Jump to content

Talk:Iran

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Genealogizer (talk | contribs) at 19:40, 26 June 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleIran was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 15, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 23, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 26, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 21, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 21, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of March 19, 2006.
Current status: Delisted good article

Template:Vital article

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage



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

Grammar mistake

I found a grammar mistake in first paragraph of this article. In First paragraph and in 7th line we have: "country that has both a Caspian Sea and Indian Ocean coastline. Iran has been of geostrategic importance because of its". Article "a" before "Caspian Sea" is not needed and I think correct text would be: "country that has both Caspian Sea and Indian Ocean coastline. Iran has been of geostrategic importance because of its".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotoodi (talk • contribs) 12:24, 24 March 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Fix the messed up syntax in bold red in the middle of the entry.

These edits from 4/30/2014 ( Current: "nearby regions wich would last for many centuries onwards." Correction: "nearby regions which would last for many centuries onwards."

Current: "Iran reached it's greatests extent since" Correction: "Iran reached its greatests extent since " )

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Foreverchang (talk • contribs) 01:38, 1 May 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Social Media and Women's Empowerment

Women livong in Arian have encountered various challenges and obstacles socially, politically, economically, and psychologically that have affected character and integrity. In Iran today we see women’s rights activists have very little opportunity to voice their opinions. Although academics and lifelong learning is deemed valuable in Iran historically and religiously, there is legislation aimed to undermine women’s social and legal progress. An example is women’s rights to an education in Iran. The right to an education is increasingly viewed as a basic human right worldwide but it monitored and regulated in Iran. We see education is strongly correlated to economic growth and political stability. It nurtures awareness, liberation, critical thinking, and success.

The rise of independent women’s rights activists is due to developments in technologies and increasing participation in digital spaces. The reform movement in Iran in the 1990’s encouraged secular thought and feminist thinking. This challenged Iran’s traditional structure by raising self-awareness of social issues, notably women’s rights issues. The emergence of social media has been a great tool to abolish pre-conceived notions of Iranian Women and have gave them a platform to reach out to the world. The media shapes the worlds opinion by deciding what and what not to broadcast. Social media has aided the empowerment of women by attracting global recognition. It gives a voice to the most marginalized groups in society and energizes activists to spread information and create discussions around the world, instantly. Social issues can no longer be hidden from the world by the Iranian government because public scrutiny forces their actions into light, and holds them accountable for wrongful discourse. Bloggers continue to demand social justice and refuse to be silent, knowing there is a possibility of harassment or jail time. Love to tone Feminism and activism pose a direct threat to the current power balances in Iran. Media of all forms is a great way to raise important questions and start conversations about women’s lack of rights in Iran. Communication technologies including Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. creates a stage for awareness and participation. Digital and social media is a very powerful tool and one of the most effective ways to advocate for women’s rights. The future gains of these technology platforms are endless. We can note that technology presents its own challenges in itself, because it is difficult to regulate and is quickly revolving. Women contributing equally to society will have an immense impact on socio-economic, social, and political development. Women being allowed to participate in society will not only benefit women, but all Iranian citizens; and on a bigger scope, the world.

[1]

References

  1. ^ Mehran, Golnar. “Lifelong Learning: New Opportunities for Women in a Muslim Country (Iran).” Comparative Education 35.2 (1999): 201-15. Web 29 Mar 2015. Nafisi, Azar. “Empathy for Iran’s Women.” New Perspectives Quarterly 27.4 (2010): 34-7. Web. 1 April 2015. Odine, Maurice. “Role of Social Media in the Empowerment of Arab Women.” Global Media Journal 12.22 (2013): 1-30. Web 29 Mar 2015. Shavarini, Mitra. “The Social (and Economic) Implications of Being an Educated Women in Iran.” Harvard Educational Review 79.1 (2009): 132-40. Web. 29 Mar 2015. Shojaei, Seyedeh Nosrat, Ku Hasnita Ku Samsu, and Hossien Asayeseh. "Women in Politics: A Case Study of Iran." Journal of Politics and Law 3.2 (2010): 257-68. Web. 29 Mar 2015.

Can someone put in an anthem

something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk2GYvhwUno

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 58 external links on Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the image cleanup template

@Moxy: Pardon me, but since you are the one who placed the image cleanup template in the article, would you please be so kind as to elaborate on what needs to be done? I just finished some relatively minor cleanup of images (moving them to the appropriate sections, and making certain they don't stray outside them too much). Is there more that needs to be done? (Anyone else have an opinion?) —DocWatson42 (talk) [22:44, 12 June 2017‎]

Wrong national anthem

The national anthem played instrumental in the top of the page is wrong, it have to be replaced by the good one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.233.227.191 (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about the use of "Persia" and "Iran" in historic contexts

Should Persia be used instead of Iran in reference to pre-1935 history? Genealogizer (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Support - Persia was the proper name of the country in English until the Shah changed it in 1935, and thus, using Persia in reference to pre-1935 events is consistent with the way similar name changes (i.e. Constantinople, Bombay, Danzig) are handled on Wikipedia. Genealogizer (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yes, though I will add that I think it is odd that Persia redirects to Iran. For example, the Constantinople article does not redirect to Istanbul. The Istanbul has a summary of the history, but links to the main article. Seraphim System (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Did you seriously write 'support' for your own survey/question, Genealogizer? Or perhaps you forgot to write from your IPs this time? [1][2] Also, before anyone supports/opposes, they might wanna take a look here [3]. As you can see, through this long discussion, this user has done zero edits to Iranian-related articles, (with all due respect) has little to no knowledge about the topic, and refuses to accept anything else but his own POV (which he puts above the work of academic scholars), which often results in him using ad hominem. Both Iran and Persia can be used, since major scholars tend to often use 'Iran' as well (which he has already been told before). This is coming from a person who has done most contributions to Iranian-related articles. EDIT: This is also the billionth time he has used comparisons to other countries/cities, which hold no ground at all, which he has not only been told by me, but by other users as well. Basically his only form for argument is by mentioning silly comparisons over and over. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like Ad Hominem. Which major scholars should I check out? Genealogizer's argument seems pretty solid. AntiVan (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not written in the best tone I'll admit that, but it's more like the truth spilled out by a frustrated user than ad hominem. Regarding the scholar thing, you can check it out in the link I put up above. I'd advise you to read the whole discussion in the link, then you'll get what I mean. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I waded through that whole discussion and didn't find it illuminating. If there is a substantial body of recognised NPOV scholars publishing in English on the history of what is now called Iran who don't use Persia in discussions of pre-1935 events that would be a solid argument to make. I can't see that there is. I can't find any Wikipedia policy on this, but based on my quick reading of History of Thailand it seems like the convention is to use old names. AntiVan (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If there is a substantial body of recognised NPOV scholars publishing in English on the history of what is now called Iran who don't use Persia in discussions of pre-1935 events that would be a solid argument to make."
Well, there are several major scholars who uses Iran in pre-1935 events. I assume you didn't see some of the prominent scholars I mentioned in my example in that link?--HistoryofIran (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing me of sockpuppetry? Nice. And yes, your comment was an ad hominem attack. Historians that are native English speakers are more likely to use Persia in a historical context, although some do use Iran. And just because you keep insisting that my comparisons hold no ground doesn't mean they actually hold no ground. Your insistence that Iran is actually the historical name of the country, while true in the Persian language, is not true in English, the language this Wiki is written in. In an English-language context, Persia is the historical name for the country now officially known as Iran, regardless of what the situation is in the Persian language. Also, in the discussion you linked to, you made numerous grammatical errors which make me question if you are proficient enough in English to be a good judge of this. Genealogizer (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You say a lot of stuff, but do you have anything to prove that it is right? Nope.
  • "Also, in the discussion you linked to, you made numerous grammatical errors which make me question if you are proficient enough in English to be a good judge of this. "
Ladies and gentlemen, do I really have to say more about this user? Apparently, because I made a minor grammatical ero- sorry I mean "numerous grammatical errors", I have no right to take part in this. I mean, screw all those hundreds of articles I have created and expanded! Genealogizer's word is right. Anyways, by using that logic, you shouldn't come anywhere close to Iranian-related topics at all because you have absolutely zero knowledge about it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - "Genealogizer", a new user with some 400 ~ edits in total, has been pursuing a cross-article WP:FORUMSHOP - WP:WAR - WP:DIS agenda for some time now. He asked for basically the exact same thing which he's asking here right now as well, on 20 May 2017. This RfC was declined and closed some days later, on 15 June 2017. Now, less than 10 days after that, he has already made a new RfC, basically opting for the exact same thing. I might add that he started to play this "game" way before all this; on 29 October 2016 he changed the word "Iran" to "Persia". On 19 June 2017 and 23 June 2017, which is like, literally a few days after his previous Persia/Iran RfC was closed, he attempted to make the same changes by the means of edit warring on the "Qajar dynasty" page. On 5 June 2017, he once again, without any consensus whatsoever, changed the word "Iran" to "Persia", this time on the "Alexander L. Georgia" page. Now, on 24 June 2017, 1 day after creating this RfC, he made the same dogmatic changes on the "Name of Iran" page. "Genealogizer" apparantly believes that repeating the same sentences in a dogmatic manner, over and over, will make him reach his desired point. Pretty much a clear cut WP:TENDENTIOUS editorial pattern, in my opinion.
Especially the fact that he's trying to continue with the same thing even after being rebuffed on numerous occassions, is something that is really beyond me. Take a look at the thousands of other "users" with similar single purpose concerns, and please tell me otherwise. Anyhow, combine all that I mentioned above with his WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:FORUM-like edit summaries, that, by the way, clearly tell something additional about "Genealogizers" notes on the matter (I understand that you may prefer Iran to Persia for nationalistic reasons, but please, don't rewrite history". "The only reason that English-speakers call Persia Iran today is because some Persian officials of the 1930s thought that it sounded similar to Aryan and admired Hitler.", and you've got yourself a pretty decent WP:NOTHERE case. He needs to understand ASAP that, even though "perhaps" in good faith, that this is absolutely not the right way to edit properly on this place.
Lastly, I might note that its interesting to see how Piotrus, a user who's active on Wiki for about 14 years, has presented the similar concerns about "Genealogizer" in the very recent past.[4][5]. In fact, it seems that "Genealogizer" has been pursueing the same disruptive pattern ever since the time he "landed" on Wiki.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] - LouisAragon (talk) 03:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Accusing me of sockpuppetry? Nice."
I'm also pretty certain myself that those IPs are yours. Given that they 1) show up every single when you're starting to hang by a thin rope, 2) have the exact same proficiency in English, 3) have the exact same stance you have, 4) sign their comments the same way, and 4) basically parrot that what you have been saying in all these weeks, word for word verbatim.[14][15]-[16][17] - LouisAragon (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is an RfC on historical naming issues, not a referendum on me.
Also, This is indeed me, when I forgot to sign in twice. You will, however, notice that I did not cast a duplicate vote. I have nothing to do with this IP. If you don't believe me, feel free to open a sockpuppet investigation. Genealogizer (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Now that we've gotten the personal attacks out of the way, using Persia for pre-1935 events would be consistent with the style on Wikipedia, which is to use whichever name was current in English at the time. Some scholars do differently, for example, there are 110k Google Scholar results for "Ottoman Istanbul", and many of the city's inhabitants called it "Istanbul" well before 1930. However, it was still called Constantinople in English at the time, and thus is referred to as "Constantinople" in articles about Ottoman history. Persia/Iran is a nearly identical case. Some scholars do retroactively apply Iran to pre-1935 events, and many Persians of the time did call the country Iran. However, it was known in English as Persia until 1935, and thus, that convention should be followed here. Genealogizer (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the un-WP:CIVIL comments about various users' motives (a user can have a dubious motive but still have a sound argument), and noting that there does not seem to be a Wikipedia policy on the matter. I think our practice should be to follow the conventions on either:

  • Wikipedia - I can't think of a quick way to check all the history articles where an exyonym been changed. I note Genealogizer suggests a few, I also had a look at History of Thailand where they seem to use Siam rather than Thailand for ancient events. My guess is that this is the most common approach.
  • Contemporary historians writing in English. - I used Google Scholar to look for 2016/2017 papers on Medieval Persia (138 results) and Medieval Iran (68 results). So it seems like either is fine, but 'Persia' is more common. I chose 'medieval' as a search term this is what Genealogizer used in the thread HistoryOfIran directed me to, but the ratio is similar if you use 'ancient'.

On balance, I support the proposal. AntiVan (talk) 04:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that's not how Wikipedia does it. We use the term that was current in English at the time. There's nothing inaccurate about exonyms. Genealogizer (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who gets to say that? It's definitely not like that in all cases. Also, you might want to remember what this user said to you recently [18]. Furthermore, as I said earlier, many prominent scholars have no problem in using Iran pre-1935, and I wouldn't be surprised if the name in the following years would become the complete-go-to-go choice. I've mentioned a few of those scholars in the link above, and heck, if someone wants me to, I can link them all here along with other scholars, I have no problem. Basically there is nothing wrong with using Iran, which Genealogizer needs to understand. LouisAragon pretty much said the rest, and I'd advise anyone to read his comment before expressing his/her opinion here. Also AntiVan: I respect your opinion, but isn't that a bit of a narrow way to see it? I mean for example if you write 'Safavid/Sasanian Iran or Safavid/Sasanian Persia (the most famous dynasties in Iranian history) it shows that Iran is the winner.
Also, apologies for my rash tone earlier. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was no such thing as Iran before 1935, in the English language, and many prominent scholars prefer Persia in historical contexts. Also, Sassanid gets more Google hits than Sasanian. Also, you forgot to try "Achaemenid", because it doesn't suit your goals. Genealogizer (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is now - it's the present that matters. Can you please mention these many prominent scholars that prefer (yes, prefer) Persia in historical contexts? I am eagerly waiting. Also, wasn't it you that preferred to use Google searches (and even uploaded pictures of those results) as some way to prove that you were right not so long ago? [19] But when it backfires it apparently isn't as reliable anymore, since Sassanid has more hits than Sasanian.. that's funny. Furthermore, I didn't write Achaemenid because I myself use Persia when editing Achaemenid articles, but yeah.. it doesn't suit my goals :).. From the Parthian period and onwards I use Iran. --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia generally does not retroactively apply present-day toponyms to historical entities and events. We use the name that was current in English at the time of the event. Google searches haven't remotely backfired, in fact, once again they support my position. Yes, there are more results for "Sasanian Iran", than there are for "Sasanian Persia", but there are more results for "Sassanid Persia" than there are for "Sassanid Iran" or either version with "Sasanian". As far as prominent scholars that prefer Persia in historical contexts? Here you go! Genealogizer (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use 'Sassanid' though, there is a reason it got changed, so that's not really a good point. So much for your "many prominent scholars" that "prefer" Persia in historical contexts; The first source is not even by a person who is an expert in Iranian studies, let alone a prominent scholar. He's not even a historian nowadays, but a lawyer. The second source is by a journalist (not a "prominent scholar"), whose not an expert in Iranian studies either. The third one is finally a proper source, but it uses Iran more or less just as much as well, a term which according to you isn't used by many scholars pre-1935. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't use Sassanid because for some reason, WP:UCN was ignored. Most people that know of it know it as Sassanid Empire. There are nearly twice as many Google searches for Sassanid as there are for Sasanian. And also, ad hominem attacks on the authors of my sources don't help your cause. There is absolutely no reason to use Iran for pre-1935 Persia IN ENGLISH. Yes, Persians may have called it Iran in Persian before that, but this is the English Wikipedia, and thus it only matter what name was current in English at the time. Your only real arguments so far have been "Persians called it Iran for a long time" (this is irrelevant, Bengalis called Calcutta "Kolkata" for centuries, but it is called "Calcutta" in pre-2001 contexts in English Wikipedia), and that "some scholars retroactively apply Iran to pre-1935 Persia", which also doesn't matter, because many historians also retroactively call Ottoman Constantinople "Istanbul", but Wikipedia doesn't. Genealogizer (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This seems more like a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT to me. Nothing was wrong about the move, you might wanna read the RM of the article. How is that an ad hominem attack against the authors? I'm sorry but do you know what the word means? So much for having a great proficiency in English. And last but not least you are repeating your comparisons for the 57th time. I think we're done here. Come back when you actually have something valid to say please. PS. I never said "Persians called it Iran for a long time", that's something you're making up :). Not to mention I (and many others) have made several arguments which you clearly have ignored. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to discredit my sources based on who wrote them. That's an ad hominem attack. Genealogizer (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I simply said the truth. Learning which source is reliable and which isn't is something you learn in Kindergarten. HistoryofIran (talk)

My sources are plenty reliable. In the end, it basically comes down to whether we retroactively apply the current name (Iran) to history before the name was changed, or if we stick with the name used at the time. Although some scholars do retroactively apply the modern name, that is not the convention on Wikipedia. Look at any place that had an official name change, and you will see. And no, Peking/Beijing doesn't count, because that was a change in romanization of the same name, not a change in the name itself. Genealogizer (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you think I'm canvassing or otherwise engaging in prohibited behavior, you're more than welcome to take me to the administrator's noticeboard. Genealogizer (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I will. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section

Please remove these bullshits from the lead section, it contains controversial topics such as sponsoring of terrorism (this is a US claim and the article should not be written from a US point of view). The article should be reverted to the last stable revision and any controversy change should be made with a consensus on the talk page. 46.225.123.94 (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iran&oldid=787665807"