germany, etc. The term was used by histories long before the 1900s and is the official term for the series of dynasties. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the term Iran was used in the Sassanid Empire and the empire's name according to Sassanian records is Iranshah or Eranshah. Nothing about Persia. Persia and Persians was a term given by the hellenistic states. I don't think the then unified hellenistic states of Greece considered the Arabs Persian, but rather Arabs. However, concering what Reza Shah did, he simply asked to remove the name of Persia and only use the term Iran. That does not mean it was not used before 1930's. Warrior4321 03:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get that from? Seriously, where? Not only did the Sassanids use a completely different character system than English, it was different from the modern Farsi that Iran comes from. Linguistically, there is no chance for you to even make that claim. Furthermore, as I stated above, the Persian Empire was the 30 or so dynasties between 600 AD and 1800 AD. Mentioning the Sassanids at all shows that you don't understand what you are talking about. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks!

1. You have shown no prior interest in this topic so please leave it alone. Otherwise people will simply assume you have some kind of vendetta against me.
2. I suggest you back away from this article immediately.

All users have the right to speak and discuss. You cannot ask people to stop discussing or leave. (See here, here and here for more information). Warrior4321 03:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The personal attacks started when Ottava Rima made the following comments: "I find it amusing that Folantin decries that 'Persian Empire' is seen as a 'synonym for Iran', when she has been edit warring to push such a claim. However, that is what happens when you have such people that are here only to cause disruptions." So I expect you to denounce that. --Folantin (talk) 07:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

@Folantin/Warrior4321: be class acts please. DFTT. -- Fullstop (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

A personal attack deals with the aspects of the individual and not their editing style. Blanking the page and then making arguments that reveal a complete ignorance of the fact that the Persian Empire refers to a series of 30 dynasties falls under the term "trolling". Such individuals are blocked, instead of listened to. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

@Alefbe/@Dekimasu: what are your thoughts on the hybrid pseudo-disambig model?

-- Fullstop (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in the cold light of day I can't see much wrong with the language. It's just " was the Persian empire" that might need rephrasing. --Folantin (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Fullstop, as Wizardman has agreed, the disambiguation model cannot be acceptable. Not only are the two pages that are linked -not- the Persian Empire, you are completely ignoring the 30 dynasties that are. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as it goes, a set index page would be preferable to a disambiguation page in that the relevance of several of the constituent terms is being questioned, and it is acceptable to use citations on a set index, whereas that is generally discouraged as inappropriate content on a disambiguation page. In general, I am not opposed to any page except one that doesn't on some level deal with the term as something describing a unified set. Dekimasuよ! 15:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Potential rewrite: "The Achaemenid empire (ca. 550 BCE–330 BCE) is the state most commonly referred to as the "Persian Empire" in the West. It was so named because its monarchs were from Persis (Persia proper), a region of southwestern Iran." It's not brilliant and I'm sure someone else can do better. --Folantin (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get any of that from? Do you even have a source? And are you ignoring that these are what scholars call the Persian Empire - Tahirid dynasty 821–873, Alavid dynasty 864–928, Samanid dynasty 819–999, Saffarid dynasty 861–1003, Ziyarid dynasty 928–1043, Buyid dynasty 934–1055, Ghaznavid Empire 975–1187, Seljuk Empire 1037–1194, Ghori dynasty 1149–1212, Khwarezmid dynasty 1077–1231, Kartids dynasty 1231-1389, Ilkhanate 1256–1353, Muzaffarid dynasty 1314–1393, Chupanid dynasty 1337–1357, Jalayerid dynasty 1339–1432, Timurid Empire 1370–1506, Qara Qoyunlu Turcomans 1407–1468, Aq Qoyunlu Turcomans 1378–1508, Safavid Empire 1501–1722, Mughal Empire 1526–1857, Hotaki dynasty 1722–1729, and Afsharid dynasty 1736–1750. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Blanked page

Following the consensus pattern for Empires, this page followed the pattern of Roman Empire. As such, it covered the 30 or so dynasties that were labelled the "Persian Empire" for hundreds of years. These dynasties spanned from 600 AD to 1800 AD. This cannot be covered in an disambiguation page. The "bold" was also done inappropriately. There are only a handful of people that are arguing for the disambiguation page and none have acknowledged the dynasties at all. Furthermore, no one bothered to notify the WikiProjects before making a major change. This is completely against consensus process and I believe that the page should be restored immediately and the shenanigans stopped. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Partial list of dynasties that were considered part of the "Persian Empire" can be found here. There are others, and some are not "Iranian". Ottava Rima (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree: This is a highly viable scholarly topic, and we shouldn't kill it off. It may well be that it should link at the top to a disambiguation page, but it should not be replaced by a disambiguation page. Shoemaker's Holiday 13:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not being replaced by a disambiguation page. It's being replaced by a short article explaining the meaning of the umbrella term "Persian Empire". Britannica calls this an "historical empire from about 550 BC-640 AD", i.e. from the Achaemenids to the Sassanids. We already have articles on those states, as well as the intervening Seleucid Empire (Graeco-Macedonian/Hellenistic) and Arsacid Empire (Parthian - Iranian but not strictly speaking Persian). The summary version of all this history is at History of Iran. --Folantin (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The Persian Empire is not anything pre 600 AD. How can you not understand that? Gibbon sure as hell didn't use the term for those Empires. He used the term for Dynasties, just like every other historian for the past 400 years! Ottava Rima (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Folantin's summary of the issues under consideration is correct. And yes, the Britannica example is a good summary of how the RSs deal with "Persian empire". Thankfully Misplaced Pages has V/OR/RS policies to keep the recently-seen novel hypotheses at bay. -- Fullstop (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Britannica is not a reliable source. It is a tertiary source. We use secondary sources. Furthermore, Folantin was referring to pre-Persian Empire empires, not the dynasties that made up the Persian Empire. Please get your terms correct. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

All else aside, WP:RS says that tertiary sources "may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." That would seem to make using them appropriate for the stubbed version. Dekimasuよ! 15:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Ottava Rima and Shoemaker's Holiday. –Juliancolton |  15:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Akbarzadeh, D. (2006). The Behistun Inscriptions (Old Persian Texts) (in Persian). Khaneye-Farhikhtagan-e Honarhaye Sonati. p. 57. ISBN 964-8499-05-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
2. Akbarzadeh, D. (2006). The Behistun Inscriptions (Old Persian Texts) (in Persian). Khaneye-Farhikhtagan-e Honarhaye Sonati. p. 57. ISBN 964-8499-05-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
3. Morris, John (1880). The ew nation. Vol. 5. London: John Morris. p. 362.

• 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)