| Revision as of 00:52, 24 August 2009 editJohn K (talk | contribs)Administrators59,942 edits →Redirect to History of Iran← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:25, 24 August 2009 edit undoOttava Rima (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,327 edits →Redirect to History of IranNext edit → | ||
| Line 278: | Line 278: | ||
| :::::::::{{edit conflict}} Well technically, the complete empire split at 476 BCE, into the eastern and ], which became known as the Byzantine Empire. ]] 00:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC) | :::::::::{{edit conflict}} Well technically, the complete empire split at 476 BCE, into the eastern and ], which became known as the Byzantine Empire. ]] 00:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::::No, the empire split in 395 CE. The Western Empire came to an end in 476 CE. ] (]) 00:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC) | ::::::::::No, the empire split in 395 CE. The Western Empire came to an end in 476 CE. ] (]) 00:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::::Really? That is proof that you don't have an advance degree in European History. ArbCom knows my degrees and knows that one of them is a Masters in Classical Literature. That involved classical history, and extensive studies in Roman History and the accuracy of Gibbon. Everyone knows that Charlemagne was emperor of the Western Roman Empire and also battled others wanting the title. Rome didn't "fall" - it slowly dissolved into independent states and was powerless to reclaim the territories as they split away. What university do you claim to study at, because I would really like to make some phone calls about you. We already had one Essjay, and we don't need another. ] (]) 01:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Outdent - Misplaced Pages has something called an "MoS". It is a standardizing principle for structures of pages. The ] page and ] is an analogy. So, comments like "The Roman Empire was a seperate empire", spelling errors and all, reveal that you don't understand the argument. And John, there was little institutional continuity in the Roman Empire, especially with multiple revolutions, assassinations, divisions of the Empire, and the such. Have you even bothered to read the Roman Empire page? The last of the Julian line stopped early in the Empire. ] (]) 00:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC) | :Outdent - Misplaced Pages has something called an "MoS". It is a standardizing principle for structures of pages. The ] page and ] is an analogy. So, comments like "The Roman Empire was a seperate empire", spelling errors and all, reveal that you don't understand the argument. And John, there was little institutional continuity in the Roman Empire, especially with multiple revolutions, assassinations, divisions of the Empire, and the such. Have you even bothered to read the Roman Empire page? The last of the Julian line stopped early in the Empire. ] (]) 00:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::I have not read the Roman Empire page, but I have read a pretty significant amount about the Roman Empire that is not on Misplaced Pages. Are you some kind of performance art project where you base all your knowledge on the current composition of Misplaced Pages? The Julio-Claudian line came to an end with Nero. The idea that the state ruled by Vespasian or the Antonines was as different from the state established by Augustus as the Sassanids were from the Achaemenids is absurd. There was obviously constant change and evolution, and there wasn't ''dynastic'' continuity in the Roman Empire, but there was still real institutional and administrative continuity. The Senate continued to exist; there were consuls and other magistrates chosen every year; individual legions had continuous histories for hundreds of years; and so forth. The Roman Empire was a ''state''. It was a state ruled by different people, but still recognizably the same state. All change was gradual to the point where it's very difficult to isolate a single date and say that that is where the Eastern Roman Empire became the Byzantine Empire. On the other hand, in the history of Iran in the middle ages what you generally have is a new barbarian tribe coming in from the steppes and conquering whoever was there before - the Seljuks conquer the region, then the Khwarezmians, then the Mongols, then Timur. There is no dynastic continuity, but there isn't really ''any'' kind of continuity. ] (]) 00:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC) | ::I have not read the Roman Empire page, but I have read a pretty significant amount about the Roman Empire that is not on Misplaced Pages. Are you some kind of performance art project where you base all your knowledge on the current composition of Misplaced Pages? The Julio-Claudian line came to an end with Nero. The idea that the state ruled by Vespasian or the Antonines was as different from the state established by Augustus as the Sassanids were from the Achaemenids is absurd. There was obviously constant change and evolution, and there wasn't ''dynastic'' continuity in the Roman Empire, but there was still real institutional and administrative continuity. The Senate continued to exist; there were consuls and other magistrates chosen every year; individual legions had continuous histories for hundreds of years; and so forth. The Roman Empire was a ''state''. It was a state ruled by different people, but still recognizably the same state. All change was gradual to the point where it's very difficult to isolate a single date and say that that is where the Eastern Roman Empire became the Byzantine Empire. On the other hand, in the history of Iran in the middle ages what you generally have is a new barbarian tribe coming in from the steppes and conquering whoever was there before - the Seljuks conquer the region, then the Khwarezmians, then the Mongols, then Timur. There is no dynastic continuity, but there isn't really ''any'' kind of continuity. ] (]) 00:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 01:25, 24 August 2009
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Persian Empire (dynasty) redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
 | 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | Good Job!
"Robust, well-linked introduction" — Sunday Times (London), 4 September, 2005 |
 | Software: 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 |
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- (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)
- What in the world is the basis for this nonsense you keep spouting? The Achaemenid and Sassanian empires are both very commonly called the "Persian Empire." Your buddy Gibbon calls the Sassanids that. The dynasties from the Safavids through the Pahlavis might occasionally be called the Persian empire, but not very frequently - the state they ruled is usually just called "Persia." The Islamic dynasties between the fall of the Sassanids and the rise of the Safavids, virtually none of which were of Iranian or Persian origin, are virtually never called the "Persian Empire." You have provided no evidence that they are, much less that it is incorrect to call the Achaemenids or Sassanid states the "Persian Empire." Furthermore, the term Italy was no more created in 1861 than the term "Iran" was created in 1935 - both are much older terms. And I don't see how the fact that the Sassanids used a different character system than English or modern Farsi has any relevance whatever - how does that disprove that they called their state "Iranshah" or "Eranshah"? john k (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Are you done making things up? Gibbon goes into great detail about Persia and their imperial state well into the fall of the Byzatine Empire. Also, the idea that "Iran" is an older term has already been destroyed as a lie propagated on this page - the language that it is supposed to come from has different phonetic alphabet than the modern Farsi the word "Iran" came out of. The two are very different. Furthermore, your argument complete ignores the 30 dynasties that were blanked from the page. Funny how that happens. You divert, make stuff up, and ignore the actual dispute. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly, Gibbon is outdated and should not be seen as a reliable source on anything other than what eighteenth century people knew about. He's a great read, but not a useful source. Secondly, I have absolutely no idea what you're saying. Not that I disagree with you, but I don't understand this comment at all. How does having a different phonetic alphabet mean that the Sassanids cannot have called the state "Iran"? And I'm not ignoring any 30 dynasties. I said above that the states in Iran ruled by the dynasties between the fall of the Sassanids and the rise of the Safavids are virtually never referred to as "the Persian Empire." You seem to have no argument against this, except that Gibbon may have called them that 250 years ago. john k (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Are you done making things up? Gibbon goes into great detail about Persia and their imperial state well into the fall of the Byzatine Empire. Also, the idea that "Iran" is an older term has already been destroyed as a lie propagated on this page - the language that it is supposed to come from has different phonetic alphabet than the modern Farsi the word "Iran" came out of. The two are very different. Furthermore, your argument complete ignores the 30 dynasties that were blanked from the page. Funny how that happens. You divert, make stuff up, and ignore the actual dispute. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- What in the world is the basis for this nonsense you keep spouting? The Achaemenid and Sassanian empires are both very commonly called the "Persian Empire." Your buddy Gibbon calls the Sassanids that. The dynasties from the Safavids through the Pahlavis might occasionally be called the Persian empire, but not very frequently - the state they ruled is usually just called "Persia." The Islamic dynasties between the fall of the Sassanids and the rise of the Safavids, virtually none of which were of Iranian or Persian origin, are virtually never called the "Persian Empire." You have provided no evidence that they are, much less that it is incorrect to call the Achaemenids or Sassanid states the "Persian Empire." Furthermore, the term Italy was no more created in 1861 than the term "Iran" was created in 1935 - both are much older terms. And I don't see how the fact that the Sassanids used a different character system than English or modern Farsi has any relevance whatever - how does that disprove that they called their state "Iranshah" or "Eranshah"? john k (talk) 02:34, 23 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Outdent - John K, if you bothered to read the discussion before posting, you would have seen that Gibbon was used after someone declared that "Persian Empire" was a post 1979 term pushed by Iranian's with a "romanticized view of the past". The fact that you admit that you have no idea what I am saying is just proof that you shouldn't even be here. You couldn't bother to read the discussion, you have no clue what is being talked about, and you aren't contributing. What compelled you to post? "are virtually never referred" That right there is pure bollocks. Hell, most of those dynasties have references right at the tops of their pages saying that they are Persian imperial governments. The whole use of "dynasty" should have tipped you off. But yes, the previous Persian Empire page made it clear that historians, not you, not Folantin, or anyone else who has made it abundantly clear that you don't know the subject, primarily refer to the dynasties as Persian Empire because, surprise, that is the Persian Empire in its truest cultural self. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:25, 23 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)
