Template talk:Sassanid Empire infobox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Extent of Borders Shown in Map 2 Ridiculous 3 Possible solution 4 Edit warring 5 What?! 6 Eastern Border Sources 7 Picture of the Sassanid Empire 8 Council of Ministers 9 New Map Redux 10 Light green 11 Map of Sassanid 12 RfC?

[edit] Extent of Borders Shown in Map

You keep changing this while the image is consistent with the text below it, and the claim of the image being Sassanid's empire at it's greatest is valid. This is the same with Roman empire and that info box there. So unless there is any sort of consensus reached, I suggest you stop changing the image and maybe discuss your needs. Also, keep it WP:Civil and do not start calling edits "Iranian nationalist POV vandalism"!, etc. Thanks, --Rayis 15:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggest you practice what you preach, as you've called edits to make the map more useful and less POV "vandalism" yourself. It's obvious that the Iranian pages are contantly being edited by Iranian nationalists to propagandize and glorfiy Iran (a quick visit to your home page makes this abundantly clear), such as providing a bloated and uncharacteristic map of the Sassanid Empire -- a map representing maybe three or four years out of a four hundred year dynasty. The map I provide represents the other three hundred and ninety six years. It's particularly uncalled for to insert this map as it's already in the article, in the appropriate place.

If the Roman Empire map is uncharacteristic for that Empire, go fix it. Two wrongs don't make a right.Larry Dunn 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Larry, thanks for expressing your opinions but until there is a consensus among historical articles on Wikipedia on this matter, I would appreciate it if you did not revert this template. I would also appreciate it if you stopped your accusations, and try to be WP:Civil. Thanks. --Rayis 18:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Pointing out a clear, demonstrable WP:NPOV bias is not being uncivil. Accusations of vandalism are.

You have failed to point out why it is necessary to show a map of the Sassanid Empire for four of its 400 years of existence in the info box when that map is already in the article on Sassanid Empire, in the section covering the (brief) period that it occupied that additional land.

Using this map to represent the Sassanid Empire is like using a map of all the territory the USA occupied in 1946 as a "map of the USA" -- it's equally absurd, and demonstrates a strong POV bias. Larry Dunn 18:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Larry you have accused me of vandalism and Iranian nationalism thats obvious from my home page (apparently!), so please stay Civil, and until there is a consensus with other historical articles, do not revert this page back to your version. You have done this 7 times now while you have not touched the Roman empire infobox. Perhaps this demonstrates your POV. --Rayis 18:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please address my substantive points about this template, which I have set forth above, before making any further reverts. See Wikipedia policy for this. If a factual matter is disputed, it is the burden of the person asserting the fact to source it properly.

I do not need to clean up every other page in the Wikipedia in order to clean up one page. It's absurd to assert failure to do so as a POV bias. Again, if you have a problem with the Roman Empire page, please fix it. I certainly will not object. Larry Dunn 18:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not have a problem Larry. It is you who has a problem with showing the empire at it's greatest extent. No one else has shown any interest in doing so, in fact as I mentioned you have reverted this 7 times, this shows that you have been acting as a WP:OWNer of this template and pushing your POV in this case. Please let others contribute --Rayis 18:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Creating reliable and useful articles on Wikipedia is not a popularity contest, particularly on pages that tend to be most heavily edited by people who tend to support only one perspective on an issue, rather than a global view. The response to your request is, please allow a global perspective, not just an Iranian one. The Iranian users do not WP:OWN this template either. Each one of those reverts was due to a revert from an Iranian user.

You have yet to address any of the substantive issues with the map which I have repeatedly raised, which suggests to me that you concede that they are correct. So why do you continue to place this unhelpful and unrepresentative map in the template? Because it tends to glorify the Sassanid state? Please explain.Larry Dunn 18:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Larry, it is generally not appreciated to bring about users nationality in to a discussion. For all you know, I am an english speaking user with an interest to edit this article as much as you do. Also, the assume good faith policy clearly states that you should try to avoid such accusations. In any case, as I have stated previously, from my point of view, there are dozens of empires on Wikipedia and unless there is a consensus, one article shouldn't show it at it's greatest extent and the other not. If a user wants this consensus to be changed, he should try and gather support and make it right. I understand that in case of Sassanids it may have been a short period of time but this would be similar with Roman empire also. So unless there is consensus (and we can see so far there is not), this template should not be any different to others because one user believes strongly that he is right while others (from your point of view, "Iranians") believe this should not be the case. I hope you appreciate where I am coming from (but not literally! :) ) Regards, --Rayis 19:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Good faith assumptions? Generally, yes, but not in cases where it is obviously driving the edits. I do assume good faith but that policy does not require you to assume it forever, where a POV bias is evident. I guess it is natural for people of a certain background to want to show their own history in a positive light, but IMO it is more important on a global basis, in something like wikipedia, to understand these facts from a neutral point of view. Frankly, Wikipedia is positively crawling with this kind of thing. You have articles about the Balkans in which people in the different ethnic history projects are locked in death struggles just like people are in the actual Balkans themselves. Then, you have articles like this, somewhat more obscure, where most if not all of the posters are, face it, Iranian/Persian, and the article once again tilts very heavily in favor of the positives and downplays the negatives of the country in question. In both cases, Truth is the victim.

Wikipedia actually recognizes this danger and has a policy to deal with it. It's the template:globalize policy. It recognizes that many editors may get together and basically force a concensus and gang up on the far fewer people not in their group who may wish to question that consensus. The policy requires the majority to make sufficient room for those not in their group, the result hopefully being that the article remains objective.

You know, like the way that you titled this discussion "Larry Dunn" instead of making it a discussion of the appropriate map? You want to posture it as one user against everyone else (or, more appropriately, against the Iran History Project). You want to make me the issue, not the map.

