Talk:Iran

Please consider reading the archived discussions for this article before asking any questions on this talk page or initiating any new debate.

Supreme Leader

The government and politics section calls the Leader of the Revolution the "supreme leader of Iran". So far as I know, Supreme Leader of Iran is a term coined by US politicians and he is not called a supreme anything inside the nation and its government. I'm going to change it to match the title of the post it refers to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.53.198 (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Flora

While there are list of native and common fauna for Iran, should there also be a short list of native flora and common flora?74.216.44.7 (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 04:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Independent polls?

"Independent polls have not contradicted official turnout of 2009 election, which gave around 60% of vote to Ahmadinejad.[138]"

I'm not sure this statement, though sourced well, should probably have some more room for ambiguity; there's a lot of other information (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-05/27/content_11446054.htm, http://www.rferl.org/content/Iranian_Opinion_Polls_Have_A_Checkered_Past/1750622.html) that seem to be at odds with that statement.

Further, there is some reasonable analysis here by Professor Juan Cole, who appears to be a reputable source on Middle Eastern affairs. There should probably be some qualification on the quoted statement in the article, seeing as the magnitude that statement carries is pretty large. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.96.0.202 (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

What it means is that US media is BS and we knew that already as it is NOT controlled by us the Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.253.25 (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Argument /Deletion

Somebody just deleted my statement . My statement was true. Is this a joke ? Please say who did it or I will report this. This is a joke ! TerenceBoshy (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Aryana or Eran

Whilst attempting to make some edits to the etymology (name) section i soon found this passage from encycopedia iranica:

"The combination *aryānām xšaθra- is nowhere found in the Old Persian inscriptions of the Achaemenians. In the later Yašts there is only mention of airiiå and anairiiå daiŋhāuuō “Aryan” and (unspecified) “Non-Aryan lands.” Thus the term Ērānšahr was evidently an invention of the Sasanians"

This clearly distinguishes the two terms accredited as the original form of "Iran". As "Eran" seems the more feasible i think this version should be given full credit. Although Aryana may have served to describe the same thing as Eran and Iran, as it has no connection with these two terms i think it should only get a brief mention in the section, of any. comments welcome, especially if it enlightens us all on the true origin of the term "Iran"Karafs (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Good points but OR and Synth. Here is what we know and what the article says: The term "Iran" is directly related to Eran of Sasanids as "a name of the empire/state/group of people" but as an Ethnic-Religious-... word Eran is (by all sources) a sasanid way of writing of the fully attested Old Iranian (Avestan which is older than Old Persian) word "Aryanam ..". The term "*aryānām xšaçra-" is what the Old Persian term SHOULD have been. Xashaiar (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I would also like to put forward this reduced version of the section for the article. This version reduces the repetitive, longwinded and vague section with a smaller, more compact and to-the-point one:

The name of Iran (ایران) is the Modern Persian derivative from the Proto-Iranian term Aryānā,, meaning "Land of the Aryans", first attested in Zoroastrianism's Avesta tradition. The term Ērān is found to refer to Iran in a 3rd century Sassanid inscription, while the Parthian language inscription that accompanies it uses the term aryān instead. However historically Iran has been referred to as Persia or similar (La Perse, Persien, Perzië, etc.) by the Western world, mainly due to the writings of Greek historians. In 1935 Reza Shah requested that the international community should refer to the country as Iran. Opposition to the name change led to the reversal of the decision, and in 1959 both names were to be used interchangeably. Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979 the official name of the country has been the "Islamic Republic of Iran."

Karafs (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me, covers pretty much all the important information in the section in a much concise and reader-friendly way. I say replace it, but let´s wait to see what other editors think. Uirauna (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes the section should be reduced to a few sentences. And the version you propose seems to have some problems: ", while the Parthian language inscription that accompanies it uses the term aryān instead" this is a misrepresentation. Parthians spoke no Persian but rather Parthian and thats why they WROTE differently. So the sentence (which is unnecessary) should be "and the Parthian version of the inscription that accompanies it uses the Parthian term "aryān"in reference to Iranians ". Xashaiar (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with ur modification, as the sentence in question IS misleading. i was also thinking of finding what the greeks called the persians. i think it was Persēs but i can confirm it. so the sentence would look like this:

...mainly due to the writings of Greek historians who called Iran Persēs (Πέρσης), meaning land of the Persians<citation>

Karafs (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Boldly go ahead!. If your changes need further edits people will do it. Xashaiar (talk) 15:41, 27 hi wats up

Grammar

Specifically: - Incorrect: "Different than" - Correct: "Different from" - - Incorrect: "None were" - Correct: "None was"

Iran#Fauna edit

"Today there are ongoing efforts to increase it´s population and introduce it back in India ." - No apostrophe in "its", no space after "India" (before the period). Article is locked, so I can't make this edit myself. 72.37.244.28 (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Just corrected it, thank you! Uirauna (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Damavand peak is the highest west of Hindu-Kush

At 5610m the Damavand peak is lower than the Mount Elbrus (in the Caucasus) with 5642m. Prvc (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The bloated history section

After significantly reducing and improving the etymology section I decided that it was about time we dealt with the history section, which has for years been criticised for being too large. Yet after my improvements to the pre-islamic sections i see my hard-work undone by user:khodabandeh14. Dear khadabandeh, the size of the history section has long been the achilles heel of the article. Now this section stands at 52kb (when the recommended maximum for an entire article is roughly 100kb) don't u agree that we should make the section more readable and relevant by removing the large swathes of unnecessary detail? As to your excuse that as iran has a longer history it deserves a bigger history section, this is UNTRUE. just look at the articles for Japan, India and Turkey. All featured, all have small history sections. Hopefully if we stop this article from rambling on with details maybe we can regain its good article status. Just listen to this:

"Other notable major revolts, some by Iranian Muslims and others by practitioners of old Iranian religions against Arab rule were led by Al-Muqanna, Sunpadh, Khurramites, Babak Khorramdin, Maziar, Mardavij, Ustadh Sis and Ya'qub-i Laith Saffari."

I mean, i studied history at school in iran, and apart from saffari i havent heard of any of these guys.

Further separation of Proto-Iranians into "Eastern" and "Western" groups occurred due to migration. By the first millennium BC, Medes, Persians, Bactrians and Parthians populated the western part, while Cimmerians, Sarmatians and Alans populated the steppes north of the Black Sea. Other tribes began to settle on the eastern edge, as far as on the mountainous frontier of the north-western Indian subcontinent and into the area which is now Balochistan. Others, such as the Scythian tribes, spread as far west as the Balkans and as far east as Xinjiang. Avestan is an eastern Old Iranian language that was used to compose the sacred hymns and canon of the Zoroastrian Gathas in c. 1000 BC.

This is better suited to the article on Iranian peoples, but boasting about the large iranian-peoples footprint isnt helpful or interesting to the casual reader.

Remeber we're writing for people who know little of iran and want to learn, not academic researchers. And if ur worried about the world losing valuable knowledge and wisdom on the topic, dont worry, its all in the history of iran article.Karafs (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You will need a concensus to delete materials.

• What exists in other articles is not a concern of this article. However, article on China and even United States have a long history section.
• Your content: "I mean, i studied history at school in iran, and apart from saffari i havent heard of any of these guys.".. that is not a good argument for Wikipedia. And that is exactly why it should be in this article, so you can learn part of the history of Iran. Now you know alittle about "who are these guys".
• "Remeber we're writing for people who know little of iran and want to learn, not academic researchers".. No we are writing Wikipdia to be on the highest level of scholarship. --

Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Further separation of Proto-Iranians into "Eastern" and "Western" groups occurred due to migration. By the first millennium BC, Medes, Persians, Bactrians and Parthians populated the western part, while Cimmerians, Sarmatians and Alans populated the steppes north of the Black Sea. " I think this is a good statement to have in the article as most of the languages of Iran are mainly due to these groups. We can related to the article better saying Persian and most languages of Iran related to these groups..--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for a consensus as i haven't deleted, i have rewritten and even added to the section. Last time i did ask beforehand (see section above concerning the etymology section) i was given this encouragement:

Boldly go ahead!. If your changes need further edits people will do it. Xashaiar (talk) 15:41, 27

And as i said this information is already on more specific and relevant pages. I implore you to read through the new version and see if there's anything which isn't there that is important in understanding iran.Karafs (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Dorood,Its okay if some information overlaps. I personally feel there is very important pertaining information here. Please note Xashaiar is talking about another subject and not about deleting that much text... I understand you have good intentions but actually all those paragraphs are important to understand the culture of Iran. Please also note WP:concensus. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

lol. there seems to be a wikipedia policy for all view points. Fair enough, I'll finish editing the history section on my own userpage n when im done i'll put it up on the talk page n see what ppl think. but the section is too big. i mean on the to do list it says shorten the article and on numerous occasions it has been brought up in this discussion page.Karafs (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yeah I think that is a good idea to put it up for discussion.. However, I think the section should even be expanded . --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Karafs, it makes no sense to have such a long and detailed history section when you already have some many pages covering the history of Iran. It makes the article too long to read. Uirauna (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There are much longer articles, and your history of editing suggets. "it makes no sense" is not a good argument.

What he means is that there is no need for the amount of detail, and is distracting from the important information. It could also do with better organisation.Karafs (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it makes no sense. The purpose of the history section is to provide an OVERVIEW of the information already present in its own article. WP is not a data dump, place yourself in the position of a reader of the article, who wants to know more about Iran, when he goes to the history section, instead of getting an overview on how the cilization evolved from ancient times and turned into the modern coutry it is today, he/she will be faced with a huge section with too much detailed information. If the reader wants to know more about the history of Iran, there is the link to that article. And what about my edit history, do you really want to get into ad hominem arguments here? Comment on the content, not on the contributor. Please read WP:PA. Also, please sign your posts. Uirauna (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

China, Egypt, and US are also having large history sections, so this is a non-issue. In my opinion, if anything, the section just needs some minor cleanups. If you think reader is "faced with a huge section", then he or she can simply skip to the next section. "It makes no sense" and "it's too big" is not a valid argument or rational to blanket sourced info. For historical countries, with thousand of years of recorded history, the history section is naturally bigger i.e. Iran, China, Egypt etc. So it doesn't give undue weight to the article either. --Wayiran (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with wayIran..however even the United States has a long history section despite beingt 250-300 years old. Arguments such as "makes no sense" are not wikipedia arguments. And WayIran is right, readers can skip sections they do not want to read. The actual Encyclopaedia of Islam entry on Iran has a much longer history section and Wikipedia needs to strive to be on the same scholarly level as Encyclopaedia of Islam. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered why all three of those articles (i.e. Iran, Egypt and China) have been crossed off the good article list whilst Turkey, India and Japan, all three with ancient and proud histories, have progressed to the level of featured article. We're meant to be improving the article, not keeping the status quo (thought i'd add my own latin phrase:P). But seriously, which articles should we be comparing it to? A bunch of B-rated articles, or the finest wikipedia has to offer? And what kind of article is this when readers are advised to skip sections? What if they wanted a brief version of iran's history? The general rule is the broader the topic the less detail, and an article on a country of over 70 million is pretty broad. We're writing for learners, not for our own egos.Karafs (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Please follow wikipedia policy. The history section is actually very small to the actual level of Iran's history. How other countries are written is not relavent to this article, but Egypt, United States and China are good examples. It would be better if new users in Wikipedia actually try to contribute in expanding articles rather making contributiong in deleting WP:RS sources. Deleting WP:RS sources is violation of WP:vandalism, and all the information in the history section are relavent to this article and very important. We write Wikipedia to make it a free Encyclopaedia on the same level as say Britannica, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Iranica (this one is free right now) and etc. And even the United States has a long history section, and the article in my opinion on United States is better than Turkey and India. Again the long history section is not the reason why the article does not have a featured status. Basically no has attempted yet to give it featured status. And finally, when looking at academic Encycloapedias, Encyclopaedia of Islam for example has an excellet article on Iran. Or check out Iranica where the Iran article is very long, dealing with all spects. If you want to make the article featured, then you should ask for variety of inputs, not simply delete sections. As I said, removing historical information is VP:vandalism as all the information in the current article is related. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, but I am following WP Policies. I hoped that I didn´t need to do it, but let´s go. First, the article is over 150kb long, so per WP:SIZE the article "Almost certainly should be divided". Second, the size of the article should bear no relation whatsoever to the "actual level of Iran's history". Third, it´s not up to just you to judge which information is "relavent to this article and very important". Fourth, for someone who claims that "How other countries are written is not relavent to this article" you seem to make a lot of comparissons to other articles, please decide on your argument, if we should or should not compare to other articles. Fifth, removing historical information is not vandalism, simply because information is "historical" DOES NOT MEAN IT BELONGS IN THE ARTICLE. Even reliable sources can be deleted if they bear no relation to the subject they are linked to. So if you really want to follow WP policy, lets shorten the article. Uirauna (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• [WP:SIZE]] is a recommendation, not a set policy. This article is 156K, the US article is 170K. In WP:SIZE has in the introduction that exceptions are acceptable and one should follow common sense. In effect, I believe this article should be longer. SO do not confuse policy such as WP:vandalism with recommendations which are not set in stone.
• Comparisons to other articles is because the guy that wanted to delete sections has started it.
• Removing information is vandalism if it is not discussed and WP:concensus is not reached. Currently the history section bears a great relationship to the article. The argument" It doesn't make sense" is not an argument. Indeed, as I said, Wikipedia strives to be a free Encyclopaedia, so that people do not have subscribe to say Encyclopaedia of Islam.
• Currently there are two users that actually would like to expande the history section. WP:Concensus must be reached. All the information here is relavent, not just based on my recommendation but articles on Iran say in other Encyclopaedias (Encyclopaedia of Islam for example). All the information here bears relationship to the subject. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus does not have to be discussed. Actually, people can and should be bold and make changes, as per WP:BRD. Don´t just call anything vandlism. Please assume good faith. Even though all the information bear relation to the subject, it does not mean it should be on the article or that it is relevant, specially if it is already included in another more detailed article. WP is not a collection of all the information on a subject. You should be focusing on working on the article about the History of Iran, while the section in this article should be only a summary of that article. If you agree, we can create a Request for Comment so that other editors not involved in the issue can comment if they believe the history section is too long. What do you think? Uirauna (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

in my opinion, comparing to similar articles, the history section must be expanded.--Aliwiki (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree.. Plus, one can also rewrite the current paragraphs in the article into a more terse version without deleting any information. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

...Which is part of what i've done, as well as removing excessive detail FROM THIS ARTICLE, NOT WIKIPEDIA. My version of the history section is better written, flows better, and is more concise. Don't make it personal khodabandeh, u'll lose face because i've been editing the iran page since 2006 with User:Manu kian maheri , User:Manu kian maheri93 and User:Ardeshire Babakan. That's how i know its been years that people have wanted to shorten it. You on the other hand have only been editing the iran page since last november! I must remind you that...

And on the topic of comparison: "the guy that wanted to delete sections has started it." is a childish comment that i wouldn't expect from a wikipedian. And yet you insist on comparing Iran to B-rated articles. You say "And even the United States has a long history section, and the article in my opinion on United States is better than Turkey and India." Clearly wikipedia itself does not agree with you. instead of measuring a county's history by its word count try actually reading it. "Again the long history section is not the reason why the article does not have a featured status. Basically no has attempted yet to give it featured status." I am grieved to hear someone say this, since myself and many other wikipedians put so much effort into trying to get it promoted in 2008. It was also nominated in 2005 so think before u speak. Do i also have to remind you of this...

Many of your comments show lack of understanding, such as "Countries with Older history will have a longer history section obviously.." is false, and in fact the opposite is true. I dont want to make this article an Encyclopaedia of Islam article, but a Wikipedia one. Nowhere does wikipedia compare itself to Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia of Islam or Encyclopaedia Iranica.Karafs (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have edited this article around 2006 myself, wwith my previous username (before changing the name). I think we should strive for wikipedia to be at same quality as Encyclopaedia of Islam and Iranica. It should not be a place that gives a simple viewpoint. I personally do not think deleting large relavent information to Iran's history is helpful and I believe the ENcyclopaedia should strive to be of the highest academic quality (in terms of detail). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the encyclopaedia should have academic quality, with a wealth of detail. but the Iran page isn't the same as the encyclopaedia. The encyclopaedia is a collection of all the articles on wikipedia, and frankly, the more accurate and detailed the collection is the better. But the information has to be put in the appropriate places. The more specific the topic, the greater the detail and factual knowledge, but the broader topics should have many topics covered in concise (not simple) sections. I do not think that this specific article should delve into complicated, confusing and contradictory detail which accompanies any topic in history, but should be brief, and encourage the reader to learn more on the topic by visiting the History of Iran page.Karafs (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any "contradictatory" details. However, "Complicated" is a relative word. History sometimes is complicated. I personally do not think that the history section is long, and it should even be longer. However, if length is an issue, one can rewrite the same information but in a more terse format. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If you go to my userpage and read my changes so far you'll see that i've been trying my hardest to leave everything in and rewrite it in a more terse format (I've nearly finished title 3 i.e. Middle Ages). Working on it today i removed the contradictory section where it said that half of iran's population were killed during the mongol attack, then in the very next sentence it says that 3/4 of the population was killed. As well as removing SOME information (such as the listing of 11 iranian sufis in the desperate hope that people might have heard the name of one of them apart from rumi), much of my efforts have gone in to rewriting the section and reorganising it. PLEASE READ MY VERSION BEFORE REJECTING IT!!!!Karafs (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to add that while you're reading through my version consider that i believe the early modern era and constitutional monarchy sections to be about the right size, whilst i intent to cut down the islamic republic section to about 5 paragraphs. CLICK HERE AND HAVE A LOOK---->Karafs (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to keep adding on bits but notice how i've actually added a paragraph on turkish migration to iran and the turkish dynasties, previously not covered in the section. There was no mention of the Jiroft and Zayandeh rud civilisaions, and no links to Roman-Persian Wars or Ilkhanate dynasty in the text. This is totally different to hacking at the section as i have covered allthe important stuff.Karafs (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, but we need to use good sources.. I think the Iran articles in Encyclopaedia Iranica should be used foremost. Jiroft is an important civilization that should be covered in say two sentences. Overall, I think more information is better, but you can write that more information in a more terse format. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you like my version? Any comments? I must say that encyclopedia iranica seems to be a valuable source providing much information on the topic. However, even it seems to back me up. The article on iran is not so much an article, but a portal to more specific articles. In it says that "Many of the points touched on in these articles can be explored in separate entries under the individual keywords.", a point that also applies to wikipedia. In the history section we touch on the issues and provide links so they can be explored in more detail. It's like dips: you have a variety of flavours in small pots, and once you've found the dips you prefer you get a bigger pot of it. Starting off with many large pots of dip is wasteful.

I would also discourage your approach as when you fill this section with information it can become more detailed than the topic's main page. Instead I'd advise that you put your effort into making these main articles better. For example I would be greatful if you used the article on Conversion to Islam to expand the Islamization in Iran article. However, we can cite Encyclopaedia Iranica to back up what's already been said in the section.Karafs (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Where is your edits and links to it? Also I thank you for providing inofmration. I think we can cleanup the Middle Agres more, but four important aspects need to be there and emphasized even more:

• Iranian resistances (Yaqu'b) was just one of them, the rest of the guys are important.
• New Persian language and literature, and its development from Middle Persian of Khorosan.
• Iranian contribution to the various sciences in the Islamic era, which is mentioned by Frye amongst others. Frye's book: "Heritage of Persia", Chapter 8 is called "Iranian contibutions to Islamic culture", and it has an excellent summary of the material. I would use this
• Iranian influence (cultural) on those of neighboring groups specifically the Indians and Turks.
• The heavy role of Iranians in Sufism.

• I personally again do not see any redundant information. But simply, the writing can be improved in the article. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Personally, I do not see any redundant information. But the writing can be improved. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because... (It is obvious that it's wikipedia admin's error to put speedy deletion for this article. ) --Gazaneh (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

My fault, Huggle quirk. Sorry Iran :) - superβεεcat  00:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Iran claims to be bigger

Irani defence minister claims Iran is 1,873,959 square kilometers rather than the known 1,648,195 square kilometers. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2011/Sep-05/147943-iran-is-larger-than-thought-minister.ashx#axzz1X5gHvimr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.12.178 (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 198.151.130.1, 5 September 2011

Area: 1,873,959 km^2 (with the addition of islands , ref: http://www.aftabnews.ir/vdcjtxevvuqetyz.fsfu.html)

198.151.130.1 (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)