Stop the personal attacks!
- 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.
- 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)
- Perhaps Folantin isn't ignorant of the "fact" that the Persian Empire refers to a series of 30 dynasties. Perhaps, instead, that is not a fact at all, but merely a repeated and unsupported argument that you keep making? john k (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
@Alefbe/@Dekimasu: what are your thoughts on the hybrid pseudo-disambig model?
@Folantin: would you do the honors and write it in less coloquial language?-- 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)
- Do you even have a source? It is incredibly rich that you keep on calling others ignorant without sources, while you keep on proclaiming nonsense as the revealed truth without having once given a source for any of it. And why are the Zand and Qajar dynasties excluded? The Zands were even, unlike the vast majority of your dynasties, actually of Iranian (Luri) origin. And the Safavids continued to rule until 1736. At any rate, it is up to you to provide sourcing that these various dynasties are ever referred to as the "Persian Empire." john k (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- The Mughal Empire was a Persian Empire? LOL Perhaps it sacked itself in 1739. If every empire where Persian was spoken by the court and/or civil service is now going to be designated a Persian Empire why don't you add the British Empire while you're at it? IIRC Persian was the official language of the British Raj in India until the 1830s. --Folantin (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- You do know that the Roman Empire sacked cities of the Byzantine Empire, right? And that the Byzantine Empire was still part of the Roman Empire, right? Since when did one Empire have to be in control, or since when did Empires not have splits, political strife, or the rest? Have you even read a history book? Gibbon spends 8,000 pages on internal struggles and fights for power, separations of empires and divisions among dynasties. Yet here you are, acting as if you have a clue but don't.
- Hell, read the first line of the damn page: "The Mughal Empire (Persian: شاهان مغول Shāhān-e Moġul; self-designation: گوركانى - Gūrkānī) was an Islamic and Persianate imperial power of the Indian subcontinent which began in 1526, ruled most of Hindustan (South Asia) by the late 17th and early 18th centuries, and ended in the mid-19th century." You disgust me with your academic dishonesty. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Again, what in the world are you talking about? the Roman Empire sacked cities of the Byzantine Empire? When? How? What on earth does this mean? The Roman Empire, at any rate, was a state which had institutional continuity from Augustus (or even, arguably, from the early Republic) down to the fall of Constantinople in 1453. There were civil wars, but they were, you know, civil wars, and recognized as such. By no reasonable standard is this comparable to Nadir Shah's invasion of India. Being "Persianate" does not qualify a dynasty to be referred to as the "Persian Empire." You are ridiculous and tendentious. john k (talk) 02:42, 23 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 . 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)
- Not because I think these are reliable sources, but just because that wasn't my impression, I present this for your consideration. In common usage, I don't think that's the case. Dekimasuよ! 15:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Common usage? What are you talking about? A designation for a series of Dynasties over the past 400 years is the use. If there is any other term, then disambiguate it at the top with a hat not, not erase 60k worth of encyclopedic information devoted to it simply because you lack any clue on the subject. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- If you had looked at the history, you'd see the only thing I erased was the disambiguation page (the setup which implies that each era called "Persian Empire" is being treated as a separate entity). However, you're being inconsistent here with your other comments on this page. There are clearly things called the Persian Empire prior to 600 AD, in practice. That was my objection to your comment. You appear to have recognized this below, so there's no need to attack me. Dekimasuよ! 03:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- A response is not an attack. Furthermore, your comments still are justifying the blanking of 60k worth of information that was consensus agreed and part of multiple wikiprojects without any prior discussion or notification. At the very least, a major RfC would be needed to make such dramatic changes. You fail to recognize this point, which is disturbing. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- If you had looked at the history, you'd see the only thing I erased was the disambiguation page (the setup which implies that each era called "Persian Empire" is being treated as a separate entity). However, you're being inconsistent here with your other comments on this page. There are clearly things called the Persian Empire prior to 600 AD, in practice. That was my objection to your comment. You appear to have recognized this below, so there's no need to attack me. Dekimasuよ! 03:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Common usage? What are you talking about? A designation for a series of Dynasties over the past 400 years is the use. If there is any other term, then disambiguate it at the top with a hat not, not erase 60k worth of encyclopedic information devoted to it simply because you lack any clue on the subject. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not because I think these are reliable sources, but just because that wasn't my impression, I present this for your consideration. In common usage, I don't think that's the case. Dekimasuよ! 15:48, 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)
- 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)
- (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)
- Seeing as how people are stubbing a 60k article about over 30 dynasties and ignoring the fact that the Persian Empire specifically refers to those 30 dynasties, a tertiary source is not enough evidence for such an action. The "Persian Empire" is a term that was used for historians for 400 years discussing post Islam Iranian empires that was broken down into a series of dynasties. The term "dynasty" also refers to the imperial state. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- 1968 Cambridge History of Iran - as you can see, it is all +600 AD Muslim governments. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous - none of the extracts provided in that search use the term "Persian Empire" at all. john k (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- So you're saying that the Medes, the Achamenians, the Arsacids and Sassanids were not part of the Persian Empire? Only the Islamic ones were? So then, the above stated empires were pre-Persian. Where did you get that from? Warrior4321 16:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- That book appears to start at 1000 AD anyway. Dekimasuよ! 16:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Plus the "Saljuq Empire" it refers to is the Great Seljuq Empire. The Seljuqs were Turkic. --Folantin (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- And the Byzantine Empire was referred to as the Byzantine Empire, but it was still part of the Roman Empire. Stop with the nonsense. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- And we can find plenty of sources that state that explicitly. I suspect we can find no sources that call the Mughals "the Persian Empire. john k (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- And the Byzantine Empire was referred to as the Byzantine Empire, but it was still part of the Roman Empire. Stop with the nonsense. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Plus the "Saljuq Empire" it refers to is the Great Seljuq Empire. The Seljuqs were Turkic. --Folantin (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- After seeing Ottavo's previous comments, I had found it useless to argue with Ottavo. Nonetheless, it's hard to ignore that his newest comment and referring to the usage of "Seljuq empire" and "Persian" in one chapter of a book (to claim that it was called "Persian empire") just set a new record in absurdity. Alefbe (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- You got that absurdity because the search was effectively for "Persian" OR "empire", and not "Persian empire". A real search returns results that will probably bring on another tantrum. Perhaps this time on the evils of the Cambridge History of Iran. If the past "comments" (or whatever the polemics might be called) are a measure to go by, it will be an entertaining show. Baghdad Bob Redux. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Tantrum? Listen, you are all very close to being banned from the topic as a whole because you have already proven that you are a bunch of POV pushers who would rather blank the page then deal with the history. Not one of you has provided any proof nor have shown the ability to actually be constructive participants at Misplaced Pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yet once again, watch your language. WP:Personal attacks states :
- Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor.
- No one here is going to get banned "from this topic", as we are building consensus. WP:CONSENSUS states:
- Consensus is one of a range of policies regarding how editors work with each other. Editors typically reach consensus as a natural and inherent product of wiki-editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. When two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on the article talk pages.
- That is exactly what we are doing. Warrior4321 02:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- 1. Your understanding of NPA or what a "personal attack" is is far from what the Misplaced Pages definition is. 2. I would go see the Macedonian naming ArbCom and see how ArbCom treats POV vandals. Wizardman already reverted the blanking of the page and said that the above claims were wrong. How do you think the rest of ArbCom will feel if this is put up because you feel that you know better than all of the secondary sources that built the 60k page along with all of the people that built it here? The blanking of the page was vandalism. Defending the blanking with such illogical statements that fly in the face of reality is defined as trolling. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- My "understanding" is from WP:NPA. Secondly, this is not a "blanking" of a page. It would come under removal of content, as the page was not "blanked" but was made into a disambig page and then into a short article. Since you want to defend the older version of the page, can you tell me what is the purpose of the older revision? What is wrong with having a disambig page with links to appropriate empire with a brief summary of the dynasty/empire? Warrior4321 04:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Warrior, it would be in your best interest to stop responding. You claim that it is not blanking yet you show no understanding of its use as per WP:VAND. "Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason". There is no legitimate reason to remove well cited information that deals with a very long span of history and is also of high importance in multiple projects. An Arbitrator already reverted it once for this very reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- My "understanding" is from WP:NPA. Secondly, this is not a "blanking" of a page. It would come under removal of content, as the page was not "blanked" but was made into a disambig page and then into a short article. Since you want to defend the older version of the page, can you tell me what is the purpose of the older revision? What is wrong with having a disambig page with links to appropriate empire with a brief summary of the dynasty/empire? Warrior4321 04:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- 1. Your understanding of NPA or what a "personal attack" is is far from what the Misplaced Pages definition is. 2. I would go see the Macedonian naming ArbCom and see how ArbCom treats POV vandals. Wizardman already reverted the blanking of the page and said that the above claims were wrong. How do you think the rest of ArbCom will feel if this is put up because you feel that you know better than all of the secondary sources that built the 60k page along with all of the people that built it here? The blanking of the page was vandalism. Defending the blanking with such illogical statements that fly in the face of reality is defined as trolling. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yet once again, watch your language. WP:Personal attacks states :
- Tantrum? Listen, you are all very close to being banned from the topic as a whole because you have already proven that you are a bunch of POV pushers who would rather blank the page then deal with the history. Not one of you has provided any proof nor have shown the ability to actually be constructive participants at Misplaced Pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- You got that absurdity because the search was effectively for "Persian" OR "empire", and not "Persian empire". A real search returns results that will probably bring on another tantrum. Perhaps this time on the evils of the Cambridge History of Iran. If the past "comments" (or whatever the polemics might be called) are a measure to go by, it will be an entertaining show. Baghdad Bob Redux. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:08, 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)
- 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)
- (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)
- FWIW, I agree with Ottava Rima and Shoemaker's Holiday. –Juliancolton | 15:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
A few titles of scholarly works:
- Pierre Bryant: From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire (i.e. Achaemenid Empire)
- Amélie Kuhrt: The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources for the Achaemenids
- A.T. Olmstead History of the Persian Empire (deals with Achaemenids).
On a later period (revival of Iranian political unity in 1501/1502):
- Andrew J. Newman: Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire --Folantin (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Folantin, thank you for providing a source in that last one that contradicts 100% everything you have been saying, especially when that source describes how it is a restoration post Mongol conquest. It will be very nice around here once you are finally banned and Misplaced Pages is free of your nonsensical blankings of pages, POV warring, and other blatant disregards for both encyclopedic integrity and common sense. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- "The Mughal Empire (Persian: شاهان مغول Shāhān-e Moġul; self-designation: گوركانى - Gūrkānī) was an Islamic and Persianate imperial power" - i.e. Persian Empire - L. Canfield, Robert; Jonathan Haas (2002). Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521522919, 9780521522915. ; p. 20. Most of the subpages on the dynasties are equally referenced with the same statements. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- You have nothing to say about the numerous sources which use "Persian Empire" to refer to the Achaemenids? And the fact that the Mughal empire was "Persianate" and an empire does not mean it can be called the "Persian Empire." That is just totally specious. You make up nonsense about the Mughals, etc., and then refuse to even begin to deal with the fact that there's a ton of books that call the Achaemenids the "Persian Empire." And nobody has denied that the state(s) ruled by the Safavids and their successors is/are sometimes called the "Persian Empire." It's the application of the term to dynasties between 700 and 1500 that is dubious. john k (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should get a clue? This is the previous version of the page. As you can see, they are included. What isn't included after the blank were the bulk of what is defined as the "Persian Empire". Notice that little note at the top "Most of the successive states in Greater Iran prior to March 1935 are collectively called the Persian Empire by Western historians". That "successive state" was the constant back and forth from 600 AD until 1800 AD. "And nobody has denied that the state(s) ruled by the Safavids and their successors is/are sometimes called the " Obviously, you haven't actually read the dispute, or bothered to look at the current page. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- But you are saying that the Achaemenids and the Sassanids are not the Persian Empire. You have said this several times on the talk page. At any rate, you seem to be using the old article as though it is a reliable source for what should be in it. It is not. And I have looked at the current page, which does in fact say that the Safavids and their successors are sometimes called the Persian Empire. What is in dispute is whether the Medes, the Seleucids, and the Islamic dynasties that ruled before the Safavids are ever called the "Persian Empire". I see little evidence that they are. The "evidence" you present appears to be separate uses of the words "Persian" and "empire" in books talking about the Seljuks or the Timurids or whatever. The old version of the article doesn't even include the Mughals, btw. john k (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- "But you are saying that the Achaemenids and the Sassanids are not the Persian Empire." Correct. Just like Augustus's reign is not the "Roman Empire". Just like the Byzantines are not the "Roman Empire". Just like Charlemagne is not the "Roman Empire". They are all just cogs in a greater whole. "which does in fact say that the Safavids and their successors are sometimes called the Persian Empire" - a brief mention does not justify blanking a 60k page that had references. When an Arbitrator comes and reverts a page blanking, and then people revert him while ignoring multiple WikiProjects involved and years of consensus, that is a major problem. Misplaced Pages:Vandalism - "page blanking". This, by definition, is an act of vandalism. It is also a disgraceful act that has revealed to be based on an POV attack against the term "Persian Empire" simply because of "I don't like it". Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, on Misplaced Pages we do not blank pages because they might not be complete. And you may claim to see little evidence that they are called such, but each of those pages has individual links to many references that say so. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, John, from looking at your talk page and history of it, it seems like you have quite a few people disagreeing with your "understanding" of history, especially when it comes to empires. This is quite a problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- "But you are saying that the Achaemenids and the Sassanids are not the Persian Empire." Correct. Just like Augustus's reign is not the "Roman Empire". Just like the Byzantines are not the "Roman Empire". Just like Charlemagne is not the "Roman Empire". They are all just cogs in a greater whole. "which does in fact say that the Safavids and their successors are sometimes called the Persian Empire" - a brief mention does not justify blanking a 60k page that had references. When an Arbitrator comes and reverts a page blanking, and then people revert him while ignoring multiple WikiProjects involved and years of consensus, that is a major problem. Misplaced Pages:Vandalism - "page blanking". This, by definition, is an act of vandalism. It is also a disgraceful act that has revealed to be based on an POV attack against the term "Persian Empire" simply because of "I don't like it". Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- But you are saying that the Achaemenids and the Sassanids are not the Persian Empire. You have said this several times on the talk page. At any rate, you seem to be using the old article as though it is a reliable source for what should be in it. It is not. And I have looked at the current page, which does in fact say that the Safavids and their successors are sometimes called the Persian Empire. What is in dispute is whether the Medes, the Seleucids, and the Islamic dynasties that ruled before the Safavids are ever called the "Persian Empire". I see little evidence that they are. The "evidence" you present appears to be separate uses of the words "Persian" and "empire" in books talking about the Seljuks or the Timurids or whatever. The old version of the article doesn't even include the Mughals, btw. john k (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should get a clue? This is the previous version of the page. As you can see, they are included. What isn't included after the blank were the bulk of what is defined as the "Persian Empire". Notice that little note at the top "Most of the successive states in Greater Iran prior to March 1935 are collectively called the Persian Empire by Western historians". That "successive state" was the constant back and forth from 600 AD until 1800 AD. "And nobody has denied that the state(s) ruled by the Safavids and their successors is/are sometimes called the " Obviously, you haven't actually read the dispute, or bothered to look at the current page. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- You have nothing to say about the numerous sources which use "Persian Empire" to refer to the Achaemenids? And the fact that the Mughal empire was "Persianate" and an empire does not mean it can be called the "Persian Empire." That is just totally specious. You make up nonsense about the Mughals, etc., and then refuse to even begin to deal with the fact that there's a ton of books that call the Achaemenids the "Persian Empire." And nobody has denied that the state(s) ruled by the Safavids and their successors is/are sometimes called the "Persian Empire." It's the application of the term to dynasties between 700 and 1500 that is dubious. john k (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Moving forward
I think the discussion has been getting bogged down over questions about Ottava's comments that the scope of the article should be from "600 AD to 1800 AD". Since neither of the extant options defines the term that way, it would be more productive for us to discuss which is preferable: the current stub, or the article before it was turned into a disambiguation page. Upon reflection, I believe the old article is more useful to the reader. Both exist to summarize the topic; if there are questions of historical continuity, they can be dealt with within the framework of the article. I don't see a pressing need to reduce the amount of information that's available in our summary of other applicable articles. The old article appears to comply sufficiently with Misplaced Pages:Summary style that it would be worth restoring the article. It seems that a significant number of other editors share this assessment (Juliancolton, Shoemaker's Holiday, Wizardman, BritishWatcher, R'n'B, and possibly even johnk and Warrior4321, although they are arguing with Ottava over other issues). Dekimasuよ! 05:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- It depends on what you mean by "useful to the reader". The old version of this page was a rehash of the content of the page History of Iran, mixed with some bizarre original research and pure nonsense. I don't call such a thing "useful to the reader". I should also mention that asking opinion of other users is a good way to reach a consensus. But I prefer to see more comments from those who have been active previously in Iran-related articles (or pages related to the history of Middle East and Central Asia), not users who haven't been involved in any related page and don't care about the content of the page and just think that a 60k page is better that a 1k page (no matter how crappy and redundant that 60k is). For all who want to comment on this issue, I advise them first to read the arguments in this talk page and then look at the old version of this page and then look at the page History of Iran and then think about whether having that 60k rehash of History of Iran was useful or not, or whether Ottava's arguments are acceptable or not. Alefbe (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- I totally agree with Alefbe. The old article was simply "History of Iran c.700 BC - 1935 AD". It was a pure fork of the History of Iran article (minus the pre-history, the Elamites, half the Pahlavi dynasty - for some unexplained reason - and the Islamic Republic). It made some pretty dubious claims about almost all the polities ruling Iran between c.650 and c.1500 being "Persian Empires". What is the value of keeping this? People are getting upset because "60K of content" has been removed but when the content is misleading at worst or simply a duplication of information available elsewhere at best then there is no reason for it to be here. I've removed 150K of content from an article before because it was no good. As for "usefulness to the reader", well, look at Ottava Rima's contributions to this page and you have a perfect example of what the old article has done to the understanding of a complete novice in Iranian history. He relied on this Misplaced Pages article rather than Britannica, The Cambridge History of Iran (or other scholarly sources) to find out what "Persian Empire" meant and he's ended up in utter confusion. --Folantin (talk) 07:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- This brings us back to Dbachmann's post at the very top of the page, which contained a question that was never adequately answered. There have been a number of editors claiming that the Persian Empire article was a fork of History of Iran, but there have also been suggestions that much of the content of History of Iran would have been better off here instead; i.e., that it's not profitable to talk about the "history of Iran" before the point at which it came to be known as such in the Western world (among historians writing in English). Now, I know that you two disagree, which is why I didn't include you in the list above. However, in light of the discussion here since the page was dabbed/stubbed, I don't see any emerging consensus in favor of the dabbing/stubbing. It may be more useful to proceed from within the -framework- of the old article. Alternatively, an RfC could be opened–I have to object to the idea that editors who have been involved in articles on the Middle East or Central Asia in the past should be yielded to on those grounds. Dekimasuよ! 09:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- The history of the "Persian Empire" (or the various states known as the "Persian Empire") is a subset of the History of Iran. 1935, the date when the Iranian authorities requested that foreigners should call the country commonly known as Persia "Iran" had no effect on the internal history of Iran. Likewise, 1985 (the date the authorities in Ivory Coast requested foreigners should start calling the country Côte d'Ivoire) was not a major turning point in Ivorian history and we don't split the article accordingly. Our article on the history of Siam is at History of Thailand with Siam a disambiguation page explaining the historical meaning of the term. The "History of Thailand" page doesn't start in 1939, then stop in 1945 and resume in 1949.--Folantin (talk) 09:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- (Oh, I see he wrote 1925, not 1935 - although the former version of this page stopped suddenly in 1935. No, again, there is no reason to split the history there. I know of no books that do this. The Pahlavis were just as much Shahs of Iran as the Qajars. The transition from the Qajars to the Pahlavis wasn't a seismic shock in the history of Iran on the scale of the transition from the Ottoman Empire to the Republic of Turkey. The big shock came in 1979).--Folantin (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- The history of the "Persian Empire" (or the various states known as the "Persian Empire") is a subset of the History of Iran. 1935, the date when the Iranian authorities requested that foreigners should call the country commonly known as Persia "Iran" had no effect on the internal history of Iran. Likewise, 1985 (the date the authorities in Ivory Coast requested foreigners should start calling the country Côte d'Ivoire) was not a major turning point in Ivorian history and we don't split the article accordingly. Our article on the history of Siam is at History of Thailand with Siam a disambiguation page explaining the historical meaning of the term. The "History of Thailand" page doesn't start in 1939, then stop in 1945 and resume in 1949.--Folantin (talk) 09:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- This brings us back to Dbachmann's post at the very top of the page, which contained a question that was never adequately answered. There have been a number of editors claiming that the Persian Empire article was a fork of History of Iran, but there have also been suggestions that much of the content of History of Iran would have been better off here instead; i.e., that it's not profitable to talk about the "history of Iran" before the point at which it came to be known as such in the Western world (among historians writing in English). Now, I know that you two disagree, which is why I didn't include you in the list above. However, in light of the discussion here since the page was dabbed/stubbed, I don't see any emerging consensus in favor of the dabbing/stubbing. It may be more useful to proceed from within the -framework- of the old article. Alternatively, an RfC could be opened–I have to object to the idea that editors who have been involved in articles on the Middle East or Central Asia in the past should be yielded to on those grounds. Dekimasuよ! 09:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- I totally agree with Alefbe. The old article was simply "History of Iran c.700 BC - 1935 AD". It was a pure fork of the History of Iran article (minus the pre-history, the Elamites, half the Pahlavi dynasty - for some unexplained reason - and the Islamic Republic). It made some pretty dubious claims about almost all the polities ruling Iran between c.650 and c.1500 being "Persian Empires". What is the value of keeping this? People are getting upset because "60K of content" has been removed but when the content is misleading at worst or simply a duplication of information available elsewhere at best then there is no reason for it to be here. I've removed 150K of content from an article before because it was no good. As for "usefulness to the reader", well, look at Ottava Rima's contributions to this page and you have a perfect example of what the old article has done to the understanding of a complete novice in Iranian history. He relied on this Misplaced Pages article rather than Britannica, The Cambridge History of Iran (or other scholarly sources) to find out what "Persian Empire" meant and he's ended up in utter confusion. --Folantin (talk) 07:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec)
- In light of the two immediately preceding comments (ec: the comment of Dekimasu at 09:25, and Folantin's that follows it), I think I recognize what is going on and where the misunderstanding lies. To clarify:
- a) In academic literature, and in a historical context, "Iran" does not refer to the present-day country of Iran. Rather, "Iran" refers to Iranian nation, which is a concept that has existed since time immemorial, known to the Greeks since the mid 5th century BC, known to speakers of English since at least the 1500s, and in academic usage ever since the field of Iranian Studies was initiated by Anquetil Duperron in 1771.
- b) The geography that goes with the idea of an Iranian nation extends from the Tigris to the Indus. It too is of great antiquity, was also known to the Greeks and Romans, and is what the lead of the History of Iran article identifies itself as covering. As such, 'History of Iran' is comparable to History of India, which is distinct from the article on the 'History of the Republic of India'.
- c) In academic literature, and in a historical context, "Persian empire" is a technical term. It is not a catch-all phrase for any odd dynasty that happened to rule of what may or may not be termed "Persia". The latter term is extensively misused on Misplaced Pages, where it is often treated it as equivalent to every meaning of "Iran", which it is not. This misuse then (evidently) leads to the incorrect premise that "Persian empire" is a synonym for "Iranian empire", and ultimately to the mess that was this article.In reality, only very few Iranian kingdoms were/are called Persian empires. Of these only two are properly Persian empires in every sense of the word. Of these, only one is the Persian empire, and the rest are so-called only through analogy with the original.
- Because the premise of the "framework" of the Persian empire article was false, it is not a good starting point for anything. The mini article on what "Persian empire" really refers to is a good starting point; it was the RightThing to do, and whoever did it deserves a medal.
- Whether that mini article ought to be fleshed out, is something to be discussed at some other time. The basics need to be addressed first: is this article going to accord with what the RSs tell us, or is it going to be about what the uninformed would like the world to believe? -- Fullstop (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Fullstop, before you make another claim about the use, please bother to read . That is the actual use of the term. You can see that the English page was a translation of that page. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- There are four votes for the restoration of the page already. A member of the ArbCom was the first to revert the vandalism, and people have been edit warring it back in. There is no community support. The page will be restored and if people want to expand it to improve it, or if they want to copy edit it, that is fine. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Who are the four people? Warrior4321 14:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ottava, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and a simple vote based on head count does not trump arguments based on reliable sources. ArbCom has no mandate to adjudicate on matters of content so the fact that someone commenting on this page is an arbitrator is irrelevant. --Folantin (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)'
- Consensus is a large portion of people. Five people saying no means that you lack consensus. If you go against the consensus, it would only justify speeding up a request to topic ban you for your actions. And ArbCom has a mandate on edit warring and blanking. Also, see the Macedonia naming dispute - they put many topic bans there, but a quick RfC would take care of it if you bother to restore the blanking. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Juliancolton, Shoemaker's Holiday, Wizardman and Dekimasu per his first comment in this thread. Plus myself. Since large scale changes must have consensus first, five people saying not to reduce the page by that much and instead work on how to improve it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing many arguments based on reliable sources there. You haven't presented any such arguments so "I agree with Ottava Rima" doesn't really cut it. The nearest you've come to using any source apart from Misplaced Pages or your own imagination is Gibbon. Apart from the fact he's two hundred years out of date, he did refer to the Sassanid Empire as the "Persian Empire". Here are some quotations on my user sub-page. --Folantin (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Folantin, I am going to call you a liar, because many of my responses contained links and references. You responded. That means you knew that I provided references. Thus, your claims above are a flat out lie, or you happen to have one of the worse memories ever. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing many arguments based on reliable sources there. You haven't presented any such arguments so "I agree with Ottava Rima" doesn't really cut it. The nearest you've come to using any source apart from Misplaced Pages or your own imagination is Gibbon. Apart from the fact he's two hundred years out of date, he did refer to the Sassanid Empire as the "Persian Empire". Here are some quotations on my user sub-page. --Folantin (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ottava, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and a simple vote based on head count does not trump arguments based on reliable sources. ArbCom has no mandate to adjudicate on matters of content so the fact that someone commenting on this page is an arbitrator is irrelevant. --Folantin (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)'
How about using the term in the same way reliable, up-to-date sources do?
As demonstrated in the examples above, if you read a book with "Persian Empire" in the title you won't get coverage of the history of the various states of Iran from 700BC - 1935. You will most likely get a book on the history of the Ancient Persian Empire(s) from the Achaemenids to the Sassanids (per the Britannica definition) or, even more likely, a book about one specific Ancient Persian empire, particularly the Achaemenid Empire. More rarely, you will get a book dealing with a dynasty of the Shahs of Iran between 1501/1502 and 1979. The title will state which dynasty it deals with (see Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire above).
If you want a book that covers every state known as the "Persian Empire", then you will have to get a history of Iran, the prime example being The Cambridge History of Iran (as Fullstop has demonstrated above).
Our coverage should reflect this state of affairs. This page should be a short article explaining the meaning of the term "Persian Empire" with links to the articles we have on each specific Persian Empire. What it should not do is provide a more or less continuous history of Iran from the 8th century BC to the early decades of the 20th century. --Folantin (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- . That is the term. Unless you want to edit war other Wikis too. You can look at the Languages and see that the original page was reflected in the other versions. Your understanding is of a limited minority and originated in you being unwilling to accept that "Persian" was used instead of "Iran" on a page I was editing. There are many people above that wish for a restoration of the page and you lack all academic and logical credibility here. This page follows the format of Roman Empire as companion to History of Italy. It also deals with issues related to Afghanistan, parts of Iraq, India, etc, as these governments controlled large territories. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. It only follows the history section. Warrior4321 13:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- "It only follows the history section." What? That is what is being discussed. And it does not -follow- anything. That is where the article came from. This article is a translation. I already got a hold of a few people that I am friends with in Syriac studies that know multiple languages and could verify the content on the page and on other pages. In their field, they are also strongly involved with the history of the Persians. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This page follows the format of Roman Empire
- You said that a few comments above. My response was :
- No, it doesn't. It only follows the history section. Warrior4321 14:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- And as I said above, the history section is all that is under discussion or matters when the page is a -history- page. Regardless, the "follows" was in relationship of Empire to territory. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. It only follows the history section. Warrior4321 14:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source (as you have found out by relying on Misplaced Pages rather than Britannica, The Cambridge History of Iran etc.). No Misplaced Pages article in any language can be used as a reliable source in the citations on a Misplaced Pages article. --Folantin (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Folantin - here is a simple little thing for you - you claim about a use of a term. You claim about what words mean. You have no evidence to back that up. Even in other languages, people are 100% against your interpretation. Consensus is against you. Logic is against you. The sources are against you. The other Wikis are against you. There is only you in a corner with a few others who delight in blanking of pages and disrupting things. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Once again, nobody has "blanked the page". Nobody is being disruptive here apart from you. There is no way we could create an article based on your ideas because there are no reliable sources on the history of the Middle East and Central Asia which regard the Achaemenid and Sassanid empires as "pre-Persian", think the Mughal Empire was called the "Persian Empire" or tell us that "the Persian Empire was the 30 or so dynasties between 600 AD and 1800". This is pure nonsense. Please stop it, it's getting embarrassing. --Folantin (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- By definition, reducing a page by 60k is blanking. And your actions, by definition, are disruptive. I now have six people on my side and consensus is clearly against you. Are you done digging your own grave here? "There is no way we could create an article based on your ideas" - There was already an article and I, like the other five, are defending that article which you are hell bent on vandalising out of existence. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Once again, nobody has "blanked the page". Nobody is being disruptive here apart from you. There is no way we could create an article based on your ideas because there are no reliable sources on the history of the Middle East and Central Asia which regard the Achaemenid and Sassanid empires as "pre-Persian", think the Mughal Empire was called the "Persian Empire" or tell us that "the Persian Empire was the 30 or so dynasties between 600 AD and 1800". This is pure nonsense. Please stop it, it's getting embarrassing. --Folantin (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Folantin - here is a simple little thing for you - you claim about a use of a term. You claim about what words mean. You have no evidence to back that up. Even in other languages, people are 100% against your interpretation. Consensus is against you. Logic is against you. The sources are against you. The other Wikis are against you. There is only you in a corner with a few others who delight in blanking of pages and disrupting things. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- You said that a few comments above. My response was :
- No, it doesn't. It only follows the history section. Warrior4321 13:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Even in other languages, people are 100% against your interpretation."
- Oh, yeah? The interwikis indicate otherwise.
- Ottava Rima, you are being a pest. Uninformed and opinionated and tenditious.
- Unless you have reliable sources to back up your absurd contention that the phrase "Persian empire" applies to A) every government that ruled over (portions of) Iran between 600 AD and 1515 (or 1800 or whatever version you are following now), and B) that Persians were not Persians but that Greeks, Arabs, Turks and whatnot were all Persians, then for heaven's sake cough them up. Otherwise quit bothering us and let everyone else do what is necessary to improve the encyclopedia. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Fullstop - You have provided nothing and consensus is against you. Your arguments are nothing. I have already provided many sources, and the page is referenced just like the individual pages that are being summarized. It was also a direct translation of the Farsi version before cites were added. So, this is not new, novel, or anything else, except in some strange POV twisted perspective which you seem to hold. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- (outdent) Say what? How many sources constitute "have provided nothing"? I gave you the correct link to the Cambridge History of Iran, after you -- in all ignorance -- abused that series to tell us that the Seljuks were Persians. Folantin has provided a list of sources that refer to the Achaemends as the "Persian empire". And, here is a list of references to "Persian empire" in the Encyclopedia Iranica. You'll probably now presume to tell us that all that is invalid, and that instead Misplaced Pages has been right all along.
- Further, since when does violating V/RS/OR constitute having "consensus"? This article has been tagged since April.
- And, contrary to your bold faced supposition that " have already provided many sources", it would seem that you have not provided a single non-Misplaced Pages one aside from Gibbon (!), which you then also only vaguely allude to. Indeed, you haven't provided any sources for the absurd theory that "The 'Persian Empire' refers to a series of dynasties between 600 AD until the Ottoman Conquest. No more, no less." (23:56, 21 August 2009) Or for the bizarre notion that the Seljuk and Moghul empires were "Persian empires" (15:31, 22 August; 15:41, 22 August), or for the weird idea that anything pre-600 was "pre-Persian Empire empires" (15:25, 22 August); etc, etc, gaffes ad nauseum.
- If you have cited reliable sources for those and other absurdities, I must have missed them, in which case please list them again.
- And you are mistaken if you suppose that the dimwits who wrote the fa version were any better informed that the idiots who wrote this one (or for that matter better informed yourself, who demonstratively won't bother doing his homework). The mere fact that you hold up the banner for this pernicious nonsense is itself evidence of how badly it fails to inform, but actually disinforms.
- So get your act together, shove the "strange POV twisted perspective which you seem to hold" abuse where the sun doesn't shine, and let the informed people do what is necessary to inform (and not to soapbox as has thus far been the case). -- Fullstop (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- I take it that you haven't bothered to actually read anything on the page, or you would have seen multiple sources. Hell, look above where I pointed out references contradicting Folantin when she tried to claim that the Mughals were not Persian and part of the Persian Empire. The only one violating anything is you. The fact that you would dare try to put up the above while being demonstrably false is just proof that you aren't here to do anything but disrupt. I love how incivil you are, throwing around terms like "dimwits" and the rest. Are you done with your disruption? Consensus is clearly against you and building more and more each day. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- As usual, you "take it" wrong. The fact that I quoted some of the nonsense is an indication that your edits have been an endless source of amusement. Folantin did not "claim that Mughals were not Persian and part of the Persian Empire". You are putting words into his mouth. What Folantin did was dismiss your absurd idea that the Mughal empire was a Persian empire. That was a perfectly valid dismissal.
- And again you claim "disruption" when in fact editors were working constructively until you came along to amuse them with "POV warrior" polemic and full throated assertions ala "The 'Persian Empire' refers to a series of dynasties between 600 AD until the Ottoman Conquest. No more, no less.". Ditto the spurious claims of "Consensus is clearly against you and building more and more each day" while blithely failing to honor any wp policy. Last time I heard, WP:V / WP:OR and WP:RS were still in force, and will continue to do so no matter how uncouth you become, or how hard you work to undermine them.
- Again, I note that the full-throated assertion that " have already provided many sources" could not be backed by reiteration of those (phantom?) sources. Please diff if reiterating them is too much trouble. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Fullstop, word of advice. Your constant beligerances and inability to accept consensus, your claims to have secret knowledge of "truth", and your unwillingness to actually read above and see what everyone else can see is a serious problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- And Fullstop, there was no one "working constructively". When it was first blanked, Wizardman stepped in and said it was a problem. I followed immediately after. There was never consensus for it. And here are some more lovely sources (there are quite a few above) that poke even more holes into your story: , , and many, many more here, which refer to the Mongols defeating the Persian Empire and then ruling over it. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh look another good one. I would think the International Dictionary of Historic Places: Middle East and Africa would know what the words mean! I love how many people works refer to the Mongol rule as the Mongol-Persian Empire too in order to mark their rule over the Persian Empire. Funny how that works. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- All of those sources state the words "Mongol" and "Persian Empire" seperately. None of them state them together. Warrior4321 23:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Warrior, the Mongols invaded after 1000 AD. That would verify that the Persian Empire was a term being used much later than the Sassanids. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- All of those sources state the words "Mongol" and "Persian Empire" seperately. None of them state them together. Warrior4321 23:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to History of Iran
The same information that is contained here is maintained on History of Iran. Either redirect it there, or make a disambig page to the seperate empires, as having two pages containing the same information is redundant. Warrior4321 15:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- As pointed out countless times - Iran is one territory. That is like redirecting the Roman Empire to History of Italy. The Persian Empire covered parts of Iraq, Afghanistan, India, etc. It is a fundamental part of -all- of these territories. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, same information? Have you bothered to look at the pages? They are clearly not the same. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No it isn't. Atleast look at the pages first. Roman Empires start's it's "history" section from 27 BC and ends in the year 476, while the History of Italy page starts in the prehistoric era and ends in 2008. Big difference huh? History of Iran and Persian Empire both end at the formation of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and begin at the Median Empire. Warrior4321 15:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I see that History of Iran starts thousands of years before this article and continues well past 1979, and includes entire sections on Khomeini and Khamenei. This article, on the other hand, starts at the Median Empire and ends here, around 1935. NW (Talk) 15:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- So because of two or three sections, two pages containing the same information excluding the two/three sections should be contained on Misplaced Pages? Warrior4321 17:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I've already made this point above (twice): "The old article was simply 'History of Iran c.700 BC - 1935 AD' It was a pure fork of the History of Iran article (minus the pre-history, the Elamites, half the Pahlavi dynasty - for some unexplained reason - and the Islamic Republic)". And: "This page should be a short article explaining the meaning of the term "Persian Empire" with links to the articles we have on each specific Persian Empire. What it should not do is provide a more or less continuous history of Iran from the 8th century BC to the early decades of the 20th century." --Folantin (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly. All the "Persian Empires" are covered in History of Iran. Yet rather than having a "short article", why not make it a disambig page which would then lead the users to the appropriate empires/dynasties. Warrior4321 22:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Folantin, you do realize that you are being mocked off site for such a ludicrous argument, right? People are saying that you would have all pages related to France be one page. Please see the MoS size requirement. Pages are not supposed to have over 60k worth a text, and that"one page" cannot contain all information. Furthermore, you seem unwilling to acknowledge that the Persian Empire includes Afghanistan, India, and other territories that are not covered under the History of Iran. That little fact alone proves that you have no ground to stand on. Stop with these shenanigans immediately. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, there is some projection. You are the one being mocked for ludicrous arguments (not off-site, in your case). Because your arguments are ludicrous. Yours is, on the whole, one of the most ludicrous arguments I have ever seen anybody make with such fervor on Misplaced Pages. john k (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Projection" would mean that I secretly don't want information on Afghanistan or the rest of the empire to be on the page. That is ridiculously absurd. My dear Kenney, consensus is against you, and your talk page is filled with people who point out that you don't understand consensus or history. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, there is some projection. You are the one being mocked for ludicrous arguments (not off-site, in your case). Because your arguments are ludicrous. Yours is, on the whole, one of the most ludicrous arguments I have ever seen anybody make with such fervor on Misplaced Pages. john k (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Is there information on this page that is not covered in History of Iran? Warrior4321 23:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. As I said, Afghanistan, India, and Iraq are not part of the history of Iran page. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- From History of Iran: History of Iran and Greater Iran (also referred to as the "Iranian Cultural Continent" by the Encyclopedia Iranica) consists of the area from the Euphrates in the west to the Indus River and Jaxartes in the east and from the Caucasus, Caspian Sea, and Aral Sea in the north to the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman in the south. It includes the modern nations of Iran, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, the eastern parts of Turkey and Iraq. It is one of the classical ancient civilizations. Clearly History of Iran includes exactly the areas you are talking about. john k (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- They are not part of this page either. Warrior4321 23:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Really? Then why are there lines like "and the northern parts of the Indian subcontinent.". This is the 8th time you have demonstrated not having actually read the other page. Go bother somewhere else. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- I meant to say there were no sections on them. Warrior4321 23:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- You want whole sections devoted to them? Why? There aren't whole sections devoted to Iran. What is with you and strange POV? It is as if you don't understand how to deal with things in proper proportion. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) If all that is needed is a few sentences that are missing, then obviously only a merge is neccesary. Warrior4321 23:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- There is no possibility for a merge. This is not Iranian history just like Roman Empire is not Italian history. There will be overlap, but overlap is not justification to remove a page. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- The Roman Empire was a seperate empire, just like we have a Sassanid Empire article. The Roman Empire commenced in 27 BC and ended in 476 BC. Comparing the Roman Empire article to History of Italy is like comparing the Sassanid Empire to History of Iran. The overlap between Persian Empire and History of Iran is too great to maintain a seperate article. The information on this article (excluding a few sentences) is all on the History of Iran article. Warrior4321 23:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, there is no institutional continuity between the various states which have ruled Greater Iran, as there is for the Roman Empire. Just to nitpick a little, though, the Roman Empire did not end in 476 AD, and nobody would have thought it did at the time. The Roman Empire survived in the east, and gradually transformed into the Byzantine Empire, which ended in 1453.john k (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- In fact, in comparing Italy with Iran, Roman Empire should be compared to Achaemenid Empire, which already has its own page. I should also mention once more that the most common usage of the term "Persian empire" (in English texts) is to refer to the Achaemenid empire. To avoid confusion and to refer to the other possible usage of the term, a disambiguation page will work just fine. Alefbe (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, there is no institutional continuity between the various states which have ruled Greater Iran, as there is for the Roman Empire. Just to nitpick a little, though, the Roman Empire did not end in 476 AD, and nobody would have thought it did at the time. The Roman Empire survived in the east, and gradually transformed into the Byzantine Empire, which ended in 1453.john k (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- The Roman Empire was a seperate empire, just like we have a Sassanid Empire article. The Roman Empire commenced in 27 BC and ended in 476 BC. Comparing the Roman Empire article to History of Italy is like comparing the Sassanid Empire to History of Iran. The overlap between Persian Empire and History of Iran is too great to maintain a seperate article. The information on this article (excluding a few sentences) is all on the History of Iran article. Warrior4321 23:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Well technically, the complete empire split at 476 BCE, into the eastern and Western Roman Empire, which became known as the Byzantine Empire. Warrior4321 00:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, the empire split in 395 CE. The Western Empire came to an end in 476 CE. john k (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Really? That is proof that you don't have an advance degree in European History. ArbCom knows my degrees and knows that one of them is a Masters in Classical Literature. That involved classical history, and extensive studies in Roman History and the accuracy of Gibbon. Everyone knows that Charlemagne was emperor of the Western Roman Empire and also battled others wanting the title. Rome didn't "fall" - it slowly dissolved into independent states and was powerless to reclaim the territories as they split away. What university do you claim to study at, because I would really like to make some phone calls about you. We already had one Essjay, and we don't need another. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, the empire split in 395 CE. The Western Empire came to an end in 476 CE. john k (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- There is no possibility for a merge. This is not Iranian history just like Roman Empire is not Italian history. There will be overlap, but overlap is not justification to remove a page. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- I meant to say there were no sections on them. Warrior4321 23:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Really? Then why are there lines like "and the northern parts of the Indian subcontinent.". This is the 8th time you have demonstrated not having actually read the other page. Go bother somewhere else. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. As I said, Afghanistan, India, and Iraq are not part of the history of Iran page. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I've already made this point above (twice): "The old article was simply 'History of Iran c.700 BC - 1935 AD' It was a pure fork of the History of Iran article (minus the pre-history, the Elamites, half the Pahlavi dynasty - for some unexplained reason - and the Islamic Republic)". And: "This page should be a short article explaining the meaning of the term "Persian Empire" with links to the articles we have on each specific Persian Empire. What it should not do is provide a more or less continuous history of Iran from the 8th century BC to the early decades of the 20th century." --Folantin (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- So because of two or three sections, two pages containing the same information excluding the two/three sections should be contained on Misplaced Pages? Warrior4321 17:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Outdent - Misplaced Pages has something called an "MoS". It is a standardizing principle for structures of pages. The Roman Empire page and History of Italy is an analogy. So, comments like "The Roman Empire was a seperate empire", spelling errors and all, reveal that you don't understand the argument. And John, there was little institutional continuity in the Roman Empire, especially with multiple revolutions, assassinations, divisions of the Empire, and the such. Have you even bothered to read the Roman Empire page? The last of the Julian line stopped early in the Empire. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have not read the Roman Empire page, but I have read a pretty significant amount about the Roman Empire that is not on Misplaced Pages. Are you some kind of performance art project where you base all your knowledge on the current composition of Misplaced Pages? The Julio-Claudian line came to an end with Nero. The idea that the state ruled by Vespasian or the Antonines was as different from the state established by Augustus as the Sassanids were from the Achaemenids is absurd. There was obviously constant change and evolution, and there wasn't dynastic continuity in the Roman Empire, but there was still real institutional and administrative continuity. The Senate continued to exist; there were consuls and other magistrates chosen every year; individual legions had continuous histories for hundreds of years; and so forth. The Roman Empire was a state. It was a state ruled by different people, but still recognizably the same state. All change was gradual to the point where it's very difficult to isolate a single date and say that that is where the Eastern Roman Empire became the Byzantine Empire. On the other hand, in the history of Iran in the middle ages what you generally have is a new barbarian tribe coming in from the steppes and conquering whoever was there before - the Seljuks conquer the region, then the Khwarezmians, then the Mongols, then Timur. There is no dynastic continuity, but there isn't really any kind of continuity. john k (talk) 00:52, 24 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)