Talk:History of Iran

Link

A link to the pages on Aryans and the Andrnovo culture pages should be included in the bar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo--68.4.210.29 01:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Please add them at the bottom "see also" section.--Zereshk 05:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I would like to propose two things that I would like feedback on to whoever wishes to help me:

1) That the ancient and post-Arab Iranian history sections need to be revitalized, organized into specific sections, and/or pretty much rewritten

There are two questions here:

Along what lines should these histories be organized --AND-- How should approach such a massive history and make it as complete and reliable as possible (integrating all of the "established" history of Iran)

2) That there should be further sections detailing things like cuisine (I have seen the current cuisine page) and linking major world events cross-culturally (Greek/Persian encounters, Greek/Roman encounters)

Also, on a side note...there is little evidence that suggests that Mossadegh was a "militant nationalist". I believe this is overly-agressive and unncessarily sharp language? Anyone agree/disagree?

Thanks.

-IR

Elamite and pre-Aryan civiliations

I put the attention tag on the page to request the following modifications be made:

I believe the Elamite Empire must be added to the list of sections in the box of "History of Iran and Persia" at the top of the page.

It is now becoming increasingly clear that Iran had vast civilizations and centers of population long before the arrival of the Aryans and the establishment of the Achaemenid empire. (e.g. Jiroft civ. and Elamites)

This is not a minor issue. These civilizations were independent of those of Mesopotamia and deserve greater attention.

Please someone address this.--Zereshk 07:30, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks like I'll have to contribute myself. I took the tag off.--Zereshk 06:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"History of Iran" series

As the person that wrote the article on the Muzaffarids, I don't believe it belongs in the "History of Iran" bar to the right of the article. The Muzaffarids, while controlling a good chunk of Persian territory during the 14th century, were only one in a handful of regional states in Persia at the time, a handful that includes the Jalayirids, Chobanids, Injuids, Kartids, and Sarbadars. I have been working on the Chobanids, and am going to start on the Injuids and Kartids soon. Since these all controlled parts of Persia, I see no reason why the Muzaffarids should be singled out.

ro4444 9:20 PM, 20 June 2005 (EST)

Just because "Muzzafardis" appears on the Iran bar doesnt mean it cannot appear on, say, the Iraq history bar (if there is one). Youre free to make an Iraqi history bar, and put it on there as well.

However, The Mozaffarian (Muzaffarid in English) were undeniably part of Iran's history. Therefore they should appear on the bar. Your claim would in fact apply to almost every dynasty of Iran. The Safavids were not even Persian. The Seljuks were Turkic. The Sassanids did not speak Persian either. Neither did the Parthians or the Achaemenids. Maybe we should then put the Parthians on the Turkemenistan history bar instead? Why are the Timurids considered Iranian? Werent they from outside the borders of Persia? But then, his very name is Persian: "Teimoor e Lang" (corrupted in English to Tamerlane). The Mozaffarian were no more non-Iranian than the Safavids. see the point?--Zereshk 10:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My issue with the Muzaffarids appearing on the History of Iran bar is not that the family was not originally Persian, but that they were not the masters of Persia. Most of the kingdoms or empires on the bar were THE dominant controller of Persia at one time or another. The Timurids are on there not because they were Persian, but because they dominated most of Persia. The Muzaffarids, on the other hand, cannot brag this achievement. At their height, they were the masters of central Persia only. That is why I feel that they should not belong there, because they did not DEFINE most or all of Persian history during that era.

ro4444 2:05 PM, 21 June 2005 (EST)

After looking at some of the other dynasties on the bar (such as the Ziyarids), I have come to think that maybe they do belong there. However at the same time, what of the other dynasties that ruled Persia at the time? The Kartids of Khurasan, as well as the Sarbadars of western Khurasan and the Chobanids of Persian Azarbaijan, should be included. Perhaps even the Jalayirids, although their rule centered around Iraq.

ro4444 2:09 PM, 21 June 2005 (EST)

We should have a page about The Sarbedaran, I agree. But these were even less prominent than The Mozaffarian.--Zereshk 09:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey would somebody please pay attention to some of the outrageous entries under the subtitle "islamic republic"? For example, Iran being invaded by "yo mamma" in Sept. of 2008, and lower down, "steve" being the speaker of the house ....record 22' of snow falling etc....What is going on? Sept. 16th, 2005 2.45 pm (EST)

Invasion of Iran in I941 While it is true that the land route through Iran served as a vital route of supplies for the allies in later 1942 and early 1943 onwards, this was not the main reason for the operation. (Neither was the German contingent in the country). The main reason was the creation of a defensive buffer zone against the advancing German armies (in late 1941) and as a resurrection of the 1920's partition of the country into spheres of influence by the Soviet Union and Britain. I will also amend the “Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran” entry.