That's exactly what the wiki policy seeks to avoid. Otherwise articles that glorify national histories are basically poster boys for all the criticism about Wikipedia not being a serious source of information.

(And, unfortunately for your theory, I am in fact not the only user who complained about bias in the map. Discussion on the Sassanid Empire page shows there were several others, besides me. I wasn't even the first.)

As to your point that "other articles" include maps showing empires at their greatest extents, remember, that is not relevant to this article. It's the "But mom, Jimmy's dad is letting him do it!" response.  :-> One article at a time, please.

Here's an example of why it's not relevant. If you cite a dubious source, and I delete it pending verification, you cannot just put it back in just by arguing that "many other articles have no cites at all," which is true and completely irrelevant. Bad policy on other articles does not rationalize bad policy on this article. In this article, we are talking about an empire than had more or less settled borders for the great majority of its existence (subject to periodic campaigns against the Romans, the Epthalites, the Guptas, etc.) and a map showing a brief, huge explosion in borders (leading to the collapse of the empire through exhaustion, might I add) is virtually useless to someone who wants to see what the Sassanid empire actually looked like. We should think more about educating about the empire and less about glorifying it. Larry Dunn 22:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I had the same discussion with Larry long time ago. And the same example of other historic Empires. Larry please understand that this is not a matter of national pride. It is a norm and it's a standard way to show anciant Empires in their greatest extent when introducing them. Because their bountries often changed and the only way to show them is whether at their smallest extent or at the maximum. So I think historians chose the maximum. The article of Sassanid Empire became featured with the maximum extent image, which means wikipedians all agree with the image. The image that is currently shown is not the other 264 years of the Empire; it's maybe 20 year of it because the boundaries ALWAYS changed as a result of many wars. Look at Achaemenid Empire, Roman Empire, etc etc. You image has a very bad composition with it (It's very hard to see the Empires boundries) too which also reduces the article's quality. And many other wikipedians already told you that the old image was OK as it was. --Arad 04:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. It was featured before that map was ever on the page. And to reiterate, the many other wikipedians are all members of the Iran wiki project. If you altered a fact in a page on the Byzantine Empire (let's say that the page said that Byzantine cavalry was superior to Sassanid cavalry, clearly not a true statement) and "many other wikipedians" told you the text you'd altered was ok as it was, and they were all in the Wikipedia Greek History Project, tell me ... what would your response be?

Look at the Penguin Atlas of Ancient and Medieval History, and page through the centuries. for most pages, the Sassanid mepire remains remarkably constant in its borders -- it's rubbish that this map is only good for 20 years. Look in other maps in other encyclopedias, and you will see a map quite similar to the one I've inserted.

And as I've pointed out before, the greatest extent map is already in the article. Where it belongs. Why doesn't that satisfy you? Larry Dunn 22:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Also the map that is here is obviously not the boundries which lasted the longest. These are pretty much the Sassanid Empire at it's smallest extent when they came to power. So here I propose this map which is at least more fair and better quality. But the older one is better. --Arad 05:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That map, similar to the one presently being used for the "Greatest Extent", is similarly completely misleading when it comes to the vast majority of the Sassanid Empire's history, and has no place in the template.Larry Dunn 22:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I definitely think that nationalist POV editing should be counteracted, but in this case Larry Dunn is fighting on the wrong ground. Considering that most of the empires on WP are shown at their greatest extent, he needs to establish his "customary" criterion at a higher level before it can be reasonably applied to this page. The Behnam 22:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Iranian heard from.  :->

Please read again what I wrote above concerning using other articles to justify bad facts in this article. Don't ask yourself what's in other articles. Ask yourself how useful it is in this article. Larry Dunn 22:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I might suggest that your insinuation that my Iranian identity somehow makes me unfit to work neutrally is a violation of AGF and civility. And I think Rayis would agree that "Iranian nationalist POV-pusher" is definitely NOT suggested by my contribs. Anyway, I'm just telling you that taking into account the widespread use of this empire mapping on WP, you may want to establish your argument at a higher level. I'm not very familiar with these things, but the Community Noticeboard may be appropriate for changes that require broad consensus.

Perhaps the solution is to use a map that uses color codes to display both customary borders and maximum extent? Tell me what you think. The Behnam 23:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed every one of your accusations and defenses in my text above. I would argue, in fact, that ganging up by multiple members of a task force, even if couched in smooth tones, is also a violation of Wiki policy.

That said, I will reiterate a previous observation. How would you take it if you visited a wiki page and saw something you considered patently misrepresentative, and you edited it, and multiple people, all from the same project or accustomed to editing in that topic, called you to task for your edit? Please respond. Larry Dunn 19:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I run into that kind of thing rather often. You just take it as best you can: act mature, rely upon official WP documentation, be neutral, etc. Why do you ask? And what do you mean by "misrepresentative?" The template clearly indicated that the boundaries were at "greatest extent", so there is no misrepresentation here. If they want to know the specifics they can read the page on Khosrow II or the Sassanian Empire in general. The Behnam 19:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's rather obvious why I asked -- there is no policy against pointing out a pervasive group-defense of a POV perspctive, without having to delve into the souls of the individual participants. As to the map being misleading, it is no less misleading than an illustration of "the sun at its greatest extent," showing it about to become a nova, when the vast majority of our star's life it is a rather non-descript medium sized star. It is inherently misleading to show something at its most atypical, even if you point that out. Anyway, see the suggestions I have put in the topic below .... Larry Dunn 19:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You are basically assigning each us to a POV-pushing group so there is no difference in the lack of WP:AGF. It is just absurd that you think that we are some sort of "group-defense" just because we happen to think you are wrong. You need to start adhering to WP conduct rules again, thanks. Also, the sun does not resemble an empire & has no need for the standard of display that is otherwise muddled by arbitrary boundary snapshots. This "greatest extent" thing happens to be the standard for these maps. I suggest you get used to it (considering the other empire templates), but of course I am still willing to work on a solution. The Behnam 19:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not assigning anything to each of you -- I am pointing out what the totality represents. WP:AGF does not prevent users from pointing that out. If you don't think so, just look at the discussions on this template and in the Sassanid Empire article and again and again, when the article is brought back to planet earth, there will be a Persian user who howls about it. So I do wish that the users here would spare me the utter rubbish that there is a variety of opinion lined up against my perspective. As to my sun analogy, you may want to look at the wiki page on analogy -- the sun does not need to be an "empire" in order for the analogy to work. It too has boundaries, and stars are often illustrated to show how large they are. Finally, please verify that "this greatest extent thing" is "standard" for "these maps." Pointing out one other page does not represent a standard.Larry Dunn 19:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What's this? Could it be? An empire shown not at its greatest extent? Yes, that's right, the top map for the British Empire, shown in 1897 rather than at its greatest extent, in 1921. Larry Dunn 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

On my God! Not another one! The wiki page for Pontus actually shows ... Pontus, instead of Mithridates the Great's enormous Pontic Empire. Larry Dunn 19:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, being an article about the Pontus region, it will probably emphasize the Pontus region rather than its empire. Anyway, I've looked at a variety of empire pages. I have seen a good mix of 'maximum extents' and 'color-coded', but I have never seen anything like 'customary borders'. I don't believe there is any reason to use your version, and despite your uncivil & not-AGF comments about other editors, you haven't managed to establish any consensus for your change. Nothing on WP indicates that it is wrong to use the maximum extent map as the template makes clear that this was the maximum extent of the empire. While I am open to using a color-coded map, I don't see it as being a good use of time considering that either form is acceptable. If you are able to find/prepare a good-looking & accurate map that is color-coded, fine, but your version has no mandate and hence should be undone. PS here are the empires I looked at:

• Portuguese Empire max. extent
• Austria-Hungary apparently max. extent
• Afsharid dynasty apparently max. extent
• United Monarchy max. extent
• Armenian Empire max. extent
• Italian Empire apparently max. extent
• Han Dynasty not clear
• Mongol Empire animated color-coded map
• German Empire apparently max. extent
• Aztec Empire apparently max. extent
• Assyrian empire color-coded map a bit down the page
• Maurya empire maximum extent
• Roman Empire maximum extent
• Ottoman Empire color-coded
• Japanese Empire color-coded but called "fullest extent"
• Elamite Empire not sure if that is max. extent
• Spanish empire color-coded

Obviously not exhaustive, but it should be enough to show that both color-coded & maximum extent maps have been used. I don't see a good reason to replace a perfectly acceptable maximum extent type map. At this point you don't appear to have a real case, and are losing your temper, so please stop this disruption and let the normal template be reinstated. Thanks, and cheers. The Behnam 21:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all the effort your making to clear this thing. Larry Dunn is seriously ignoring AGF. And his comments are really offensive. This is the most simple matter. In Wikipedia we show every Empire at their Max Extent not the "Made up by Larry Dunn" Customary Borders. And your Sun - Empire thing doesn't make sens at all. You can create your own encyclopedia and show every Empire the way you like it and show it to the world. Wikipedia has its ways. --Arad 21:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Behnam has not "cleared it up" just because you like his examples. For one thing, his examples do not conform at all with what you people are trying to do with the Sassanid Empire map on many counts. One example of many: German Empire -- what is shown there, perfectly clearly, is the customary borders of the German Empire.

If we applied the same logic to German Empire that you two are trying to assert for Sassanid Empire, then German Emire would need a map showing all of Eastern Europe, a portion of France, and much of European Russia. Why? Because that was the maximum extent of the conquests of the German Empire in WWI -- right before it fell to the Allies -- just like the map you want to show as THE Sassanid map shows the maximum conquests of the sassanid empire in a war, right before it fell! Thanks for that, actually, because it is a perfect parallel to what is being asserted for the Sassanid Empire, and is just as uninformative.

That's the key here -- explain why temporary conquests in the midst of an ongoing war should be shown in the primary map for the Sassanid Empire. Please show one map on wikipedia what shows such a map as the main map for an empire. The only one that you offered that is of any use here is the Japanese Empire, but that empire had no established borders -- it grew in large amounts every decade, then fell. All of this happened within 55 years or so. Can the same be said for the Sassnaid Empire? No. Other than a brief explosive growth under Khusrau II, the empire had more or less settled borders. Why not show them, and make the map more informative?

My analogy to illustrations of the Sun makes perfect sense, and is in fact very good grounds to support my argument that the typical borders of the Empire should be portrayed. What makes more sense, to illustrate the sun as it has looked for billions of years, or as it will look while it becomes a nova? Obviously, it makes more sense to show the customary appearance of the sun.

Look at a copy of the Penguin Atlas of Ancient and Medieval History, and you will see that these are not the "Made Up By Larry Dunn" borders, they are the common borders for hundreds of years of history. You want to show the Empire at its greatest extent? It's already in the article. Neither of you have ever addressed why that's not good enough -- why temporary borders showing conquests in a war need to be THE map of the empire, when a map showing the conquests is already in the article.

BTW, I've changed the topic of this discussion -- it seems you'd like to assert that this is a discussion about me, but it's a discussion about a map. Larry Dunn 16:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but your personal opinion on the map doesn't matter here. It has been shown that there is no problem with the max. extent map and so there is no need to go with the version you happen to prefer. Stop making anti-consensus reverts or you will start an incident. You continue to try the patience of other users with your demand that we cater to your personal taste. I recommend you just give up and move on to more constructive editing. Thanks. The Behnam 17:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There may be certain factions that want to urge on us an unrealistic map of the Sassanid Empire, but I will not "give up" on the possibility that articles on wikipedia may actually represent good and useful information on this subject.

As I stated below, I am requesting that we take this to mediation. Both sides will lay out their arguments, and the mediators will decide. Larry Dunn 21:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ridiculous

This is ridiculous, look at the Roman Empire map in its info box: [1]

Why the double standard? The Romans were never able to hold major portions of Mesopotamia for long periods either... yet this map is in the info box and says that it is the Roman Empire at its greatest extent. Why can we not do the same for the Sassanid EMpire?Azerbaijani 19:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you sift through his AGF violations and incivility, he says that this is because the Roman Empire actually held the land for a significant period of time. Anyway, a color-coded solution should be made, so hopefully that will be more accurate and less ugly. The Behnam 19:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess you see nothing ironic in calling my comments "AGF violations" while responding to yet another Iranian user who is mad because the Sassanid Empire doesn't have an enormously inflated map on top of the page.

And as I've pointed out, color coding won't help here, as even the colorcoded Roman/Byzantine maps show the maximum borders which were settled by a peace or victory in war, not occupied territory held in the course of ongoing campaigns. Larry Dunn 20:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the anger you see is more likely to come from a sensitivity to perceived anti-Iranian bias than a desire to see unrepresentative borders for 'pride' purposes. I don't really see what there is to be proud in ruling non-Iranian places anyway so I don't know why you think people want to big borders for 'nationalist' reasons. Well of course it is possible they think that conquering random people is good but we don't know this and it is best to stay away from AGF violations. Especially if you are arguing a case, as you happen to be. The Behnam 20:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Try to see my side of this. Imagine that you have surfed over to the page on Imperial Germany and you see a map that includes parts of France and Russia, and this startles you. The map says "Imperial Germany at its greatest extent, in January of 1918." You see that this map was added by a German user. You know that this map will throw people off, and so you find and add a map that shows Imperial Germany in 1900, about halfway through the lifetime of the Second Reich. Your map is reverted and you are told by multiple users, all self-identified as German, that you are going against consensus by changing the bigger map. Wouldn't it appear relevant to you concerning this consensus that was being cited that it was a consensus of Germans only? If you point that fact out to refute this argument being made against you, would that mean that you have an anti-German bias?

I can understand that in the current geo-political environment there may be increased sensitivities to certain national feelings when it comes to Iran. Rather than going into a long confessional, let me just say that if I wasn't very interested in Iran and very interested in helping people understand its long, fascinating history, I would not have so much interest in making the article more descriptive and useful. Another point to consider is that, when readers check out a wiki page and it soon becomes apparent that it is the product of devotees of that subject, unchecked by some hard criticism, their respect for that article is bound to lessen, and they may seek information on the subject elsewhere. I've had this happen to me often when using Wikipedia as a source for information. Larry Dunn 21:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, just don't assume we are all out to be 'glorious' or whatever. Anyway, if those atlas scans are really on their Carnildo should be able to make a map. It may end up looking similar to yours in the end, but at least it will be more descriptive and lack that sick yellow color. The Behnam 21:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible solution

How about a new map, one that uses different shading patterns or different colors to indicate the borders of the empire at different times? --Carnildo 01:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. The Behnam 01:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Good enough. But isn't the norm that we use maximum extent when referring to an Empire? It's always like this in every encyclopedia. They always show the maximum extent. --Arad 02:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Also Persian Gulf boders was always under Sassanid Empire. As far as I know. --Arad 02:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the Byzantine Empire is always being brought up as an example here, why not follow the example of the Byzantine wiki page, which I have just looked at? On that page, there is a greatest extent map, though the temporary conquests under Justinian are in a separate color. Then, each period has its own sub-map. I don't especially like it, as the first map is far and away the most important one (as people here obviously know full well), and it creates a grotesquely inflated opinion of the size of the Byzantine Empire to casual visitors. But if the argument is to be made that this should be done, because it was done of the Byzantine page, at least the entirety of the map-work should be consistent.

The difference here is that the Byzantine state was over 1,000 years old. The Sassanid state lasted only about a third of that period, and through most of its life, the empire was stable in its possessions. This is why it makes more sense to have a map indicating those typical territories, and then you can drop a map into Khusrau II to show the extent of his conquests. This is what the page currently does. What is wrong with it? It makes the page properly descriptive of the Sassanid state, and the map of the accustomed Persian territories is surely more useful to casual viewers than a brief explosion in territory that occured right before the empire collapsed due to disastrous loss to the Byzantines followed by invasion by the Arabs. Larry Dunn 19:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You came up with Byzantine. We talekd about Western Roman Empire. Anyway, Byzantine wasn't stable at it's pssessions either. This is what you made up. And we're just saying the same: Make a 2 color map. --Arad 01:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Roman Empire kept those borders for over a hundred years. How long did Sassnaid Persian keep the borders in the map you are ofering as an example?

Note that none of the maps I've been able to find show, as the main map for that empire/country, it's conquests in the midst of an ongoing war. That is what the map you have created shows. Can you provide an example of a top-of-the-page map for an empire which shows its conquests in the middle of a war as that empire's boundaries? All I can do is, once again, point out that those borders are completely unhelpful to a casualt reader who runs into the Sassanid Empire in his or her reading and wants to see where it was. Larry Dunn 16:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Would you like me to scan some of the pages from the Penguin Atlas of Ancient and Medieval History and post them here, for temporary review before they are removed, just to settle this once and for all? This will make it clear that, for hundreds of years, the Sassanid Empire looked just as shown in the map I posted. Every page shows about 75 years, and when you flip from page to page to page, the Sassnaid Empire looks basically the same, except in the middle of the final war with Byzantium .... Larry Dunn 16:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but your personal opinion on the map doesn't matter here. It has been shown that there is no problem with the max. extent map and so there is no need to go with the version you happen to prefer. Stop making anti-consensus reverts or you will start an incident. You continue to try the patience of other users with your demand that we cater to your personal taste. I recommend you just give up and move on to more constructive editing. Thanks. The Behnam 17:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You and the other two posters (a far cry from a "consensus," particularly because you are all Iranians pushing for a bloated and unrealistic version of an Iranian map) have repeatedly chosen to ignore my substantive questions. I ask you why you insist on inserting this map when it is already in the relevant portion of the article, and you ignore me. I tell you I can provide scans of maps showing the empire for centures and centuries showing largely the same borders, and you ignore me. Istead, you choose to revert back to the fanciful argument that, on Wikipedia, many maps of empires show their territories held in the midst of a war as the main map of the article. I show that this is factually incorrect and you ignore me.

I am now calling on you and your friends to submit to wikipedia:mediation. We will put our arguments before a mediator per wiki policy and we will then see which map should be used as the default. This requires consent of both parties, so you have to agree to it before it is binding.Larry Dunn 21:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Another violation of AGF by User:Larry Dunn. How many times is that now? Mediation should be completely unnecessary since both Arad and I are OK with a color-coded map that is actually more descriptive. Yet in all this time you just keep pushing for the map you prefer and continue to edit war. I see no need to mediate with you if you are simply going to push for your personal preference map, and again no need to mediate if the color-coded map is agreed upon. So, just get the color-coded map, we'll take a look at it to approve it, and this whole thing will be over.

Also, for the proposed map please don't use that "pee-yellow" color. It doesn't look good or provide good contrast like the dark green color & similar colors. Anyway, just obtain the color-coded map and stop accusing of defending the max extent map because we are Iranian. I really don't know why you have not agreed to the color-coded map yet. As far as accuracy goes it is actually more descriptive. Instead you have pushed for your OR analysis of the empire's "usual" borders. Why not agree on this solution? The Behnam 02:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

it looks like medation has been called for her, so this should freeze until the medation.69.118.244.33 03:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As to AGF, here's a line from that policy which is clearly applicable here.

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.

(Bolded text in original.) Anyway, I think it's unfortunate that you continue to apply the larger map and deny my request for mediation -- now it seems that you are asserting that you are reverting because you don't like the color of the map. If it's just an issue of color, I have no objection to you prparing a map showing the same borders but in a different color. That's fine. But in the interim, please do not use color as a reason to insert a map with hugely inflated borders which were the temporary, and soon-lost, results of an ongoing war. If you still assert that the map needs to show different territories (color coded or not), then submit to mediation, because there is a factual disagreement here that we cannot resolve.

Don't be so quick to make accusations of edit war, when you are one of the active participants. Larry Dunn 16:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You're the one having problem with the green map, so make a good quality map with good colors then revert. Anyway, you deserve to be ignored, that's why we ignore you. We have to ask a professional in map making to create a map for us. --Arad 20:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's not only me and Behnam. User Rayis agrees too plus many other users who contribute to the edit of the template (reverting it) but do not participate in this discussion. --Arad 20:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Name one registered user who does not self-identify as Iranian who agrees with your dream map of the Sassanid Empire. Larry Dunn 21:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Larry Dunn, since you are the one who objects, you can find the satisfactory replacement. Your pet map will not be used in the meantime. The Behnam 01:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with the colors of your "pet" map (to use your phrase) you recently replaced the former map with. I have an issue with the borders. To repeat myself, which is apparently necessary, if you just have an issue with the color, then make a similar one yourself with more pleasing colors but the same borders -- I will have no issue. If you have an issue with the borders, I will ask for the third time that you submit to mediation. If you feel you have a good argument, why are you afraid of mediation? Larry Dunn 20:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone can get me some references for the boundaries over time, I'll make an appropriate map. Right now, I've only got two maps to work from, neither of which says where the boundary information came from. --Carnildo 01:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Carnildo, I can scan the pages from the Penguin atlas of ancient and medieval history which include the Sassanid Empire over its 4 century history and e-mail them to you, if you would like to see them. Take a look at the page this template is embedded in, Sassanid Empire, and you will see that the map being urged on the page by the Wiki Iran Project users is actually already in the article, in the section on Khusrau II, when the borders temporarily swelled in the middle of his campaigns. The maps I will send to you will show more or less settled borders for many centuries, as the map currently in the template shows.

Frank Smitha made the map showing the Empire's customary borders. I used his map with the permission of his pulbicity agent. It can be found here: http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/map20per.htm

Meanwhile, take a look at this map:

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1841769320&id=99haLasvV3gC&pg=PA253&lpg=PA253&ots=2eyFnl9h-A&dq=sassanid+empire+parthia+media&sig=UouohE7wfxp8qY02y1gjzc4I2QA

As you can see, that shows precisely the same borders that are in the map I inserted, and it's basically identical to the map that the page displayed before the Iran wikiproject guys put the bigger one up.

I have studied the Sassanid Empire for over thirty years and I have never seen anyone assert that any map other than the one shown in the above link is correct, which is the same as the one that used to be on Wikipedia, and the same as the one I am defending here. Larry Dunn 21:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't deny that those lands were usually under Sassanid control. However, the map seems to be an OR "average" in addition to being quite ugly. Also, there really isn't a WP reason demanding that we not go by max extent. I don't know what you mean by "correct" since both are correct at different times. It isn't like we paraded the max extent as anything other than max extent; this is spelled out clearly in the caption. The Behnam 01:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you stop reverting the map to your larger version until you can link or provide a scan of a published source showing a general "map of the Sassanid Empire" (not a map showing the campaigns of Khusrau II) with the same borders that you claim should be shown in the only map of the Sassanid Empire in the wiki article.

The WP reason is stated here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_in_nine_words. It is the core principle of Wikipedia, in fact.

I quote the relevant part, my emphasis of the most relevant part: Wikipedia is not a simple collection or list of facts. There is a process of summarizing, grading, organizing and collating involved, to ensure that the resulting articles are as useful as possible for readers seeking both detail and overview.

I have said before that a map showing borders that represent territry occupied in rhe midst of an ongoing war is not useful or informative to someone seeking an overview of the Sassanid Empire's history. Larry Dunn 20:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The scans of the atlas would be useful, yes. --Carnildo 01:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Okey doke -- I will do over the weekend and send them to you by e-mail. Thanks for helping. Larry Dunn 20:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to all for the delay in scanning the maps from the Penguin Atlas -- I've been hellishly busy at work and now that March is over can turn back to this. Carnildo, I'll scan the images over the weekend and send them to you.

Does anyone here have a map progression that shows the variations in the eastern borders of the Empire? The Penguin maps unfortunately cut off the eastern extremity of the empire. Larry Dunn 15:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

I've reprotected the template because of the on-going edit warring. Either go to mediation or accept a compromise agreement such as the new map proposed above by Carnildo but this daily revert warring is disruptive and it needs to stop right now. Sarah 06:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already accepted the compromise. The Behnam 06:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Behnam, what you have characterized as a comprimise isn't really one regarding the dispute we are having. Let me ask you again to submit to mediation, ok? That way we can each lay out our arguments about the proper way to display the provinces that made up the sassanid empire in its main map and the mediator(s) can decide which one is more appropriate.

Please understand that the provinces occupied by Khusrau's armies were never part of the Sassanid Empire's boundaries in any peace or any treaty. They are really no different from Russia in 1812, occupied by Napoleon's armies, or France in WWI, occupied by Imperial Germany's armies. Any map of Imperial Germany that showed northeastern france as "part" of Imperial Germany, or a map of Napoleonic France that showed Russia as "part" of Napoleon's Empire, even if colorcoded or explained, would not show what the actual borders of that country really were.

I'll point out again that the Khusrau II occupation map is displayed in the article. But except for some small territorial variations (Lazica, Armenia, Iberia), and the occupation by the Sassanids of the territory south of the Oxus River in the latter period of the Empire's history, the map that is currently in the template is an accurate and useful display of the boundaries of the Sassanid Empire.

I guarantee you that a map of Imperial Germany that showed occupied France as part of Imperial Germany in its top map, even with an explanation, would similarly be reverted. Larry Dunn 17:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case the atlas scans should show the same thing. I've wondered about Oman a bit. But the scans should be more descriptive, and also allow the map not to be ugly. The Behnam 20:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the atlas scans.Larry Dunn 16:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What?!

What is this? Look at the template for the Roman Empire, it contains territory that Rome only held for several years, yet territory that the Sassanid held for a decade cannot be shown? What is going on here? should be in the Sassanid Template as it is the empire at its greatest extent, just as Rome is shown at its greatest extent. Dunn's argument makes no sense at all.Azerbaijani 03:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Not again. As to my argument making "no sense at all," I'd suggest you read all the text you've posted this under, Mr. Azerbaijani. Larry Dunn 15:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, at this point a color-coded version is preferred. Or AT LEAST, a non-ugly version of the current map. :) The Behnam 15:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to be in touch with Carnildo but Carnildo has not responded to my contact. I will try a different original mapmaker. Larry Dunn 20:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. Yeah, the color-coded will probably overall look like yours, except for expansion of Arab ground (if I am not mistaken) and also Eastern expansion with relation to Hephthalites (again if I am not mistaken). So it may be good to have color-coded by date. Anyway it is all academic until we find a mapmaker. Thanks again. The Behnam 20:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The map at its greatest extent should be used. That's the formula in all such templates and articles, I see no reason to make a exception here. --Mardavich 21:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's already been established that users on the Iranian wiki project, and users who identify themselves as Iranians, prefer the bigger map. The problem is that the map isn't even a greatest extent map because the territorial expansion was never confirmed by treaty or victory, and in any event the territory was held for no more than a few years during an ongoing war. Do we really have to argue these same points over and over again? Larry Dunn 21:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF and don't classify users like that. I can assume a lot of things about you as well, since you're picking on this page of all the pages (Roman etc) that use the "Greatest extent" maps. --Mardavich 23:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

From the WP:AGF page: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. (I did not add the bold -- it's in the original.) Nationalist POV pushers often try to hide behind AGF, but it doesn't work. And if you have a problem with the Roman map, change it. If any Roman map shows Roman territory occupied temporarily during the course of a war, which territory was lost when the war ended, let me know and I will support you in having that map deleted as materially misleading.

On to more constructive things. Does anyone out there have a map of the eastern provinces of the empire over time? The penguin atlas unfortunately cuts off the southeastern extreme of the empire. Larry Dunn 14:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well you aren't against color-coded map are you? It is actually more informative, not to mention a compromise. The Behnam 21:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean something like this? --Mardavich 23:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally was thinking of a static setup, but of course the exact type is open to debate. We need to find a mapmaker first anyhow. But you are OK with something that shows the borders over time? The Behnam 02:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Depends, I think we should see it first. --Mardavich 23:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, then we are all waiting. Meanwhile the pee-colored is still up... alas. The Behnam 23:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Larry, by your own argument, why is are you doing nothing about the Roman Empire map?!Azerbaijani 23:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know if this is good under copyright policy, but on my computer I experimented. I took the current picture and replaced yellow with green. It looks better, IMO. Could it replace the current one with a simple note that the color was changed? I'm not familiar with the image policy. The Behnam 00:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern Border Sources

Asking again if anyone has sources for the growth/contraction of the Sassanid Empire on its eastern border, as this growth/contraction is not covered in the Penguin atlases. Please if you have info, even textual, post it here! Please provide rough dates as well. I have all the info together for a comprehensive compromise solution to the map debate, but still need the eastern info. Thanks. Larry Dunn 18:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm not going to get any feedback, so I'll go to the mapmaker and send him my sources. Kermanshahi, I responded on your talk page to the message you left for me on mine, concerning the map you have created. Note below that the map of the Roman empire shows borders that held for at least a century, not territory held temporarily in a war, then lost at the end of that war. That's been my objection all along. For more on this, see your talkpage. Anyway, I'll get that map made and will post it here so all can take a look and see what they think. In the meantime, I'll not go back to the back-and-forth of reverting the map you have added.

And one thing you guys have to remember. "Wikipedia:OtherStuffExists" is not a policy on Wikipedia. I actually don't like that Roman Empire map at all, especially that bright green swath, which is ridiculous. But I don't have to solve all of wikipedia's problems in order to get anything done. Larry Dunn 17:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? The Roman empire map includes Mesopotamia, which was only in Roman hands for a couple years and was lost after Trajans death. This page has a map of the Sassanid Empire at its normal boundaries (relatively) and its eastern boundaries look the same as the one in the template.Azerbaijani 17:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of the Sassanid Empire

With all empires I've seen on wikipedia you show them at their greatest extend so why don't you do the same with the sassanid empire? I am totaly for the empire to be shown at it's graetest extend instead of the picture you are showing now. The Honorable Kermanshahi 15:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We are trying to give a more general and useful depiction of the Sassanid Empire, not temporary wartime gains. But we are also working on a color-coded compromise, so if you have any information about fluctuations of the eastern borders, telling Larry would help expedite the process. For more information, see the previous discussion. Thanks. The Behnam 16:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support -- territory occupied by Khusrau II will likely be shown on the final map (I will leave it up to the mapmaker), but I really do need the info on the southeastern frontier, particularly the ebb and flow of the border with the Indian sub-continent.Larry Dunn 18:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that gutenberg.org has an older book about the Sassanian Empire. I haven't read all of it, but it may have information about that, so it may be worth a look. The Behnam 18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well they had the whole of Baluchistan. The Honorable Kermanshahi 13:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at the Roman Empire page, what does it say at the bottom of the template image Larry (this one doesnt even give a date!)?: [2] Mesopatamia was only in Roman hands for a couple of years! What I see here is Western bias. Larry, I dont see you replacing that image, why is that?Azerbaijani 23:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you go do it, Azerbaijani? It could be that Larry only has time to attend to this one, so he needs your help! Please, go fix the map on the Roman Empire page. And read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is similar... The Behnam 23:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

My argument is that having greatest extent maps is ok. Larry is the one saying its not. I have no problem with the Roman Empire map being the way it is, so unless there is a Wikipedia policy created for this that would apply to all articles simultaneously, then there is no reason why the Sassanid map should not be present in the template for now.Azerbaijani 00:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Shall I go and do it otherwhise? I can go and change the map of the Roman Empire. The Honorable Kermanshahi 09:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I made this, what do you think? The Honorable Kermanshahi 10:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, wouldnt it be better to have this one in the template for the Roman Empire (see to the right) until we settle the issue?Azerbaijani 14:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright. but I made one for the Sassanid-Empire to. Here it is Darkest green=Sassanid empire normally, a bit lighter=contested territory even lighter= Sassanid empire at it's greatesr extend, lightest=when they reached the walls of constantinopel]

Well, they held all of Anatolia for more than 10 years, it should be the same color as the other conquests. Also, the Sassanids customary borders included the other side of the Persian Gulf and Yemen.Azerbaijani 14:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Now good? I changed it, the whole of Anatolia is the same color now. The Honorable Kermanshahi 17:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the Eastern parts of the Sassanid Empire were conquered before the Western parts. The Western parts (Egypt, Anatolia, etc...) were conquered between in practically one fell swoop. I think the Eastern parts of the Sassanid Empire should be made dark green as well.Azerbaijani 17:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it isn't to show when they where conqured but to show the difference between the land they usually possesed and what they posessed when their empire was at it's largest. The Honorable Kermanshahi 15:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Kermanshahi. That is the right idea. The Behnam 15:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yea, good work Kermanshahi. Larry should be satisfied now.Azerbaijani 17:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Welll thanks. The Honorable Kermanshahi 17:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This is by all means an honest attempt to clarify the issue over the sasanid map. I was checking a map-website by the name of INTERNET MEDIEVAL SOURCE BOOKS which has a map of Sasanid empire in the 6th century. the existing map on the website seems very much the same as the map I found.However, the disputed map includes the city of Tashkand (modern Uzbekistan)while the six century map does not even include Samarghand (south of Tashkand in Uzbekistan). Also the disputed map on Wik. claims Turkmenstan as part of Sasanids and streches all the way north to Aral Sea (modrn Kazakestan). there is no sign of this expansion on the 6th century map.The missing lands on the sixth centry map are all Turkish speaking and Tartar. But both maps contain modern Afghanistan and Tajikestan as part of Sassanid Empire and both contain Farsi as official language. please do not drag this into Fars-Turkish dispute since both maps indicate Azarbaijan (both) as part of Sassanid empire (Hessam July 2008). I particularly like to hear form Larry Dunn on this issue. plaese add your comment on the same section larry (many thanks)

[edit] Council of Ministers

I noticed in the infobox that there is a wikilink to "Council of Ministers" as the deliberative body, but the disambiguation page doesn't feature anything related to the Sassanid Empire. Is there an article on this body? If so, the link should be directed to that page. Otherwise we either need to make one or de-link that word, as the link is misleading in its current state. The Behnam 19:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't gotten a response about the infobox anywhere so I have de-linked it for now. The Behnam 18:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Map Redux

The new map is acceptable only to the extent that it clearly indicates what those temporarily occupied positions are. To do otherwise, as has been exhaustively explained above, is Iranian POV pushing. If people continue to remove the text explainingKhusrau's temporary occupations (all of them lost when the war was over), we'll just go back to the earlier, more representative map. Larry Dunn (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Light green

Not all of the light green zones was disputed between Byzantine Empire, only some part of the western border. At least before the next reversion to your POV create a new map. --Pejman47 (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the POV here is Iranian nationalist POV pushers misrepresenting the borders of the Sassanid Empire ... as usual. Obviously the compromise agreed to previously, now being violated by the Iranian users, is not going to work. So rathet than use what is a grotesquely unrepresentative map, we need to revert to the prior one, which shows the customary borders of the Sassanid empire for around 200 of its 225 years. Larry Dunn (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop labeling people, I am not Iranian. You are in no position to change the map unilaterally, and from what I can see on this talk page, the compromise agreed to previously did not include "occupied" and other POV projections you've added to the map description on your own. --CreazySuit (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You are an Iranian POV pusher -- your edit history makes that clear. If you do not want to abide by the compromise that was agreed to the last time this map was disputed, then the entire accuracy of the map is thrown overboard, requiring that a more representative map be inserted in its place. Larry Dunn (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Drop the name-calling and bullying, the compormise that I see on this page has no provision about "occupied " and other POV nonesense you've added to the map description on your own, with no agreement. You're the POV pusher, not me. --CreazySuit ([[User

talk:CreazySuit|talk]]) 22:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edits and POV pushing speak for themselves, your assertions to the contrary. Larry Dunn (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

1. The term "occupied" does come off as POV. An empire attacking another empire doesn't really seem like much of an occupation and, at the minimum, it's a debatable term. The Byzantines could just as easily be seen as "occupiers" to the natives. We are discussing warfare before the birth of the concept of a nation-state; I don't think annexation of Byzantine vassal territories necessarily constitutes "occupying" what is "rightfully" the Byzantines. The Byzantines could equally be labeled as occupiers.

2. The Roman Empire article also has a similar map in which they include parts of Parthia that they held for no more than a few decades as "the empire at its greatest extent in 117 AD." Please do not give us a reason to believe you are POV-editing. IMO, we should say "territories held from [this year] to [this year]." That is how the Ottoman Empire article does it, also. That would be the easiest way to solve the dispute. No other article on empire has had to deal with such incessant whining over this type of thing. It appears you are singling out this article because no other article on empire conforms to your constructed rules.

3. Larry Dunn, a few new suspicious editors have appeared on this article (CreazySuit included), and one cannot help but assume that you have resorted to either sock puppetry or canvassing in order to fuel edit warring (on an FA article, no less). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but if you do have a part in it, then stop, please.

4. Please see Wikipedia's rules regarding civility and assume good faith. Accusing editors of Pan-Iranism is unhelpful and inhibits dispute resolution. Considering the fact that you have largely singled out the Sassanid Empire in this regard, one could just as easily (and just as childishly) label you as an Anti-Iranian. Certainly you haven't demanded that the "misrepresentations" of the Abbasids, Ottomans, Romans, etc. be corrected? Certainly Rome didn't dominate Mesopotamia for most of its history? Certainly the Ottomans didn't stretch to Vienna for most of their history?

-Rosywounds (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

For reasons already given on the "Creazysuit" account talk page, Wikipedia itself does not see the word occupied as POV. If anything conquered is more of a loaded expresssion, but the users who are pro-Iranian POV pushing in this template are not complaining about that. Occupation is quite simply what it was, and temporary at that. As to assuming good faith, please read the policy on that. You are supposed to assume it, not always find it, particularly in the face of good evidence to the contrary. Sassanid empire, and this info box, is a project of wikiproject iran and it is edited, if not, exclusively, than primarily by wikiproject iran users. This misleading subtitle to the map is just one example of how this article is not being properly vetted, presumably because of lack of interest other than from wikiproject iran users. This alone would be a good reason to request review of the article's Featured Article status, which I am considering. Your own scolding about good faith would carry more weight if you were not yourself a member of (all together now) wikiproject iran. Larry Dunn (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map of Sassanid

السلام عليكم

i have created a newer Map of the Sassanid Empire, it is based on The Current map and another map where i have included the Cities as well along with the Capital Cities of the Empire, the Map i have created is bigger and more accurate, but it seems that the Sassanid article is protected, do you know how i can include the Map i created in the Article..??

Arab League User (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Check up on the meaning of the word annexed in wikipedia. It does not include territory held during the course of an ongoing war, but lost at the end of that war. This map shows the Sassanids to have annexed the eastern half of the Byzantine Empire which is absurd on its face.

A more accurate map would show 1) the traditional borders and 2) territory subsequently annexed in the East. The land held during the Byzantine War should not be shown at all, any more than the territory held in France and Russia by the German Empire in WWI is shown in the map of Imperial Germany. Larry Dunn (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC?

I just saw this over at medcab, and gave the talk pages a quick look-through. The requester has mentioned a lack of outside opinion, so I'm thinking request for comment is a better way to go. I suggest a quick, neutral, and good faith summary be placed by both parties and then put it over at RfC. Just my 2 cents :) Xavexgoem (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)