Template talk:History of Iran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Starting point[edit]

Is pre-Aryan history is appropriate for the History of Iran template? Should it include, for example, the Median Empire and the Achaemenid Empire? Or should it start with the first Iranian (Aryan) rule? Is the first Aryan rule the Sassanid dynasty or is it earlier? Were the Arsacid dynasty Aryans? What is the evidence that they were or were not? When was the Aryan invasion down from the steppes? --Bejnar 19:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Jiroft[edit]

There is a wikipedia article on it Jiroft "Whether this is a lost kingdom of Aratta as Dr. Madzjizadeh believes or not, Jiroft is definitely the Lost Paradise for archaeologists and anyone who has a passion for ancient history.". But there is a question mark on the Aratta part. [[1]]

[[2]] Dr. Majidzadeh is well known (google search) in the archaeological community and his connection with Aratta is somewhat tenuously accepted by some other scholars. That is why the Aratta is in question mark. Unfortunately the authorities did not take good care of this excavation. [3]. Either way, it is a major civilization in the center of the Iranian plateau and part of Iranian/World history. It might be an extension of Elamite. But I think it should be in template. Here is a good article on the issue [4]. --alidoostzadeh 19:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Jiroft is a town in the Kerman province. Konar Sandal is an important Bronze Age site. Other important Bronze Age sites include Shahr-i Sokhta, Tepe Yahya and others. This template cannot be the place to list Bronze Age archaeological sites. The 3000 BC date is highly suspect. If you must have a "pre-Elam" entry here, make it Prehistoric Iran or Bronze Age Iran, along the lines of Prehistoric Armenia, Prehistoric Georgia, Prehistoric Britain, Bronze Age Europe etc. dab (๐’ณ) 21:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Right. From what I have heared so far though, Jiroft is dated around 2800 B.C. I guess we will have to wait a decade or so before scholars can reliably assess the background and history of the site/civilization. Perhaps though as you said, a Pre-Elam or ancient excavation sites might not be bad to add. Another interesting one is Marlik although some have associated it with Indo-Aryans. I would add Kassites, Mitanni (according to Britannica extended up to western Zagros), Lulubi and etc. though to the template--alidoostzadeh 22:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of Kassites, it seems the Wikipage is completely OR. Here is a reliable link [5] if someone has time to edit it. Also here is one on Gutti [6], Lulubi [7], Kaspians [8] , Mannea [9]. --alidoostzadeh 22:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Jiroft" (Konar Sandal) is dated to the 5th millennium BC. There are lots of neolithic sites in Iran. Again, if you are interested in discussing them, do a Prehistoric Iran article and link that. dab (๐’ณ) 12:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please add vi:Tiรชu bแบฃn:Lแป‹ch sแปญ Iran. 96.229.193.68 (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Dating system[edit]

The Wikipedia Manual of Style says here that we should go with whatever dating system was used fist and not change it unless there is a substantial reason to do so and consensus for such a change. That is why I reverted it back to the original dating system. - Schrandit (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of that guideline is to avoid changing these stuff and edit-warring over that (or editing just for the purpose of changing the dating system). The same dating system has been used for almost 3 years in this page. Now, you are changing that, based on an edit in 3 years ago (and you haven't edited this page before). I think this is a classic example of citing the words of a guideline and doing the exact opposite of its main intention. If you insist on your version, seek the opinion of a third person, or ask another user (who has previously edited this page) to change the dating system. Alefbe (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The dating system has flipped back an forth over those years, I figure I'm just following guidelines by returning to the original system. I could be wrong. If you think it is necessary I'm fine trying to find a third opinion. - Schrandit (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Please find a third opinion. Alefbe (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sarbadars[edit]

Although they were local rulers , I think they should be included in the list . Also other Iranian local rulers ...--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

RV[edit]

I have reverted Mystery.sin because he seems to misunderstand the purpose of this template. Tajik (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Only list your own history not everyone who invaded and looted your people. {{Mystery.sin (talk)}}
Actually if you think about it, there is no ethnicity called iranian. The name iranian is given to the ethnic groups who form todays iran. People like Azeri, Turkmen, Qashgai, Persian, Talysh, Gullak, Mazandarani, Kurd, Arab, Lur, Balooch and etc ethnic groups form todays iran so there history is absorbed and assimilated in to this so called iranian history. THIEVES {{Mystery.sin (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)}}
Read WP:Civil and don't attack other editors. The template is meant to help readers navigate the pages of dynasties who rules Iran. The dynasties you are removing included. --Wayiran (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Mitanni[edit]

Here is what Britannica says about Mitanni [10]. "Indo-Iranian empire centred in northern Mesopotamia that flourished from about 1500 to about 1360 bc. At its height the empire extended from Kirkลซk (ancient Arrapkha) and the Zagros Mountains in the east through Assyria to the Mediterranean Sea in the west. Its heartland was the Khฤbลซr River region, where Wassukkani, its capital, was probably located." I found some other sources in google books [11] which mentions Zagros mountain. I agree however about removing Afrighids as they were outside of the border of modern country of Iran. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Mianni was not in the territory of modern-day Iran. Its easternmost parts correspond to the western slopes of Zagros, today in northeastern Iraq. Your Britannica quote says exactly as much, the Zagros mountains delimit Mitanni, they aren't part of Mitanni. --dab (๐’ณ) 11:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from , 2 November 2011[edit]

To acknowledge the short reign of Salomai Ddin, in the Ddin dynasty between 651-661. Jessupwareham (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Individuals don't belong on this template, but rather would go in one of the articles linked in this template. โ€” Bility (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Template size[edit]

The template is far too large to be transcluded in articles that do not have as their scope the entire history of Iran. Either the template size should be reduced dramatically, or else the template should be removed from all articles other than History of Iran and Timeline of Iranian history. --dab (๐’ณ) 11:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've made it collapsible, that should resolve the problem.--Work permit (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
still too wide โ€”Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.122.100 (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't "resolve the problem", it just turns the template from a useless bother to just useless. These templates are supposed to give a navigation aid, not to just sit there in collapsed state. If somebody wanted to see every article on the history of Iran, they would browse categories. A navbox is supposed to present an intelligent selection, not a formless heap of links. Just "collapsing" said formless heap so it's at least out of view isn't really helpful. --dab (๐’ณ) 09:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That resolves the problem, and people need to get a concensus. I have to agree with work-permit. The collapse is good and the template is very useful.. There are I am sure other templates now that are much longer than this one (with the collapse format). None of the links are "useless" as they go to detail articles. If dab can designa better temple than he is free, until then such a template is necessary and virtually exist for every territory in Wikipedia. --108.18.222.120 (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I agree with Work permit that the collapsible form is better. Qara xan just (12 August 2012) reintroduced a non collapsible version. I had thought that the relative stability of the collapsible version meant that we'd pleased most folk. But I guess not Qara xan. I have restored the previous collapsible version, pending further discussion. --Bejnar (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

New view of Template:History of Iran of quality like Template:History of China and Template:History of Egypt. Also collapsible version of poor quality has many mistakes. --Qara Khan 04:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Either fix the mistakes in the collapsible version, or make the new version collapsible. --Bejnar (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
This "New view" format should not be presented until the above issues have been addressed and a consensus have been reached, as it is still waiting for further inputs.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Qajar dynasty[edit]

To eliminate a redirect, please change the following (located just above the MODERN heading):

Qajar Empire 1796โ€“1925

to

Qajar dynasty 1796โ€“1925

Thanks. 72.244.204.179 (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done per WP:RDR. Redirects don't have to be fixed. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • However, there is a major exception for templates at WP:RDR:
  • In many cases it is preferable to change redirected links in navigational templates, such as those found at the bottom of many articles (e.g., {{US Presidents}} at the end of George Washington). In this case, when the template is placed on an article, and contains a direct link to the same article (rather than a redirect), the direct link will display in bold (and not as a link), making it easier to navigate through a series of articles using the template.

--Bejnar (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sidebar with infoboxes version[edit]

Hello. Here's a version of the template that uses the Sidebar, Infobox and Collapsible list templates. There are some div sections within it which I imagine could be made redundant, but I haven't found or figured out how yet. As the template is quite tall, it could use "Sidebar with collapsible lists" instead. 213.246.114.240 (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

looks like a good start. I'm not sure why we need to use anything other than {{region history}}, since that template is used for most other countries in the world. Is there something special about Iran that makes it require a non-standard template? making it have collapsible sections is also a good idea. Frietjes (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

RV[edit]

Qara xan! As we can see in History of Iran#Prehistory, periods of before Median Empire are "PREHISTORY". Why you do kind of these actions?--Mervzi (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Prehistory is the span of time before recorded history or the invention of writing systems (See Prehistory). Proto-Elamite, Elam and Mannaeans had writing systems. Also see article Elam. There is written that Elam was an ancient civilization is not prehistoric civilization. If you want to know about Prehistoric Iran then see Prehistory of Iran.--Qara khan 16:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Mervzi, I am inferring that you are not a native speaker of English, and it seems probably that this disagreement is more a matter of language barrier than it is of deep-seated disagreement. Qara Xan is correct on the meaning of prehistory, though the word "ancient" does often have a more general meaning, inclusive of periods on either side of the history/prehistory divide in most cases. What is the specific concern about word choice that is eliciting such a strong response? siafu (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a native speaker of English because I'm Persian, but I can understand the meaning of the "Prehistory"! In [Iran] history the meaning of Prehistory is different with the usage of Prehistory in other Topics.--Mervzi (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
No, it really isn't-- the term in English has an unambiguous and accepted meaning, which is not different when discussing different civilizations (though the history/prehistory divide occurs at different absolute times in different contexts, it's meaning is unchanged). Can you explain what the benefit of using the more ambiguous term "ancient" is in this scenario? siafu (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
"Ancient" insn't more ambiguous term. In Iran we study Iran history in school and university and I have complete information about history of Iran. Iran history has different sections and the periods of before "Aryan migration" and "Median Empire" are "prehistory" and the term "Ancient Persia/Iran" means periods of after Median Empire.--Mervzi (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Since this is the English wikipedia, what is taught in Iran is not really relevant. As I explained earlier, in English the word "ancient" is in fact ambiguous as to actual extent, whereas the term "prehistory" is specifically referenced to the time before the extant historical record. siafu (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)