Reagan and the Hostage Crisis

Reagan DID negotiate the freeing of the hostages. It was Jimmy Carter's administration that tried, but it is Reagan's people that made an illegal deal with the Iranians to free them on inauguration day. Several administration officials were proven guilty: Oliver North, John Poindexter, to name a few. Their convictions were later overturned on technical grounds that North, by testifying to congress under immunity, may have violated his own 5th amendment rights.

What was the illegal deal I believe you are refering to the Iran-Contra deal by Col. North. I also note that you stated it was Reagan that did negotiate then state that it was Reagan's people. Not sure who it was? Oh yeah almost forgot the Hostages were freed weren't they!!! Michael 02/04/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.210.118 (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear program history

Some history of Iran's nuclear development might be nice. Was it all bought from the US and Soviet Union? Kofannon 21:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

We already have an extensive history report on Iran's nuclear program. It's not really a history thing to include here.--Zereshk 23:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Persepolis Recreated - The Movie Documentary

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

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

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

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

Nature of the revolution

With regards to this bit of text:

The new government was extremely conservative. It nationalized industry and restored Islamic traditions in culture and law. Western influences were banned and the existing pro-West elite was quick to join the shah in exile. There were clashes between rival religious factions and brutal repression quickly became commonplace.

This needs to be augmented or amended to reflect the fact that the revolution in some cases introduced cultural and legal changes that had never existed before in Iran, even in medieval times. As well, the characterization of the regime as "extremely conservative" is a bit simplistic: the revolution introduced a theocratic government, but it also led to a significant flattening of the social hierarchy in Iranian history, which might be called "progressive". --Saforrest 21:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The 1808 map is questionable.

Throughout the 19th century Khorasan/Afghanistan including Herat was independent of Iran. There arent even any signs of affiliation with Persia during this time in history. The extents of Iran shown in the map is questionable in my opinion, while the independent regions (mostly under no central control) are not shown independent at all. This was the time Russia and Britain were jousting for control over this region (with no interference from Iran) and eventually overthrew the non-Pashtun regions of Afghanistan through Abdur Rehman.

The map is clearly linked to the University of Texas. There is no way it can be questionable. The link is provided below the image on the image page directly to UT Austin: [1].

Besides, here is another map from the 19th century.

Also, 1808 was a bit before all the colonialist squabbling that you mention. For example, it was in 1825 that the Qajar Šajâ'-al-Saltana was the Amir of Herat. The British were certainly increasingly becoming involved. But it wasnt until the "Paris Treaty" that western Afghanistan finally was annexed for good by Britain. Same for the Russians. The Akhal Treaty for example came in the late 1800s.

Furthermore, one cannot consider khanates as independent regions. Semi-independent perhaps. One cannot consider sporadic uprisings or unrests as criterion of independnece either, since such uprisings were well observable even in the capital Tehran (e.g. the constitutional revolution). Persia has always operated thru vassal, satrap, khanate systems of government, because it was so big. Nevertheless we do know that the Khanates of central Asia were allied with the Qajars, because we have their official correspondences that remain today.--Zereshk 04:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I should dig deeper into the history of Afghanistan during this period. At least the Hazaras were quite independent (unknown to what extent) after the Mongols were expelled from Persia around 1550. The Hazarajat region goes between Herat, Mazar, Kabul and Kandahar with the population becoming scarcer around northwest and southwest. Some of this region is shown in the green area (Cant see) while most of it is put into Persia. We know Temur conquered the region and Babar had minor wars with the kingdoms in Hazarajat (Persia was not involved). The description of Pashtuns and Hazaras by the British in the 19th century do not indicate any vassalage at all, and Persia was much less involved in the wars between its supposed vassals and others, nor were taxes collected there (I'm talking about 18th and 19 century, east of Herat). Correspondence is possible with the modern Tajik people and the Sayyeds, but neither held power in Pashtun and Hazarajat regions at the time.

I think the geopolitics of the region in the 19th century was quite complex. So it is utterly impossible to make an absolute claim one way or the other. There are so many factors and issues involved that one can consider.--Zereshk 03:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

2005-2006 US-Iran tensions

i updated this section a bit. Someone had inserted POV, unreferenced statements (e.g. claimed that Iran's nuclear program only existed since 2005, when in fact the nuclear program itself started under US pressure during the time of the last Shah), so i put in summaries of the existing wikipedia material which has already been NPOVed. The article United States-Iran relations article is getting quite long, but there was a VfD against a part of that page that had split off into a more natural division, so we have to live with the big long article there, at least for a while, and here just a short summary. Boud 23:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Arab rule

IMHO (I'm neither Persian nor Arab), the section on Arab rule of persia (and most of the rest of the article) sounds like nationalist POV. Here's how it reads: -The Arabs came. -For 150 years, nothing happened -Persians restored home rule. It reads like the Arabs had far less cultural influence on the Persians than e.g. the Americans. Somehow, for unexplained reasons, during this period Persia adopted Islam and the Arabic alphabet, but, unique among the nations conquered by the Caliphate, did not adopt the Arabic language. I'm unqualified to address this obviously fascinating period, but I wish someone would fill in more. [Note: David s graff please sign your posts so that we know who writes what!]

Well, the script we had before arab occupatoin basically looked the same as the arabic script, so adopting the arabic script isnt really a big deal. also, it should be noted that the islamic culture of the time was Iranian, therefore, the arab invasions had the reverse affect, they affected arabs and other islamic people with iranian culture. that is why the abbasids themselves later became persianized.Khosrow II 02:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but is this actually true? I did a little wikipeding on the history of the Persian and Arabic alphabets. It seems that in Persia proper and also in Mesopotamia, people officially used the Persian language written in the Pahlavi script. Upon the conquest, the official language became Arabic written in Arabic script (c.f., Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf). From my reading, it seems that Persian gradually became written in Arabic script. Both scripts, like almost all alphabets including the Roman one I am using now, were based on Semitic models, but they don't really look the same (Pahlavi is not cursive), and Pahlavi retained many of the ideograms of the older cuneiform script. I don't think that someone who has only been trained to read Arabo-Persian script can read Pahlavi without additional study. So I think I would stand behind the statement that a major cultural borrowing from the invasion was the Arabic alphabet.

Also, I think that one can't make a blanket statement "the islamic culture of the time was Iranian". What is culture? Certainly religion and language are big parts of it. Did Muslims in Syria, Egypt, and Arabia during the Abbasids write in Persian or Arabic? Was their religion one originating in Arabia or Persia? Your statement could be misinterpreted as implying that the Arab conquest of Persia led to the adaptation of Zoroastrianism and the Persian language from India to the Atlantic. So to say that "the islamic culture of the time was Iranian" is an oversimplification. Better would be to say "Official culture in the core of the former Persian empire took on many Persian features during the Abbasids" or "The muslim conquest of Persia led to much cultural borrowing in both directions: the Abbasid rulers adopted many local customs and the Persian language, which aided the acceptance of the new religion by the local Persian people."

David s graff 14:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

POV

although it is true that the abbassids became persianised, you have seriously understated the impact of the islamic takeover of persia by the muslims. I'm Iranian and take great pride in my national history, but this is an encyclopedia and not a web blog. Please fix the above request.

According to Bernard Lewis:

"[Arab Muslims conquests] have been variously seen in Iran: by some as a blessing, the advent of the true faith, the end of the age of ignorance and heathenism; by others as a humiliating national defeat, the conquest and subjugation of the country by foreign invaders. Both perceptions are of course valid, depending on one's angle of vision... Iran was indeed Islamized, but it was not Arabized. Persians remained Persians. And after an interval of silence, Iran reemerged as a separate, different and distinctive element within Islam, eventually adding a new element even to Islam itself. Culturally, politically, and most remarkable of all even religiously, the Iranian contribution to this new Islamic civilization is of immense importance. The work of Iranians can be seen in every field of cultural endeavor, including Arabic poetry, to which poets of Iranian origin composing their poems in Arabic made a very significant contribution. In a sense, Iranian Islam is a second advent of Islam itself, a new Islam sometimes referred to as Islam-i Ajam. It was this Persian Islam, rather than the original Arab Islam, that was brought to new areas and new peoples: to the Turks, first in Central Asia and then in the Middle East in the country which came to be called Turkey, and of course to India. The Ottoman Turks brought a form of Iranian civilization to the walls of Vienna...[2]"

--Sa.vakilian 18:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm Iranian but I should confess whoever write "Iran after arrival of Islam" have low historic knowledge. During Abbasid caliphate we have two types of states "Estekfa"(governing by permision of caliphate) and "Estila" {capture the state by sword then governing by permision of caliphate). In first group we can find "Tahirid dynasty" and "Samanid dynasty" and in the second type we can find "Saffarid dynasty", "Ziyarid dynasty" and "Buwayhid dynasty". In both cases legitimacy of the governor depend on caliphate although caliphate might become so weak and couldn't disagree with them. In brief political independency hadn't gained until Safavids and this were not the result of nationalistic movement but religious movement by Turks.--Sa.vakilian 19:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote this part and removed the tag.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 05:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The Buwayids took over the Caliphate. You also need to remember that many of the Caliphs took Persian wifes. This measns that even before the Buwayids, the Caliph was no longer fully Arab.Kaveh94 (talk) 07:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

We need a cleaner more detailed article

This article skips a lot through Iran History. As the main article for this subject we need more details, Images, and Cleaner more neutral point of view article. I'm doing what I can. I'll be gald to see more editors helping. --Arad 18:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

Am I missing something here? I don't see the neutrality discussion for the Islamic Republic section. If there is no discussion there should be no tag. What is the problem? The Behnam 04:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Persia had no slaves, introduced currency to the world, and was the first global superpower? I think these things could use some serious scrutiny. - Anon

"The Persian Empire represented the world's first global superpower [12] [13], and was based on a model of tolerance and respect for other cultures and religions.[14][15]

I think is is perhaps POV. Indeed, in the following paragraph, it seems that Alexander is decried as a viscious conqueror whose legacy was quickly eclisped. While I don't dispute his reputation, I believe the Greek/Persian interaction was a little more complicated than that. Comments? jlr3001 02:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Anon

Hello. Please do not put POV into the article. Thanks.Azerbaijani 20:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Arrival of Aryans from North?

I cant believe an Iranian article talks about Aryans "arriving from the north".....Anybody that studies Aryan history should know that they came from the region of INDIA/IRAN........There first text was the Vedas and it speaks of no invasion.....what a joke this is

For those of u who disagree with me, go online, and type in ARYAN INVASION THEORY......and then tell me im wrong......They came from India/Iran.......71.107.57.134 04:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Islamicization and Persianization

I tried to fix the grammar of this section, much of which seems to have been written by a non-native speaker. I tried as far as possible to keep the meaning the same, but in some cases, the meaning was ambiguous due to poor grammar, so I did the best I could. Still, this section should be reviewed by someone more knowledgeable than I in Persian History.

I also edited this section for length. I felt that many of the sentences, although technically true, did not actually add to the story told by this section, or repeated points made elsewhere. Is it really relevant to an article on Persia that Turks also resisted the Arabization of their culture? Is it really necessary to state that Islam does not support oppression of minorities? Also, I didn't understand why Arabs (presumably defined as native Arabic speakers with Arab culture) should resent being forced to use their own native Arabic language and the imposition of their own Arab culture.

I just couldn't understand the paragraph beginning with "According to R. Frye", and the reference given does not point to R. Frye's work. So I deleted the paragraph. Without access to the original source, I couldn't figure out why the ability of Transoxonia to adopt more egalitarian Islamic societies should lead to a Persian revival. I'm not trying to say that it did or didn't, just that someone else needs to address this issue, and put a source behind it.

Much of the Islamization in Iran article quoted from this section and should be updated. But I want to make sure that there is not too much fury at my edits before propagating them into other sections. David s graff 17:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Significance of history of Iran

I moved Hegel and Frye's quotation to a separate part. Lead is not suitable place for such quotations.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Islamic Republic

I moved this information to the talk page and replaced it with the information from Iran#Iranian Revolution and Iran-Iraq War (1979 – 1988) which is more reliable and NPOV.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 05:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Supported by the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq , militant Iranian students seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979, holding 52 embassy employees hostage for a 444 days (see Iran hostage crisis). The Carter administration severed diplomatic relations and imposed economic sanctions on April 7, 1980 and later that month attempted a rescue. A commando mission was aborted on April 25 after mechanical problems grounded rescue helicopters and eight American troops were killed in a mid-air collision. On May 24 the International Court of Justice called for the hostages' release. Finally the hostages were released Jan 20 1981, by Agreement of the Carter Administration, see Algiers Accords Jan 19,1981.

On September 22, 1980 Iraq invaded Iran. Official U.S. policy sought to isolate Iran, and the U.S. and its allies supplied Iraq with weapons and technology to maintain a balance in the war. Iraq obtained most of its weaponry from the Soviets, China, and France. Members of the Reagan Administration covertly sold anti-tank missiles and spare parts to Iran in what became known as the Iran-Contra affair.

In 1981, the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq detonated bombs in the head office of the Islamic Republic Party and the Premier's office, killing 70 high-ranking Iranian officials, including Iranian President Mohammad Ali Rajai, Prime Minister Mohammad Javad Bahonar, and Chief Justice Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti.

On the 14th of April, 1988, an American guided missile frigate, the Samuel B. Roberts, was damaged after Iran had mined parts of the Persian Gulf. On the 18th of April, the US responded in Operation Praying Mantis by attacking two Iranian oil platforms. In the ensuing battle, two Iranian warships and several armed speedboats were sunk.

On July 3, 1988 the USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 en route to UAE killing all 290 people on board.

After eight years of war with great losses on each side (including bombing of civilians and use of chemical weapons by Iraq)

Iran finally agreed to UN Security Council Resolution 598 in August 1988 to end the bloody war. Nonetheless, severe fighting continued into the 1990s and even to the present on a smaller scale [3] as Kurdish (nationalist and communist) forces fought the Iranian government. At times, large parts of the western Iran were without government control. [4]

Edits of United States and the Shah, Islamic Revolution and Islamic Republic sections

I've made a number of edits of these three sections in an effort to improve the sections in terms of grammar, readability and relevance. For example the Islamic Republic section had a very long paragraph on the American embassy in Iran hostage crisis but virtually nothing on the theocratic constitution of Iran and still has next to nothng on the economy of Iran under the Republic.

Editor CreazySuit (who seems to be Wikistalking me but has a legitimate question) has complained:

You did not provide an explanation as to why you removed the following sourced statement "While the student ringleaders had not asked for permission from Khomeini to seize the embassy, Khomeini nonetheless supported the embassy takeover after hearing of its success." which is from "Guests of the Ayatollah: The Iran Hostage Crisis: The First Battle in America's War with Militant Islam". ( by CreazySuit (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC), Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BoogaLouie")

So my explanation is that the sentence - Khomeini supported the embassy takeover after hearing of its success. - briefly covers the issue (If he supported it after hearing of it he isn't likely to have suppported it prior to hearing) and the whole issue and more is covered at the Iran hostage crisis article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I'll add a small clarification. --CreazySuit (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Significance pupose

It seems that the Significance section seems to be a section made to advertise Iranian history and boast it's importance. For this reason I'm going to delete it.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Britannica" :
  • [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-32981 Encyclopædia Britannica]23 January 2008
  • [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-32981 Encyclopædia Britannica].
• "britannica" :
  • [[Encyclopaedia Britannica]], ''"Seljuq"'', Online Edition, ([http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9066688 LINK])
  • [[Encyclopaedia Britannica]], ''"Seljuq"'', Online Edition, ([http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9066688 LINK]): ''"... Because the Turkish Seljuqs had no Islamic tradition or strong literary heritage of their own, they adopted the cultural language of their Persian instructors in Islam. Literary Persian thus spread to the whole of Iran, and the Arabic language disappeared in that country except in works of religious scholarship ..."''

DumZiBoT (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Sculpture of Abu Muslim Khorasani.jpg

The image Image:Sculpture of Abu Muslim Khorasani.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Alexander the Great

People keep changing Alexander the Great to Alexander of Macedon, claiming that "Your addition of fake eurocentric greek-states (not country) made title of a non-existence character called alexander of republic of macedonia is also unacceptable". Alexander of Macedon does not redirects to Alexander the Great, but to a disambiguation page, leading to confusion. Almost everywhere else in wikipedia (and as far as I know in the English language and the western world) he is mentioned as Alexander the Great, so I believe that he should be mentioned here (and other pages about greater Iran and Persia) like that to avoid confusion by readers. Uirauna (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Explain why "people" are reverting your edit. Some of your edits show that you want to give the title the Great to someone you name and take it from others you don't name.--Xashaiar (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have already told you that my removal of Darius' 'Great' was accidental, and (again) I apologise for it, I meant no offense. Still Alexander III of Macedon is known everywhere as Alexander the Great, including in the article about him, where he is described as: "Alexander the Great (Greek: Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας or Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος,[1] Mégas Aléxandros; 356 BC – 323 BC),[2] also known as Alexander III of Macedon". So we should use the same name here, to avoid confusion. If he deserves or not the title is not being discussed here, and if you would like to discuss it please go to the Alexander page, if it is decided there that no 'Great' should be used, then I'll agree on it. I will not discuss it with you anymore, this post is a request for my peers to decide. Uirauna (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes links with Alexander of Macedon should be changed to Alexander III of Macedon. That's correct according to this help page.--Xashaiar (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Islamic Republic

Am attempting to reorganize the Islamic_Republic section.

Some issues, such as the hostage crisis, foreign war aid to Iraq, have lots of text. Others, like the economy, international influence of the islamic revolution, have little or none. I will try to fix this. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Article had been effectively vandalized to be inaccurate in one place. Here is a sentence that must have been maliciously altered:
The Iranian government agreed to allow a democratic system of government in 1954 with American support and entered into agreement with an international consortium of foreign companies British (40% of shares), American (40%), French (6%), and Dutch (14%) companies to run the Iranian oil facilities for the next 25 years. The international consortium agreed to a fifty-fifty split of profits with Iran and would allow Iran to audit their accounts to confirm the consortium was reporting profits properly, and would allow Iran to have members on their board of directors. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Very long caption

This caption has been re-added to a photo in the Islamic Republic section: Donald Rumsfeld meets Saddam Hussein on 19 December - 20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984, the day the UN reported that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name."[113]

It's a verrrrry long caption and the same photo with an almost as long caption can be found in the Iran-Iraq War article. I think that is the place for this level of detail on the war, not in an article on the millenia of history of Iran.

Any objections if I shorten it to:

Donald Rumsfeld, special envoy of US President Ronald Reagan, meets Saddam Hussein on 19 December - 20 December 1983.

--BoogaLouie (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Iran/Iraq War - Chemical weapons

There is confusing language concerning the use of chemical weapons. It currently says that "Almost all relevant international agencies have confirmed that Saddam engaged in chemical warfare to blunt Iranian human wave attacks; these agencies unanimously confirmed that Iran never used chemical weapons during the war.[115][116][117][118." The sentence structure is so bad that I confused Iran with Iraq. I recommend changing it to: "Almost all relevant international agencies have confirmed that Iraq engaged in chemical warfare to blunt Iranian human wave attacks." I am removing the reference to Iran, because it doesn't seem that Iran was accused of using chemical weapons. If it has been, then it should be sourced. Something to the effect of "There are accusations from [name of group] that Iran used chemical weapons as well. Contary to this, [list groups/agencies] all refute this, saying that Iran never used chemical weapons during the war." The way it stands now is ambiguous to the eye, and creates a wierd mood. My best--199.219.129.1 (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits

Will the IP which keeps adding copy-and-pasted material from the Islam in Iran article please stop it. This does not follow Wikipedia policy on undue weight and is a violation of the GFDL licence regarding the use of Wikipedia material. --Folantin (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The editor should be made aware of WP:3RR, and then blocked if they insist on reverting without seeking debate, explaining themselves and building consensus first. --dab (𒁳) 15:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Mergefrom Persian Empire

Some people have recently blanked and redirected Persian Empire.

I think alot of that page that existed before the redirect/dab/article warring could be merged here.

76.66.197.30 (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Already discussed in details in Talk:Persian Empire and there's nothing useful to be merged with this page. If you want to participate in the discussion, discuss it there. Alefbe (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User has launched an RfC. Page must therefore remain for others to find out about the issue at hand. If you want to make it a subpage, that'd be fine. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Theory

In the history of Iran, it states:

As early as the 10th and 9th century BC Aryan tribes (ancestors of Modern Iranians) speaking Indo-Iranian languages arrived on the Iranian plateau from Eastern Ukraine and Southern Russia.[17][18]

Although this is a widely accepted theory, aka Steppes Theory, it should be mentioned nevertheless, that it is a theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 03:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The dates of these Aryan ancestry theories also vary greatly...some are 1000BCE, some are 2000BCE, others are 3000BCE(Kaveh94 (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC))