This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ManiF (talk | contribs) at 15:06, 25 February 2006 (Heja Helweda, Diyako, Aucaman). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:06, 25 February 2006 by ManiF (talk | contribs) (Heja Helweda, Diyako, Aucaman)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iran/Archive 10 page. 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 |
Iran NA‑class | |||||||
|
Countries NA‑class | ||||||||||||||
|
Iran/Archive 10 has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}. |
Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead. |
This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations. |
An event in this article is a April 1 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment).
- /Archive1: March 2003 – July 2005
- /Archive2: February 2005 – November 2005
- /Archive3: November 2005 – January 2006
Scouting in Iran
Didn't know where Scouting in Iran belonged in that box, just that it is an applicable topic. Please put it in the categorization you think it belongs in Chris 00:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Important message for all Iranian editors
کاربران محترم,
چندیست که برخی افراد شوم- نیت, اقدام به نوشتن برخی مطالب مشکوک و ضد ایرانی در صفحات زیر نموده اند. هدف شوم آنان توسعه فکر استقلال طلبی اعراب در خوزستان میباشد.
بخصوص کاربران باسامی "زورا" و "اهواز" در این امر دست به فعالیتهای وسیعی زده اند.
خواهشمند است در دفاع از تمامیت ارضی-تاریخی ایران زمین ما را یاری فرمایید.
خیر ببینید!
- Ethnic politics of Khuzestan
- Arabs of Khuzestan
- History of Khuzestan
- Khuzestan
- Sheikh Khaz'al
- Islamic conquest of Iran
- Iranian Kurdistan
- Kurdish people
- Kurdish people
- History of the Kurds
also:
- Iranian languages which is constantly attacked by Turkish editors.
and related pages.--Zereshk 06:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- may i remind you that this is an english language site? Pure inuyasha 00:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Of course you may. Sorry about that.--Zereshk 01:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Can we have a translation then. Thanks -- Jeff3000 01:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Im basically asking all Iranian editors to keep an eye on these pages (listed). That's all.--Zereshk 04:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Translation of the Comments
Hi, here is the translation:
"Dear Users, It's been a while that some people with bad intentions, have been writing suspicious and anti-iranian stuff in the following pages. Their evil goal is to promote the idea of independence of Arabs in Khuzestan. Specially users with the names "Zora" and "Ahwaz" have been very active in this regard. Please kindly help us to safeguard the historical territorial integrity of the land of Iran.
God Bless You."
Heja Helweda 05:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the confirmation.--Zereshk 05:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the translation Heja Helweda. -- Jeff3000 13:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- That translation is wrong and it says seperation among manny things. The Arabs of Iran are very proud Iranians and fought in the highest numbers with Saddam and Iraq even with Saddam's Pan-Arab propaganda.
- The independence of Khuzestan Arabs is an "evil idea"? Hmmm... --Khoikhoi 05:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes it is. It is a breach in the internal affairs of a sovereign UN member state, which is illegal. We're not here on WP to promote certain groups to secede or to fight, or to do whatever our agenda dictates. Further translation: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A POLITICAL PLATFORM.--Zereshk 05:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- I never said anything about promoting it, but outside of Misplaced Pages, why is it evil? A breach in the internal affairs of a sovereign UN member state? So I suppose all active autonomist and secessionist movements, such as the Basques, Tibetans, Chechens, Kurds – are "evil"? --Khoikhoi 07:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think the translation was clear enough: Promoting secessionism on WP is evil. It's not your or my business to promote secessionism here on WP. Let the world turn as it wants to. That's my point.--Zereshk 07:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, on Misplaced Pages. I see. --Khoikhoi 08:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Iranian names are OK
I dont agree with GMotamedi. I think it is appropriate to use both English/Persian names such as "Iranian Parliament" and "Majles". Or "Supreme Leader" and "Rahbar". Obviously words like Die Fuhrer, Bundestag, Duma of Russia, Diet of Japan, etc..., are part of the English vocabulary. The "Majlis" of Iran isnt any different. It is a unique assembly of power in the world.--Zereshk 02:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- The point is that we don't have to force the ethnic words into the English literature; the examples like the Russian "Duma" have entered the literature a long time ago and through a natural course i.e., frequent communication between people and different media (one example in our recent history is the term "Shah" that spontaneously entered the English media and literature during the process of 1978-9 revolution). What I find odd is that some Iranians have this tendency to bring original words like "Farsi", "Majlis" (or now even "Rahbar"!) into the English literature. Misplaced Pages will last long our generation, so the future generations may and will do further adjustments as needed, but I don't see the need to rush to to this artificially. Gmotamedi 21:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with calling it the Majles. It also doesn't have anything to do with history. The Iranian Majles is definitely older than the Israeli Knesset, but I've never heard anyone try to avoid using the term "Knesset" just because it's not English. But whether or not you call it the Majles depends on the context. "Rahbar" is totally different. I think its use should be limited. Aucaman 16:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- One other thing, interestingly, there are 22 Arab States most of them with parliaments which they call "Majlis" but they use the term "parliamnet" in English texts. BTW, the way the term is pronounced in Iran it should be spelled "Majles". Gmotamedi 04:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- You are right. "Majles" is correct.--Zereshk 06:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup required
The article is too long. I propose cutting down the Politics and the Economy section and moving useful information to the corresponding articles. Aucaman 17:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think the "Persia/Iran" naming convention paragraph should be trimmed or removed altogether. It is absolutely pointless - this is an article about Iran. If a few Iranian scholars and academics in the United States believe that a "controversy" exists about the name of the country, that does not make it true, considering that this a total non-issue in Iran today. The section should be removed and the link to the naming dispute article moved to the links section where it belongs. Just a suggestion. SouthernComfort 03:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- As well, we should keep in mind that the monarchy was abolished many years ago and any rulings made by the last Shah were made obsolete after he fled (or rather abandoned) the country, and most especially with the establishment of the Islamic Republic. Why it is necessary to state that the Shah proclaimed that both "Iran" and "Persia" are appropriate is beyond me - it is an extremely moot point, and probably a POV one at that. SouthernComfort 03:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with this. We can remove the comment about the Shah. But I think a lot of readers confuse Iran with Persia and an explanation is necessary (preferably in the beginning of the article). You can edit the article the way you want and then we can discuss your changes. I like the introductory paragraphs the way they are now. But be bold. Aucaman 06:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
First of all, this page needs no clean up and second of all MR.AUCAMAN, you and some others just came and deleted many section people worked hard on. You know that people put time on thier edits.What happened to the climate section? Who do you think you are? People WORK HARD!!!!! Wikiwo123 06:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I consider this a personal attack. A very premature one. If there was a climate section and it's now missing, I've had nothing to do with it. I've made only two edits to this article. In the first one, here, I just removed some irrelevant information from the first few paragraphs. In the second one, here, I just added a cleanup tag. Now please PROVIDE EVIDENCE for saying I have "deleted many section people worked hard on".
- Also, if you try to edit the article, you'd see this comment on top of the page: "This page is 43 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." Do you what this means? It means the article requires Cleanup. That's all I was pointing out.
- Now go and read the folowing articles and get back to me with a response (I expect an apology): article size, Misplaced Pages:Cleanup, Civility, Misplaced Pages:No_personal_attacks. If you want to help in the cleanup process, also read Misplaced Pages:How_to_break_up_a_page. Sincerely, Aucaman 06:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I did some reseach (what you should have done if you were really that concerned) and it looks like the Climate section was taken out by this edit. I left a note on his page (again, what you should have done if you were that concerned). Aucaman 07:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, the article is a bit short. Compare to United States of America. The article should be as comprehensive as can be.--Zereshk 06:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's an excellent good point actually. Unless other country articles should be trimmed as well (since they all have numerous main articles linked to the primary country profile), this one should be continued to expand, though I would rather see less focus on the history since there are so many history articles, and we need to encourage editors to add more and more detailed information to those individual articles. There is not enough focus on modern Iran and the technological and economical developments and so forth, and there is so much more to add in that respect. SouthernComfort 06:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Please read what I said above. The article is 43KB. Short is under 20KB. Read Article size for the guidelines. Some browsers cannot load the page the way it currently is. I'm not saying we should get rid of anything. Some stuff have to moved to other articles. Again, read what I've said above. These sort of stuff should not require an explanation. It's Misplaced Pages common sense. Aucaman 06:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Is the cleanup tag actually necessary? The article isn't messy. SouthernComfort 06:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't complain if you took it out, but the article does have to be reduced in size. Aucaman 06:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- The United States article is around 72KB, Israel is 41KB, Russia is 47KB. A large article size does not seem unusual. SouthernComfort 06:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. So we shouldn't implement Misplaced Pages's guidlines regarding style because they're not implemented in the US page?
- No, what I'm saying is that why pick on Iran instead of the US, Israel, Russia, or any other large country article (i.e. most of them). I can guarantee you that those articles will probably stay at the same size they are currently at or even expand further due to the fact that country articles are complex and unique in regards to other articles. SouthernComfort 07:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I would have proposed the same changes for other articles if I had the time. Let's see if can finish this one now. These kind of stuff aren't really worth talking about. I'm just trying to make the article look nice and readable. Shouldn't require justification. Aucaman 07:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Just look at the Economy section. It's 9 paragraphs long. The Economy of Iran ARTICLE is not even this long. I've never seen anything like this. All I'm saying is that some the information in the economy section of the Iran article should be moved to the Economy of Iran article. This is a no brainer. Normally I would take the initiative myself (I just did this for the Ahmadinejad article and there were no complains - perhaps because I was dealing with an admin and not inexperienced users), but I'm short on time, so I thought it would be better to ask for help. Never mind! Aucaman 07:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ahem, Zereshk and myself are very experienced editors here, and we've been around longer than you it seems. Thanks. SouthernComfort 07:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Aucaman, 37k is not really that large. I think youre being a bit picky. But guidelines "are not policies" either. There is no mandate to implement them. Especially when there is a case. And the case of Iran's page is a special one indeed. Not just the United States, but almost every US state page is above the 20k mark. And here we are trying to present a country with a 7000 year history that is on the brink of conflict with the international community. Surely there is much more to say in this article than the 64k long article of New Jersey, a state 1/72 the size of Iran and only 300 years old? It's taken us a year, me and a group of around 10-15 editors, to get the article to where it is now. A lot of hard work, a lot of debate, a lot of research. The article is already critically short as it is. Any shorter, it will not reflect the true image of Iran, even in a summary. The Economy section, I did not work on. But pretty much all other sections must not be reduced, if not expanded. It simply wont do justice to a topic like Iran.--Zereshk 09:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I did not mean to make a big deal out of this. It was just something to think about. I personally don't like reading long articles, but I did not suggest getting rid of important information (or any information). You also have to note that because of its rich history and complex nature, all the information about Iran cannot be stored in just one article, but has to be expanded through several articles. A person looking for specific information about Iran's economy shouldn't have to read 9 unorganized paragraphs (in terms of headings and readability) just to figure out that the information he/she needs is in the Economy of Iran article and not the main Iran article. Think about that. Aucaman 16:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree the article is a bit too long. Most of that is in the Politics and Economy sections (which could undoubtedly be trimmed to a limited extent without harming the content), but the length of the lead is fine. Also note WP:WPC guidelines, which call for brief summaries. (Although they are only guidelines, if this article is to become featured, which it has the potential to be, WikiProject guidelines must be followed.) --Wikiacc 20:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. I understand why the Politics section might have to be long (Iran has a complex political system), but I don't know about the Economy section. For one thing, based on Misplaced Pages:How to break up a page, each section is supposed to have a summary of the main article, but the Economy section of the article seems as long as the Economy of Iran article. How can the summary of an article be as long as the article itself? (They both seem around 9 paragraphs.)Aucaman 21:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think you guys are right. The Economy section could use some trimming.--Zereshk 00:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I just trimmed down the history section as far as possible. This is as short as it can get without substantial loss of information.--Zereshk 07:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Middle East
Part of Iran is in the Middle East, but the other half is in Central Asia. Shouldn't we describe it as both a Middle Eastern and Central Asian state? SouthernComfort 06:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Iran is usually included in Southwest Asia, not Central Asia. Having it be both in Southwest Asia and Central Asia would be confusing to the reader. Aucaman 07:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Mossadegh
The section on Mossadegh appears somewhat inaccurate. From what I understand he did not abolish the monarchy, which prior to the coup was severely limited in scope due to it being a constitutional monarchy. After the coup the Shah simply assumed authoritarian powers that he did not have before the coup. SouthernComfort 06:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I didnt see that part.--Zereshk 09:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Iran is a hybrid that is part of the claimed places. Politically it is in Asia which Southwest Asia is a divison of. Geographically it is in Eurasia. It is part of Caucasia as the southern most state. The Caucasian Mountains start in Northern Iran. Iran is also regionally part of the Central Asia and the Middle East. Within the Middle East there are sub-regions like the Levant. Iran is part of the Persian Gulf region too. Iran is also next to the Indian sub-continent which starts with Pakistan and in very close proximity to Europe which is just north of Iran.
Food
Can anyone help me gather all the information on some of the important foods of Iran ;) , I will start gathering information... But is it okay with other users? Oh and what are the rules? --Sassan 10:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- You may want to check out Cuisine of Iran and Persian cuisine. In fact we need to add a great deal more information on all the various regional cuisines to Cuisine of Iran, which i still lacking in that area. SouthernComfort 07:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Culture section
Being a poetry crazed people, the page seriously needed a verse or two to reflect on that character of Iran.
As some of you can tell, I translated the verses in the culture section myself. If you think you can do a better job of translating them WITH RHYMES, go for it.--Zereshk 23:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Updates to Iranian pages
This user is a graduate / staff / faculty / student of the University of Tehran. |
Ive finished filling in all article gaps for Pahlavi era section of List of Prime Ministers of Iran (except for Morteza Gholi Bayat). Please feel free to edit my hasty edits in those articles.
I have made a template for UT people. Please use.
And also, I made the badly needed doogh template. (How can yall live without it for crying out loud??)--Zereshk 09:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Further trimming
I just finished trimming the Political section, as much as it could take. I will leave the trimming of the economy section perhaps to one of our erudite editors, so that we can go ahead and submit our request for Iran being a featured article?--Zereshk 23:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Before we submit this article on WP:FAC, the following should probably happen first:
- Its status on WP:AID is resolved: either Iran becomes a weekly article improvement drive and gets extra sets of eyeballs and further improvement, or it is removed for not meeting the 3-vote-per-week requirement to stay as a candidate.
- Put on peer review to find out (and fix) objections in advance (before they appear on FAC). If we get WP:AID, this step will probably be optional (but still useful).
- Send it to WP:FAC; it should be nominated by someone with enough time and willingness to address the objections as they come. Usually the way featured article candidates pass is if most of the Object votes have been addressed and those voters change their votes to Support. This time there will probably be at least some initial Support votes, as the article in its current form has reached Good Article status (whereas the article when submitted last time would not have).
- --Wikiacc (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Im fine with waiting longer and weeding out more imperfections.--Zereshk 05:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Finished art pages
Ive finished working on the Iranian art pages. Please feel free to add.--Zereshk 05:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Iran
In the future I'd love to see a map showing Azerbaijan as an entity unto itself...this region is clearly not Persian, and the only thing that makes it Iranian is the border on Araz Chayi (Aras River). Perhaps Christian Armenia would like to join "Islamic" Iran in a federal union of sorts, given the fact that the Tehran regime is Armenia's number one trading partner, supplier of oil and natural gas, protector, and ally.
- This is not a political forum of false Pan-Turkish ideals. But I do agree with you on one point I would like to see the Azerbaijani Republic as an whole within the boundaries of Iran. Azeris are ethnic Iranians and proud.
- Indeed Iran was forced under threat of Russian military invasion to sign the Turkmanchai treaty and Gulistan Treaty, which separated the Republic of Azerbaijan from Iran.--Zereshk 16:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Milad Tower image
I dont think we really need the milad tower image on the front page. (especially that it still isnt finished.) It already appears on the Tehran page.
Anyone?--Zereshk 21:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, it's not a particularly good picture as it's hazy. Maybe a picture of agriculture or oil instead? -- Jeff3000 21:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Etymology of "Iran"
I am surprised to see that there is no mention of meaning or root word description for the term "Iran". Somebody could contribute. 67.81.174.200 02:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- The etymology may be found in history of Iran. It could be mentioned here as well. —Charles P._(Mirv) 03:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Check it out people!
This user thinks Iranian rock is cool! |
Now we're talkin. :)
Please feel free to add info to the new accompanying Iranian rock page I just made.
mer30!--Zereshk 00:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
wow! Baba eivallah!--Nightryder84 01:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
We Can See how the Middle East is being Balkanized
Iran, Iraq, Caucasia, and the Middle East are being balkanized were everyone fights each other like in Yugoslavia. And who wins with fabricated ethnic disputes? Guess who!
- This statment says it all about that region and goes beyond its statement about Iran.
Israeli and U.S. intelligence are concentrating hard on Iranian minorities, because they have no military solution for this problem. They want to disintegrate Iran into a few countries like the Soviet Union and that is not going to happen.
politics
hello everyone, just have some questions- since the article mentions religion and political systems, is there no need or requirement to flesh out that issues such as women's rights (I'm not a woman ), political freedom, repression, hostagetaking, support for terrorism, and other elements which give crucial perspective to the existing decription of the counrty? Should there be an analysis area, or some contextual couching of the existing narrative?
another Iranian template
Ba sepaas, --Kash 12:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- I dont know how long that box will last though, since it seems, unfortunately, that User:Jimbo Wales (WP founder) has decided that political boxes be removed from WP.--Zereshk 04:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- I dont see anywhere that he has 'decided' to do so? those are all 'proposed' ideas, correct me if I am wrong.
- I believe User:wikiacc is a better authority than me on this.--Zereshk 00:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Vote on picture
Greetings,
I'd like to propose that we vote on this issue (otherwise, the picture will keep changing as different users have different tastes):
Which of the following pics do you deem most befitting for the Template:History of Iran Template, which is used everywhere on Iranian history pages?
If I am correct (by WP guidelines), this vote ballot will endure for one week. Thanx.--Zereshk 00:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Image 1
Image 2
- Heja Helweda 04:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Khoikhoi 05:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Aucaman 11:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Wikiacc 21:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Kash 22:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Tombseye 22:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Vote is now over. Thank You all for voting.
I think both are excellent. The first, however, has a more specific symbolic meaning, and can be dated back to older times than the second. I would also prefer that one. Just a suggestion: Isn't it possible to put a picture of the Cyrus cylinder instead? Shervink 12:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)shervink
- I think the second one (probably from "Persepolis"(Takht-e Jamshid)) is better since it refers to some historical event, which has taken place, while the first one is a religious figure (an angle) which can not be considered a historical one and it does not refer to any historical event. It is more appropriate for pages about the ancient Iranian religions (Zoroasterianism). Cyrus Cylinder is also a very good choice. Heja Helweda 04:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The first one is not really clear - it's too dark. Aucaman 11:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, First one can hardly be seen..--Kash 22:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanx for the vote y'all. We'll keep it as it is then.--Zereshk 09:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
"Miscellaneous topics" deleted
Someone had vandalized the article by placing a pornographic picture in a section labeled "miscellaneous topics." I deleted it, but I'm not a proper member of Misplaced Pages so I thought I'd better drop a note here to let you know. (69.81.51.96 01:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC))
- looks like the image was on Template:Portal. It's been fixed. —Charles P._(Mirv) 02:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Persia, Parthia, or Iran?
Misrepresenting one of the most glorious and influential times in Iranian history, and for that matter world history, the dynasty of Achaemenids, Ashkanian, and Sassanids in all called the Persian Empire--the first global empire; the largest the world had seen yet--the empire that gave humanity for the first time the ideas of monotheism, the "Wise Men from the East" in the Bible, which in English, the term may refer to a shaman, sorcerer, or wizard; it is the origin of the English words magic and magician, angelology, demonology, eschatological teachings, apocalyptical notions , that would later be transferred to their newly freed Jewish subjects that in return would adapt these ideas, that would in turn enormously influence Judaism and later Christianity should not be encouraged. Misrepresenting the second Iranian dynasty, the Ashkanian, or Parthian Empire who reunited Iran and made it into a global power again, and who have had tremendous impact on the Iranian culture, should not be an aim of yours, just because it is simply more ``convenient`` for Western literature to do so. From its birth, Iran was called Iran (land of Aryans) by Cyrus the Great, not Persia, which is simply a province in Iran, yet so much inaccuracies have risen that the West thinks Persia is extinct, and the modern nation of Iran is different, which is false, in fact--from 525 BC up to 1979 AD, the country was called `Kingdom of Iran`; there is archeological proof of that. After the 1979 revolution, the country is now called `The Islamic Republic of Iran`. There are numerous articles and books that state Parthia was a country in Asia, or that the second Persian, i.e., Iranian dynasty was the Sassanid, or even more erroneously, and shockingly, that Parthian were foreign rulers of Persia. That is absurd; it is very much like saying Yankees in Boston in the north rose to power and formed Bostonia, later native Texans took back their land, and were the second American dynasty. Ashkanian, who came from the north of Iran and were from the ancient Iranian tribe of Ashkuzi (Scythians), reunited Iran, and revitalized Persian customs. Macedonia that was not even part of Greece, is under Ancient Greece, yet, people seem to have separated Persia, Parthia, and Iran. As such, because Wikepedia gives people a chance to make wrongs right, it is essential that right in the beginning of the sentence, the empire’s real name be embedded in there, so when a reader studies it for the first time, he or she would know the origin of the empire. Calling that era of Iran, Persia and Parthia is absolutely confusing, and above all false. The correct name for the country was, and is simply, Iran.Zmmz 22:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- That's what we are working on here: trying to accurately represent Iran. You can help us out by contributing! Thanx!--Zereshk 08:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Video clip
All,
I asked for help regarding uploading an excellent 25 Meg video clip of Tehran University. I got no answer so far from any of the admins I consulted.
So I uploaded the video clip file to my own website, and provided links instead. You can see the clip by going to here.
But the bandwidth on my website is limited. IOW, this is a temporary fix.
Does anybody know how to upload a clip to WP? I reckon it must be thru Wikicommons. But Im not sure about the logistical details.--Zereshk 20:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- you can upload video files to Commons if they're A: properly-licensed B: in the right format (see Misplaced Pages:Media#Video) and C: under 20 megabytes in size. the interface is substantially identical to the upload interface here. —Charles P._(Mirv) 21:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The history section for the Iran page is incomplete and lacks specific information. The page says that written history in Iran began around 3000BC but when you follow the link provided that page gives the date 3200 BC. The history of Iran has been proven by archeologists and scholars to be much more ancient than what is claimed on Misplaced Pages. Certain settlements and villages that have been excavated prove that civilizations and permanent settlements have existed in Iran for at least 7000 years. The date on the history page should be corrected to say at least 5000BCE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dariush4444 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 23 February 2006.
- It says "Written history" dates back 3000BC. There's a difference. Excavations do not necessarily imply written history. Besides, the article History of Iran verifies what youre saying anyway (about much older excavations existing). As far as I know, we have settlements dating back to pre-historic times there.--Zereshk 21:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The article says that written history starts around 3000BC When in fact the Elamite tablets that have been found date back to much before 3200BC. Also, why does wikipedia start with "written" history in regards to Iran. For other countrys they start right from the date that the earliest settlements have been found.
Another attack on Iranian pages
Some editors are in the process of erasing the page Iranian peoples, claiming "such a term does not exist". (!)
Im sick and tired of fighting these Iranophobes. WP has turned into a magnet for such twisted agendas of separatists.
The fighting is also going in:
And if you thought it was just some hostile so called anti-Iranian editors trying to erase the memory of Iran, think again.
They are doing the work of western intelligence agencies that specifically intend to bring "violent fragmentation" to Iran.--Zereshk 21:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- First your wording is very aggresive and provokes anti-pathy I do not believe it is encouraged in wikipedia. Attack or dispute? fighting or discussion?
- Second what you mean by linking to an article about western intelligence agencies
- and accuse some wikipedians to be supported by them?
- Third and as a result if you have not enough source for an article it is not a good reason to become angry and provoke other newcomers against some users.
- Please act civil. and do not turn discussions to a personal, racial, national, religious, cultural, local, international, political or historical or even family war!
- Diyako Talk + 22:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Diyako, calm down. Read my comment above more carefully. Do you see me even using the word "support" above? But I did say that you are doing their work. And that is a plain fact. That's why I provided the link. Also, youre the one who is angry and determined to censor Iranian pages. Not me.--Zereshk 22:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm against censorship. against oroginal research. against accusation. I'm not angry this is you who are angry because could not provide any sources for the article. I'm just suggesting to you calm down. Before you wrote this accusations I had left that page but if you still think that dispute be continued then no problem I'll nominate that page for deletion.Diyako Talk + 23:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Fortunately thats not your call.--Zereshk 23:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- No one can ever ruin Iran. Iran has been around for at least 7000 years. We have fought the Romans, Greeks, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, etc....We are still here and our culture and heritage is as strong as ever. One day soon when we get rid of the stupid mullahs in Tehran then Iran will become a strong, powerful, and respected PERSIAN country again!
Heja Helweda, Diyako, Aucaman
These three users are on some sort of anti-Iranian crusade vandalizing all the Iranian and Persian related articles. We need to keep an eye on their " edit activities" as their intentions is not sincere but merely for the purpose of propagating false information.
Categories: