Talk:Iran/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Some recent history

I had a quick look at the last fifty edits.

• [1] three unexplained and somewhat serious edits (mildly disruptive)
• [2] unexplained revert of three unexplained edits (mildly disruptive but understandable)
• [3] revert of that revert, citing "unexplained revert"--which is silly/disruptive given that the original edits were unexplained

Then, I suppose, the fun starts. VwM makes some edits, which Sharab reverts saying "restored sourced content"--but nothing happened in Vwm's edits pertaining to sources. Restoring Buyid dynasty to Buyid empire, for instance, means nothing since the latter is a redirect to the former. VwM reverts, citing "someone else made this edit--but that doesn't mean it's any good. And then everyone gets in on that action, but edit summaries in those edits say nothing about content. And then Kingerik starts fighting over one tiny thing, further raising tension, and drops it after not gaining traction on the talk page--so this was pretty useless. Then the edit warring over authoritarian vs. totalitarian starts, which is something that should have been handled on the talk page from the get-go--but VwM seems to enjoy reverting.

Then this--Mehrdad making a huge revert that isn't explained well and contains some strange elements. Why is the White Revolution left out? Why is the note about the monarchy being pro-Western and authoritarian left out? Why is one of the citations to Farsi Wikisource? "Rv to stable version" is invalid if it's from a month ago or earlier, and it's obvious that there was no vandalism. Of course Mehrdad's "plagued by Zionist hate propaganda" is unacceptable. The last revert is Wikaviani's, and while it is true that one (one single one) citation is to YouTube, that citation is to a panel discussion at Georgetown U, but that is only one citation for the "world's bottom countries" for women's rights. Wikaviani's revert also erases a bunch of minor improvements in links and especially citations--but they were lucky enough to make it just before Ymblanter's protection.

So, all of y'all have really made a bad showing here; you're all much too eager to hit revert and to throw accusations around. MehrdadFR, if I see more of those unacceptable edit summaries, and if you get into more edit warring, I will consider blocking you indefinitely. Maybe you should be under a permanent 1R restriction; maybe this article should be under 1R. Wikaviani, your revert and your request for protection could be justified, maybe they were good faith edits and requests--but the edit itself was lousy even without looking at the status of sources and statements. Kingerikthesecond, your edits in the last month in this article have not been helpful, to put it mildly--you've participated in an edit war in a way that makes me wonder if you were just tag-teaming.

In the discussion above, there's talk of fringe sources and POV comments and what not (and the accusation that the lead is written by Iranian PR consultants?), but I really see nothing that discusses, in some kind of depth and with recourse to the sources, individual items in the reverts that make up the recent war. No progress will be made until you do that, and all of you will be liable to various sanctions if you continue in this way. Everyone: do better. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I did not intend to tag-team. The Azerbaijan thing was stupid of me, and I deeply regret that already, but the single revert I made recently was because I thought the content that I reverted to was the stable one, and the one that was reached by consensus. --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: Hi and thanks for taking the time to review this mess. About your above remark and my edit, i already confessed that my edit may have removed some legit content, but i decided to make it in order to fuel the discussion here on the talk rather than with edit-warring. Second, if you still have doubts about my revert, take a look at my edit summary, since actually i intended to remove this blog too : but i failed doing so because the version i reverted to already contained it. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Drmies The thing about Wmv edit is that he said this in the edit summary Becoming an Islamic republic was part of the Islamic Revolution; "Iranian" redundant and changed the Iranian Revolution into Islamic Revolution in the info box you can check his edit, considering the fact that most reliable sources call it the Iranian Revolution (since the article name is Iranian Revolution) that means it is sourced by default that it's mostly called in reliable sources "Iranian Revolution" not "Islamic Revolution." What he did was something like this [[Iranian Revolution|Islamic Revolution]] plus he didn't provide a source for his opinion in the edit summary. I also reverted that edit just one time and I didn't want to start any edit war or even a discussion because it was obviously timesinking. He also changed the republic of Azerbaijan to Azerbaijan which I also didn't find it justified.

The reason for the revert without an explanation was because I accidentally clicked ok without writing an edit summary I would have said "unexplained edits" and then after I got reverted I didn't revert again because I felt I was wrong (although later realised I wasn't). I sometimes feel that no body is watching this article except me. I believe this article should be under an active community sanction or something instead of sanctioning all of us(as you suggested). This article is strongly related to Israeli-Arab articles and also very strongly related to Syrian civil war. Should I start a proposal to put this article under these sanctions? The Israel article is under a sanction I fail to understand why isn't this article under an active community sanction?--SharabSalam (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I also watch this article (just like thousands other articles). As to the sanctions, i only edited this article one time in recent days (my previous edit was on february 22th), therefore i don't think i'm concerned by Drmies remark about sanctions. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Wikiaviani. I felt that I am the only one who is watching this article because I feel like I am almost the only one who revert controversial and unsourced edits and usually I don't get support by other editors when I get reverted so I just leave it until some day someone start noticing the mistakes in this article(it happened today). Unfortunately there are anonymous editors and editors with accounts who think Wikipedia is a battlefield where they can discredit their opponents and support who ever they support. IMO the best solution would be to put this article under active community sanction.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikaviani, I saw that edit summary, but I do not believe it really warranted/explained the revert. One of the problems--and I see this actually in all the responses--is that if you have a problem with one or two or even three things it's not really valid to remove the whole thing. SharabSalam, "Iranian" or "Islamic" is all the same to me, but if it's not all the same to you, then I'd expect to see a "(0)" in the edit summary, because they have the same number of letters. You understand what I mean: why revert the rest?

I don't find a lot of animosity here right now, which is good. You all should talk these things over, and if necessary set up a bunch of RfCs. Now, Ymblanter fully protected the article, but it's sad that it has to be that way. The last revert was this one. Let's see what we can do--let's discuss a few items below, running down the page, so we can get some kind of (quick) agreement and we can unprotect and fight over the other things later. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: The reason that VwM.Mwv gave in the edit summary was a pure opinion and as I said his edit was like this [[Iranian Revolution|Islamic Revolution]] he claimed in the edit summary that the term Iranian Revolution is wrong this what made me revert his edit. The other thing which was also in his previous edits is that he deleted some established events that are coups saying this removing coup as it didn't change the nature of the regime per se. from what I know the established events are key events in the history of the country. coups are definitely one of them. I also didn't agree with removing republic from Azerbaijan name. I saw that there were a lot of wrong things that he did so I reverted I admit that I reverted some good edits but that was unavoidable for me I couldn't only select his wrong edits and fix them. I asked for discussion as that's the best solution I found I didn't do any revert after that except for the Azerbaijani thing and it was with another editor who we discussed the issue with and we got into a solution. I also want to say that I had an edit war with user VwM.Mwv before all of this in this article. it was regarding women's rights and at that time VwM.Mwv was still new in Wikipedia he added an information with no source (although he wrote things in the talk page which were also not sourced) and I reverted while asking for a source then he reverted and said no room for sources and then I reverted asking again for sources then he reverted and added a source. The sources he gave didn't say exactly what the statement in Wikipedia says it was SYNTH. I didn't revert anymore to not break the 3RR.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: To be honest, i did not have a problem with only one, two or 3 things, i checked the sources removed/added and saw that there was no consensus about these changes, let aside the fact that some of the new entries (blog, Youtube links) were poor references, this is why i reverted the whole stuff to a pre edit-war version in order to fuel the discussion here on the talk page. Judging by the number of comments since Ymblanter protected the article, this was quite a success, in my opinion for the least. Take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

T or A

• totalitarian or authoritarian? Discuss, including sources (I think that whole "In the book" section needs to go: it's a dead link, POV-y, poorly written, and vague content, and how it is referenced (with the dead link) is entirely unclear). Drmies (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• A The current one is much better than the previous one. It is detailed and well sourced by scholar sources. I am talking about this ((de jure:

Unitary Khomeinist presidential ::Islamic republic

de facto:

Theocratic-republican ::authoritarian[3][4][5] unitary ::presidential republic subject to ::a Supreme Leader[6])) So that would be A?--SharabSalam (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Considering the fact that I was the one who added authoritarian with the same sources as now, I obviously support maintaining it. --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused as to where this discussion is taking place... Drimes wrote And what about "anti-Western and totalitarian"? Is that a big deal? They seem verified and true, and they are not used earlier ("autocracy" is, but that's not the same). in another section, but now it seems it's being discussed here. Anyway, I, too, support "totalitarian". In addition to the Islamic Revolution sources, here are some that describe the current regime as "totalitarian" as well (perhaps even worse than in 1979) [4] [5] [6]. M . M 12:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • User:VwM.Mwv, it's not complicated: these are individual sections for individual discussions. But your "I, too,..." is misplaced: the previous two editors supported Authoritarian. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Ebrahim Raisi or Sadeq Larijani

• Which one? Drmies (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• OK Ebrahim Raisi it is. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

dynasty or empire

• Basically, the order under Buyid dynasty or Buyid Empire? Drmies (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• • Dynasty and I believe this discussion is completely unnecessary--SharabSalam (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
    • SharabSalam, you may believe that, but if there's edit warring, there needs to be a decision. And I don't just mean the one word, I mean that entire set of "successions"--this version or Mehrdad's version. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Dynasty per the name of the Wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikaviani (talk • contribs)
• Dynasty yeah, it's pretty unnessecary. But this is what happens when people revert multiple edits at once. M . M 12:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• OK, that's one little thing out of the way: [7]. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

White Revolution

• Should the section starting "A far-reaching series of reforms" be in the article yes or no? And what about "anti-Western and totalitarian"? Is that a big deal? They seem verified and true, and they are not used earlier ("autocracy" is, but that's not the same). Personally I believe the Farsi source "politicalsystem" should go: if y'all want to improve the article, find a published, secondary source, preferably in English--this is the English wiki, after all. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2019

.The word iran should be īrān. Haryan Faravahari (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Danski454 (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose to merge Talk:Persia, Talk:Persia/Archive 1, Talk:Persia/Archive 2 and Talk:Islamic Republic of Iran into Talk:Iran/Archive 19. Because Persia and Islamic Republic of Iran are only redirect pages for Iran for a long time; Talk:Persia, Talk:Persia/Archive 1 and Talk:Persia/Archive 2 really have some content respectively, Talk:Islamic Republic of Iran is only a blank page from this talk page was created until now; Talk:Iran/Archive 19 is the newest archive page for Talk:Iran, I think it is a good idea to complete this page merger.
123.150.182.180
05:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV issues

@Kingerikthesecond: There is still a POV tag on this article, though there doesn't appear to be any ongoing discussion on this talk page. Is it OK to remove the tag now? Jarble (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay for me. If there are no current POV issues, then the tag is useless. --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 08:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

info

is iran a non partisan democracy5.219.79.214 (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC) No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.7.152.2 (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 May 2019

in the dynasty listings, the article fails to mention the Qajar Dynasty. It goes from Safavid to Pahlavi dynasty. Adsorptionman (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Primefac (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request

• In citation <ref name="IRFR2009-Iran"> add |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091029231558/http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2009/127347.htm |dead-url=yes |archive-date=29 October 2009

-- GreenC 16:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done--kingboyk (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 May 2019

Under "Foreign Relations":
"... the government of Iran has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine, after Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel."
This should be changed to "after America recognized" or "after the American government recognized" for clarity's sake.

The current wording provides no context for who or what "Trump" is. Also, it seems odd (and somewhat delegitimizing) to refer to America's official recognition as the action of an individual rather than the state.
It's like saying "Roosevelt went to war with Nazi Germany" instead of "America went to war with Nazi Germany". Hyperglyph (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done this page is currently unprotected and may be edited directly. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Editorial paragraph

I just removed this paragraph because it is sourced to primary sources and it is editorial.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

HistoryofIran the paragraph is not sourced it says widely and that's not in the sources. It's editorial paragraph supported by primary sources--SharabSalam (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Then why did you remove it all? Change that bit then if you're actually right. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, could you check the sources please? None of the sources support "widely regarded as authoritarian, with significant constraints and abuses against human rights and civil liberties" the sources are just stories of protests and a woman who was jailed but none of them support the editorial POV that is there. This is a WP:SYNTH in the best scenario--SharabSalam (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

"Stories" that criticizes the regime and gives a pretty good picture of what the description describes. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

HistoryofIran this is against Wikipedia policy WP:SYNTH we don't combine multiple sources to conclude something that is not in the sources--SharabSalam (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Again what the article is saying is this

widely regarded as authoritarian, with significant constraints and abuses against human rights and civil liberties

none of this is in the sources--SharabSalam (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

What is this then? [8] That's just one of the sources. You're welcome to change the information, because either way it's not positive stuff regarding the regime that is coming out of those sources. This kind of information shouldn't be concealed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

HistoryofIran the first three sources are stories which is why you didn't bring them here. The fourth source from freedom House doesn't support this editorial paragraph "widely regarded as authoritarian, with significant constraints and abuses against human rights and civil liberties" your personal opinion that it should be there is of little interest to me.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Not really, I just found it the most detailed source out of those 4 (which are still relevant and emphasizes the lack of human rights under the regime). But keep trying to read my mind, it's almost working. I advise to you read the source again then, since atm it looks like you are trying to conceal controversial information regarding the regime. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

"emphasizes" doesn't mean support and the fourth source is the only source that can be used there and it doesn't support the editorial POV paragraph that I mentioned. I am trying to make this article more neutral and since Freedom House#Criticism is biased the paragraph should be attributed. I don't believe that the Islamic Republic of Iran (which you call "regime") is "widely regarded as authoritarian, with significant constraints and abuses against human rights and civil liberties" because non of the sources state this.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Just because it has criticism doesn't mean it's biased (mainly from China and Russia, surprise), those are your own words. Then you clearly didn't read the sources (especially the one I mentioned). You're not making anything more neutral by concealing critism/controverties aimed at the regime (yes, which I call a 'regime' [9]). If you really were then you would have at least rephrased it instead of outright censoring it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

yep I would probably rephrase rewrite it and remove the first three sources as they don't support the editorial paragraph. I need also to attribute the source it is obviously not a neutral source since it is funded by the US and see criticism it talks especially about its biased reports. Please avoid using inflammatory language like regime etc. It is called Iran/ Iranian government/Islamic Republic etc. Regime is usually used to give negative impression when referring to the government.-SharabSalam (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope, I literally just linked you a dictionary of it. In the end it's how you perceive it. Since when did the Freedom House become unreliable/biased? So much for being neutral. And yes, the three other sources don't mention the lack of human rights in Iran at all.. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The first three sources don't support this "widely regarded as authoritarian, with significant constraints and abuses against human rights and civil liberties" they are mostly about stories from Iran--SharabSalam (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

No, the first three goes into detail how luxurious and sweet life is under the regime. Also, thanks for putting half your message in a yellow font, I wouldn't have seen it otherwise. Anyhow, at the end of the day those four sources are just one of the many hundreds you can fish up on the net. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• @HistoryofIran, Kingerikthesecond, Lklundin, and Alfombra2013: I just noticed that there was an editwar happening in this article and that the issue was the same as here but none of you has made any comment in the talk page. I wonder, are you waiting for the page to be unprotected to start editwarring? lol.

Anyway, here is the text "widely regarded as authoritarian, with significant constraints and abuses against human rights and civil liberties"

Sources:

1. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/01/irans-year-of-shame-more-than-7000-arrested-in-chilling-crackdown-on-dissent-during-2018/
2. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/03/iran-shocking-33-year-prison-term-and-148-lashes-for-womens-rights-defender-nasrin-sotoudeh/
3. https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/10/28/womens-rights-iran
4. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2019/iran

the first two sources are incidents that the sources call human rights violation the third source is a report about incidents that are related to women human rights and the fourth is a report from freedom of house but it doesn't support the strong language in the text like the text use these terms "widely regarded" and "significant. I and HistoryofIran agreed that it needs to be reworded in accordance with the fourth source which is the freedom house report, but then when I looked at its article I saw that it has controversy section and that it is accused of being biased (pro-American) so I thought it should be attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. We havent discussed whether this paragraph should be in the lead or not. I am against the inclusion of that paragraph in the lead unless it become better sourced not in the SYNTH way and better wording not that editorial text.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I simply reverted because I think it's better to remove disputed content as to not make the article muddy, for to then add it back again if consensus revolves around maintaining the original form. I agree that it could have been sourced better, but for now, let's wait for consensus. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 05:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: In that case you have failed to adhere to our WP:AGF. Lklundin (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. I feel that you are talking about this "Are you waiting for the unprotection to start editwarring? lol."

I wasn't serious. I was making a joke. It was actually funny that there was an edit war but then after the edit war and the protection no body went to the talk page. My question was a rhetorical question. Sorry that it wasn't obvious for you. I thought the "lol" would clarify that it was a joke. Sorry again for the misunderstanding.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

'The White House is biased/pro-American' isn't an argument, that's just your own POV. The sources clearly state what the statement says (esp White House), do you want me to read aloud for you? Also look what I found [10] Lemme guess, "it's a western source so it's pro-Western and thus biased"? You do know this is the English Wikipedia i.e a western country? (aka we obv tend to use western sources). It's easier to find sources about the lack of human rights in Iran than it is to dig stuff from someones nose. This argument of "it's biased because it has criticism" isn't gonna work, everything has been the subject of criticism sometime, especially the IRI more than anything else. Also, a piece of advice; repeating yourself isn't gonna make your argument any stronger. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, I will see the source that you gave and decide whether it supports these two opinions (widely and significantly) or not. Right now I don't have internet access to these sites. I want just to let you know that this type of straw manned behaviour during discussion is unpleasant like when you were supposedly quotating someone(me) saying 'The White House is biased/pro-American', I didn't say that! I said look at its article in Wikipedia it says that it was accused of being biased and pro-American. That's not my opinion. Another thing that shows how annoying straw manned was your comment is when you said "Lemme guess, 'it's pro-Western and thus biased'?" Please try to avoid this type of behaviour during discussion so we can have a progressive discussion.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Ill drop the link to cristism section. In case it is unclear Freedom House#Relationship with the U.S. Government--SharabSalam (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Woops, I mean't Freedom House, not White House, my bad. Also, I'm just quoting what I'm reading [11] [12] Note that no where on the article does it confirm that it is "biased" or "pro-American", this your own conclusion. As I said earlier, being the subject of some criticism (mainly from Russia and China, surprise) doesn't mean something is outright biased. It's not unusual for x to criticize y due to conflicting interests. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Well the lede does make weight to the critics who criticized the organisation and states that it was described as "biased towards US interests" by them. Those critics are also the financial times. Also the organisation is funded by the US government it is not independent. That means a new York times report or a WaPo report is more reliable than Freedom house because the organisation has conflict of interest. Thus attribution was/is needed.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah sure the New York Times and such is probably more reliable, but that doesn't mean that the Freedom House is completely unreliable due to some criticism and that we should rule out it out (the source still has a lot of influence and is often cited in other matters). But I honestly don't think it makes a major difference, as I said, those kind of sources are just one of the many hundreds you can fish up on the net. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• HistoryofIran we both agree that it needs rewording right?--SharabSalam (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

No. The sources are quite clear. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I have started a RfC because I dont think sources says "Widely regarded" and "significant constraints and abuses" I dont know how they are clear for you. I think we have got to an impass since you refuse to recognize clear editorial wording .--SharabSalam (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

They are very clear to me. This looks like one of the many cases of pov-pushing in IRI-related articles. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Who is pushing a POV????--SharabSalam (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Persia

There is 3 articles for Constantinople, one Article for Byzantium, one for Constantinople and other for Istanbul, so i think it will be better if Iran Had 2 Articles, one For Iran and other for Persia (Talk) 19:24, 05 June 2019 (UTC)

I heavily disagree, that's not how it works. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

the Persia of the Achaemenid Empire Is different from the Today so Call Iran, so 2 Different articles can be Better For the Content than Just one, Like 3 Articles for Byzantium, Constantinople and Istanbul, are better than Just 1 for Istanbul (Talk) 20:36, 05 June 2019 (UTC)

That's a bad comparison, it's still the same country. Obviously a country in the antiquity is different from one in the modern age, that applies to all countries. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Old Persia is already described in the Achaemenid Empire article, so what's the purpose? It's like having an "Ancient China" article. Also with regards to Persia vs Iran, Persia has always been a small region within Iran, like Saxony vs Germany. International name change in 1935 means nothing; the land was called Iran by its inhabitants consistently since 3rd century AD. --Qahramani44 (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

This is the "Persia" that you are talking about: Fars province; Persia is just the western name of Iran, There is nothing in particular with the Achaemenid dynsaty. Aryzad (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2019

Add link to [Khwarazmian dynasty] to 'From 1219 to 1221, under the Khwarezmian Empire, Iran suffered a devastating invasion by the Mongol army of Genghis Khan.'

Also, should we maintain a consistent spelling of Khwarazmian/Khwarezmian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhizopod (talk • contribs) 08:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Rhizopod (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Khwarazmian dynasty is linked in the preceding paragraph. Please see WP:OVERLINK. NiciVampireHeart 21:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Defence ministers of the three allied powers in the Syrian Civil War.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Subsequent?

" A far-reaching series of reforms known as the White Revolution was launched by the Shah in 1963; it included industrial growth, land reforms, and increased women's rights.[32] Subsequent widespread dissatisfaction and unrest against the monarchy led to the 1979 Revolution"

This paragraph in the lede implies a certain political undertone: The dissatisfaction was in response to the increased women's right or industrial growth or land reforms. There is a gap of 16 years between white revolution and the anti-monarchy revolution. To imply that one caused the other in anyway requires very specific historical evidence. It might have be one of many many contributing factors, certainly not the one. As noted in the article itself under "Contemporary era" corruption, economic recession, and the very system of monarchy were the contributing elements of dissatisfaction. The lede is therefore not consistent with the article itself and requires modifications. In fact in earlier versions of the article, this term "subsequent dissatisfaction" was referring to the 1953 coup d'etat! With the addition of the new sentence on white revolution, the term "subsequent" misrepresents the original intent for which it was used.Rahdar Danesh (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, removed "subsequent". M . M 22:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

References

RfC: Is this paragraph sourced and neutral in the lead?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

RfC: Is this paragraph sourced and neutral? Should we reword it? Should it be in the lead? see also the discussion above #Editorial paragraph.SharabSalam (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Question rephrased: For closing purposes, because the passage is longstanding, what we should really be talking about is whether there is consensus to remove or modify it in a significant way. And that's not the same thing as having consensus for it to be retained. Because no consensus, in that case, would mean removal/modification of the passage — whereas, taking into account that it's longstanding, no consensus would actually mean the passage is retained as is (no consensus for change). So as the uninvolved admin overseeing this dispute presently, I am taking the liberty of rephrasing the question accordingly:

RfC: Should the passage below be removed or modified in a significant way? El_C 21:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

This political system is widely regarded as authoritarian, with significant constraints and abuses against human rights and civil liberties.

Sources

1. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/01/irans-year-of-shame-more-than-7000-arrested-in-chilling-crackdown-on-dissent-during-2018/
2. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/03/iran-shocking-33-year-prison-term-and-148-lashes-for-womens-rights-defender-nasrin-sotoudeh/
3. https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/10/28/womens-rights-iran
4. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2019/iran

‎Survey

• Yes (modified) firstly the paragraph contains editorial wording like "widely regarded...", "significant constraints" none of this POV is in the sources. second argument is the sources that are used the first source is a single incident the second source is also a single incident it looks like the editor added these sources to make original claim that is not in these two sources. The third source(HRW) is a list of of incidents that involves women getting arrested in Iran. The fourth source from Freedom House is the one that can be used to support that paragraph but it doesnt use that type of POV language. It doesnt say "widely regarded..." or anything like that. It doesnt say "significant constraints" or anything like that so I think it should be modified. Also the freedom house is not neutral its US-funded so I feel it needs attribution--SharabSalam (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• No: We have already been through this billion times, you're just repeating the same invalid arguments now (i'm not gonna answer them again, for other users, just see [13]). But I do agree about the HRW source, why use that when we have a much more detailed version from the very same source about human rights that doesn't only delve into the lack of rights for women, but all of its citizens [14]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• No : Per this link provided by HistoryofIran.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Please do not badger other respondents. El_C 07:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
link to the above discussion?--SharabSalam (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Yeah.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC) This vote should be not be counted as you presented no valid reason for your vote. How does a link to a discussion make any point.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC) The discussion shows both of your arguments, and HistoryofIran's ones are convincing for me. Also, it's not up to you to decide which vote is valid or not, since you're involved.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Your vote is actually invalid you should present a reason for your vote. I suggest you stroke the whole comment. This is not just Yes and no poll.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Again, the sources are quite clear and i won't strike my vote, i would suggest you to drop your irrelevant comments about my vote away and move forward. We're done here. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC) I am not trying to annoy you or something but you voted No per this link. DO you think this is how RfC work?--SharabSalam (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC) SharabSalam, please do not badger other respondents. They are entitled to express their preference in any way they see fit. It's up to the closer to evaluate the strength of the arguments and agreements. El_C 23:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Wikaviani I am the one who should be annoyed at this type of voting. Also "the sources are quite clear" what is clear in the sources? You didnt even address the issue!. Why do I feel you should actually read the argument instead of just saying the sources are quite clear ---SharabSalam (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC) This is not a vote and you are trying my patience. El_C 23:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC) SharabSalam, Please educate yourself on how consensus and requests for comment on Wikipedia are intended to work, and behave appropriately. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC) So is just voting and putting a link to a discussion is a appropriate? Any sane person would not count that bold vote.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC) Pbsouthwood, Also you have voted, and this problem has been solved why are you saying "educate yourself" and "behave appropriately"? Are trying to say something? when I droped the stick you came with a totally provocative comment.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict)SharabSalam. I have expressed my opinion by explaining why I think the proposal should not be carried. That is not a vote. Your response to other editors' opinions and reasoning has consistently been to insist that they are votes, which is not how consensus and RfCs are intended to function. I deduced that you may not understand this and suggested that you read up on the related policy and guidance, so that you do understand, and then behave appropriately by following that advice. There are other less generous interpretations possible for your behaviour here, but I prefer to assume ignorance or misunderstanding of accepted process to malicious intent or stupidity, which are alternative possibilities. It is possible that I may have missed some other alternative, as far as I know I have no previous acquaintance with you and have based my opinions on what I see here. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC) Pbsouthwood, Is that a personal attack?? How about we solve this WP:ANI here?--07:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC) Enough. El_C 07:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• No, the statement appears to a fair and balanced summary of the sources, not editorialising or original research. If anything, it is mild and restrained in comparison with the sources. In the absence of reliable external sources to the contrary, there is no justification for the suggested change. Its presence in the lead is both justified and appropriate, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, adequately sourced. [called by legobot, uninvolved in the topic] · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• No (keep paragraph). Iran's humans right record and authoritarian regime are well covered in multiple sources. Icewhiz (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• No Numerous Wikipedia articles already establish human rights violations and censorship in Iran (Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Human rights in Iran, Censorship in Iran, etc.). Sources confirming this are also not difficult to find: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], etc. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• No (slightly modified) Remove "civil liberties". The current passage uses the term interchangably with "human rights", but there is in fact a significant difference - human rights are universal & absolute, while civil liberties are defined by governments. The Iranian government can't "abuse" something it defines itself. M . M 14:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• Too mild. We should describe the plight of gays[20], political opponents of the regime[21], apostates from Islam[22], foreigners the gov't decides to pick on[23], and so forth.Adoring nanny (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• A slight modification Bias and neutrality are in the eye of the beholder. Of course with mostly west-centric organisations, putting forward a western view of the world, an easterner living under sed regimes might expect those organisations to espouse such a view and that consequently (as the world is dominated by a west-centric viewpoint) this becomes what is "widely regarded". Amnesty is headquartered in London, HRW is headquartered in New York and Freedom House is headquartered in Washington D.C. So to bypass this complaint one might simply specify that western NGOs are the ones putting forward this viewpoint: "This political system is widely regarded as authoritarian by western NGOs, with significant constraints and abuses against human rights and civil liberties." For NGOs one can substitute "human rights groups" etc. And yes those groups act globally but one cannot dismiss that they originate from the west and preach western ideology and thought (democracy, liberalism etc.), at least from the viewpoint of someone who might not live in the west or agree with its ideas. ParthikS8 (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes "Widely regarded" means by a wide spectrum of observers, not just by Iran regime's political adversaries. I would modify it as "the political system is regarded by its' adversaries". Also there is an issue of NPOV. If you look at the same sources of human rights organizations, there are serious concerns and reports about human rights abuses all over the world . If following NPOV, then there should be a paragraph on human rights abuses in the lede of almost every country in the world.Rahdar Danesh (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extensive discussion about adding a sourced information

Since this article is owned by HistoryofIran. You can't add anything to this article except if his majesty accepted it and that would be after "extensive discussion".. Rahdar Danesh, there is nothing wrong with your addition. It's just not our property. BTW I am just being satirical.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

First you harrassed Wikaviani, and now you're doing the same to me? It seems like you're really trying the best you can to get blocked. Keep the childish accusations for yourself, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that's just not helpful. Please conduct yourself professionally, without resorting to innuendo. El_C 23:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't attack anyone. I was just commenting on what I saw in a satirical way. I thought you all would smile. I didn't see any valid objection by HistoryofIran why he reverted he only asked for extensive disscussion. Why? I want to know. Anyway I will strike my comment . Agh can't joke with this community.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Calling him his majesty is not "satirical," it's just engaging in innuendo. That addition probably does require extensive discussion, though it would be useful if HistoryofIran elaborated why. El_C 23:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Because it's irrelevant/random af/out of place. But apparently I'm trying to claim ownership of the article according to SharabSalam, who would probably cry bully if I was the one who made this hilarious "joke". --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I would say that the addition is also undue and triumphalist. It's not uncontroversial, that's for sure. Maybe some parts of it could be retained if rephrased and placed where it's less of a non sequitur. El_C 00:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

HistoryofIran what do you mean by "random af"? Is profanity permitted on wikipedia talk pages when discussing non-profanity related subjects? It does not seem like it is welcomed. It would be good for the user to withdraw their comment and refrain from uncivil behaviour. Wikipedia:UNCIVIL

Horrible attempt at Wikipedia:GAMING. Try again. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with what Rahdar Danesh said. "AF" doesn't add anything to the discussion and I wouldn't want to see it in this discussion. Previous discussion in this talk also should that you tend to use inflammatory language while discussing. If you want to have a productive discussion then please be more civil. Also I have noticed that you often try to anger the person who you are arguing with instead of trying to convince them which is a bad strategy e.g "try again"..--SharabSalam (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

If that really was the case I would have been warned by the same admin who warned you 2 times in a row for uncivil behaviour in this talk page alone. "AF" is a innocent word, with no significant meaning. Now please stop harassing me (and once again, keep the accusations for yourself please), thanks. Next time I'll file a report for your tendency to badger other users. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

"AF" is widely used and known as an acronym of profanity. What other meaning does it have? It is not meaningless and no one sees it as innocent. Wiki policies clearly ask users to avoid profanity in unencyclopedic discussions as it is uncivil. Since the user has refused withdrawing their comment and attacked others who just pointed that out, it is time for admins and the community to intervene. Rahdar Danesh (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

LOL. That's all I have to say. You'll have to target someone else, since I'm done here, good day. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The user should have ceased adding to this thread long time ago. It is time for the admins and community to take action against the unapologetic profanity and incivility. Otherwise it will set precedence for others to do the same. Rahdar Danesh (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The two sentence paragraph (bad writing right there!) in the lede is highly critical of a political system from human rights point of view. While human rights organizations such as Amnesty International have reports of abuses on almost every single country on earth , the paragraph in the lede singles out specific reports of human right violations in one country to characterize its political system. If the state is being characterized "only" by its criticism in the lede, that is against NPOV. The sourced content was added to prevent the lede from assuming "only" critical tone to the political system. The major claim of this particular political system is independence. True and full independence is rare in the region in which it exists. That is represented by absence of hosted foreign bases and amounts of external debt. These are not random or irrelevant issues, they very well characterize independence and exercise of sovereignty. There is doubt about whether there has ever been consensus of any sort on having a fully and only critical tone in the lede towards any political system. Rahdar Danesh (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The lead is meant to sum up the article in a way that is representative of the main stream and scholarly consensus. We do not engage in WP:FALSEBALANCE. That's not how we reach neutrality on Wikipedia. El_C 00:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

What is false about mentioning unique and rare exercise of sovereignty about a country? Rahdar Danesh (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

It's fails to maintain a neutral tone — it's promotional. El_C 00:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The tone is already failed being neutral in the political system paragraph (if one could call it a paragraph at all). Bringing up human rights issue, yet dismissing independence as random and promotional is a pick and choose strategy. Rahdar Danesh (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Even if that were true, WP:FALSEBALANCE is not the answer. El_C 04:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The added materials were not view points. Presence or absence of foreign bases is an objective reality. The amount of external debt is a measured quantifiable variable. These were sourced materials. Whatever conclusions one makes from these facts are subjective, but these facts themselves are sourced and objective. They are relevant because they provide insight into the character of a political system. A political system is brought up in the lede (with very little precedence, compared to other countries wiki pages and other languages for this same country), and is misrepresented by cherry-picked facts. If a system is presented by only portion of its characteristics, that is a biased and incomplete, then there should be facts provided to present a full representation. Here is an example: A and B are fighting, and you just take a picture of A hitting B and upload it to wikipedia and say "A hits people". Then someone provides a picture of B hitting A and uploads to the same wiki article. Is that false balance? Or just showing what truly happened? If one provides a video from when A and B met until the end, that is full representation. That video should supercede the pictures, because it captures all of the encounter. That's not false balance or any type of balance, it is just what truly happened. Rahdar Danesh (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

That's why I said parts of it could maybe be retained. But, as a whole, it is your synthesis and, unless you demonstrate mainstream and scholarly consensus for the view, also represents undue weight. As for your A-B example, I find to be longwinded and confusing. Please aim at condensing, and you should probably avoid offtopic abstractions. El_C 01:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

References

"An historically"

In the intro copy, please can someone with editing priveleges change 'An historically' to 'A historically'? The 'h' of 'history' and its derivative words is voiced in almost all English dialects (except perhaps in Jamaican English), thus there's no need to use 'an', which precedes vowel sounds. Thanks. 148.64.29.61 (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2019

this national anthem you have upload is the old version. there is new version of this: (http://anthemworld.com/Iran.html) Sivilwar (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Please make your request for a new song to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. - Frood (talk!) 19:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

UPPER HOUSe

upper house is incorrect and should be changed to Assembly of Experts 5.75.35.220 (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

1st Picture in Prehistory section

The 1st picture in the Prehistory section is most likely erroneous (fake news), because "horses first were ridden approximately 3500 BC", see Equestrianism. The given source for the name of the picture itself (File:Cave painting in Doushe cave, Lorstan, Iran, 8th millennium BC.JPG) in Iran#History seems to be truely false! Please correct the many wrong allusions to 8th century BCE - even in the name of the picture file itself! Secondary sites copy the error already, see: [24] Thank you --88.130.123.3 (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Name of the country

Saying that Iran is "also called Persia" is misleading. The name of the country was effectively changed decades ago and I'm guessing that no one in the U.S., or other English-speaking countries refers to it as "Persia" other than to be pedantic or to try to make some political point. It would be like referring to the chief city of Turkey as Constantinople instead of Istanbul. It was "Iran" that was a founding country of the United Nations, not Persia. The Associated Press stylebook says it is Iran, not Persia. The entry should read that it was "formerly called Persia," not "also called Persia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tschurin (talk • contribs) 03:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, the real name is Jomhuri-ye Eslāmi-ye Irān. Not sure why we should demand that countries go by our names. O3000 (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Data on Baha'is inaccurate and badly sourced.

"Bahais constitute only about 0.37% of Iran, namely about 25.000 to 40.000 people, and it is also said that there does seem to be a kind of exaggeration in declaration of their population by the order of Bahais heads."

Besides being a grammatical mess, these claims lack legitimacy. The actual numbers of Bahais are unknown in Iran, as the religion is banned. No valid source exists, not among the government nor the faiths leadership which was banned decades ago. The faiths national leadership complied with the governments order to cease national administration and has no records from which to make a claim.

From the 2 citations for the claim, one is a dead end link, and the other is essentially Iranian government propaganda claiming Bahais are zionist spies and that they deserve no human rights. It's not a reasonable source, and the claims in the source contraviene international consensus. This article should have this sentence removed and the invalid sourcing taken out as it fails to meet any reasonable standard. I lack privileges to edit this article.

Sweatshopking (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)sweatshopking

The description/dating of the Doushe cave painting picture is off

No way somebody would ride a domesticated horse like that, gear and all, in the 8th millenium BC. The domestication of the horse is estabilished to have happened around the 4-5th millenium BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.2 (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Move Request

Can someone move (change) the name of this article to “Iran (Persia)” so that there is no confusion between Iran and Iraq. Also if people search for Persia they could see this page. WikiPersianPedia (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

If someone searches for Persia they will be redirected to this article. Concern about possible confusion with Iraq seems unwarranted; "also called Persia" appears early in this article's first sentence. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Narrow insight

Article says dissatiafaction against monarchy resulted in revolution where IRL people were fooled to believe they are to revolt to rescue islam. Also Iraq-Iran war was fought in iraq not in iran — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.22.50.242 (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Revert request

We request that the latest edit by “Taxydromeio” gets reverted it promotes unnecessary false information. The name “Persia” isn’t a historical name. In 1959, the government of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, Reza Shah Pahlavi's son, announced that both "Persia" and "Iran" could officially be used interchangeably. EuropeanUnionCoorporation (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@EuropeanUnionCoorporation: Who is "we"? JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2020

The earliest reference to the word Persia comes in Mahabharata. The actual Sanskrit word is Parsik, from which Persia is derived. Parsik means Vedic priests or students of Veda. Therefore most Parsi who ran from Iran to protect themselves from Islamic invasion are called Parsi in India, Sattology is a newly invented term by Aditya Satsangi meaning Science of Truth. Sat in Sanskrit Means Truth. Logy comes from Logos meaning a science or study. 02:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sattology1008 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Please also see WP:V. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Form of Government

The form of government is wrong, it's like the Iranian Constitution said. Also americans are discriminating against Iran by their "General Sanctions". This is abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.188.240.222 (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The thing about the constitution outlining the form of government, though, is that you can't always trust the de jure definition. In other words, you cannot trust governments to tell you about themselves. As is often said about the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, it is not democratic, it is not populist, it is not republican, and it doesn't control all of Korea.RaiBrown1204 (talk) 07:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2020

Assembly of Expediency is Iran's upperhouse. 5.219.80.156 (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GoingBatty (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Sports section states 2/3 population are under age 25, likely incorrect

According to CIA world factbook, the median age is ~31. Skyshock21 (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, what you have provided doesn't necessarily entail the sports section statement is incorrect. ParthikS8 (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word) has been relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Bookku (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

Tahafahimdanesh (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2020

Under different ethnicities in Iran, Gilaks should be added. They are an important ethnic group in Iran and have their own language. Soli. S. (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This article already contains references to Gilaks under language and ethnicity. Can you confirm where else edits need to be made? Darren-M talk 20:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Remove "de facto" government form

Iran is, de facto as well as de jure, a "Unitary Khomeinist presidential Islamic republic." It is unitary and not federal; its state ideology is Khomeinism; it is a presidential republic; it is an Islamic republic.

Is it also a "Unitary theocratic-republican authoritarian presidential republic subject to a Supreme Leader"? Yes. But the supposed de facto definition and de jure definition are actually almost identical:

• "Unitary" and "presidential republic" are shared
• "Theocratic" corresponds to "Islamic"
• "Subject to a Supreme Leader" corresponds to "Khomeinist"

So the only reason we have both de facto and de jure definitions is to have that word "authoritarian" in there (note also the three citations in the lead following that word), presumably to discredit the legitimacy of the Iranian government. No other country, even ones significantly more authoritarian than Iran, have that word in their country template:

• North Korea is a "unitary one-party socialist republic"
• Turkmenistan is a "unitary presidential secular republic"
• Eritrea is a "unitary one-party presidential republic"
• Saudi Arabia is a "unitary Islamic absolute monarchy"

All four states above are significantly more authoritarian than Iran, yet none of them are called "authoritarian" in their country template.

I suggest that we remove the de facto definition entirely, because IMO it's a clear case of WP:POV.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@"El-C":STOP edit-warring immediately or else!2A02:120B:2C26:79C0:4E3C:16FF:FE2A:C48E (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

legislature

iran is evidently not unicameral @Pahlevun:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran&oldid=970036532 Baratiiman (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Baratiiman: What is the evidence then? Pahlevun (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, evidently implies there is evidence. El_C 09:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• @El C:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran&oldid=970036532 Baratiiman (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Baratiiman: Tertiary sources like Encyclopædia Britannica [25] recognize Iran as unicameral. Pahlevun (talk) 09:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what Baratiiman's Wikipedia url above is supposed to show, but at any rate, WP:CIRCULAR applies. El_C 09:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• @El C: ok then you have to translate the source. Expediency council is equal to senate source number 1 can do anything senate can source number 2 expediency council has become a 2nd guardian council source number 3 and source number 4

No, I don't. The WP:BURDEN is on you to demonstrate these are reliable sources. El_C 09:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• i say pahlevun is editing wiki in bad faithBaratiiman (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I say that is an aspersion, which you must cease from, or you may be sanctioned, per the Post-1978 Iranian politics General Sanctions. El_C 09:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Baratiiman: All the links you provided quote excerpts of a television interview with Hashemi Shahroudi, in which he opines that Expediency Discernment Council acts like a senate (and your fourth link is actually another commentary which gives a thumbs-down to that opinion). Interviews generally count as primary sources, and you will find contradicting sources for them like your own fourth link. So, please provide a WP:RS, or else do not challenge established facts supported by academic sources. Pahlevun (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Baratiiman: To see the prevailing academic view please read Legislature of Iran. Pahlevun (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• how many camerals is this In case that the Parliament and the Council dispute over a blocked bill and refuse to accept positions by each other, the bill is submitted to the Expediency Discernment Council of the System, set up to resolve the conflicts.[1]" from the page you linked.Baratiiman (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• @El C:@Pahlevun:sorry but i think you should undo your edit Any bill passed by the Majlis must be reviewed and approved by the Guardian Council[17][18] to become law

The Expediency Discernment Council can advise the faghih on policy and strategy (in accordance to article 111 of the Constitution), and despite not being part of the legislative branch, it can remove parliamentary powers. As an example of this, in April 2000 it removed from parliamentary capacity the faculty to investigate institutions under the control of the Supreme Leader, such as the Pasdaran and the Council of the Guardians. In practice, its composition almost guarantees its rulings mirror the legal opinion the Guardian Council, and more importantly, the Supreme Leader's. Being dominated by conservative ulama, this has furthered the faction's grip over Iran.[10][11] this is all text from both councils articles Baratiiman (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Baratiiman: Nowhere in that source says such thing. It is directly mentioning unicameralism, very crystal clear: "The unicameral legislature is the 290-member Islamic Consultative Assembly (Majles-e Shūrā-ye Eslāmī), known simply as the Majles." I think I have explained enough. Please either provide a source that says otherwise –akin to what I showed you– or I will consider this discussion brought to an end. Thank you. Pahlevun (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• @El C:@Pahlevun:it is crystal clear: . The bill was passed with a vote of 136 in favor, 57 against, and 13 abstentions, and it must win approval from the Guardians Council. https://web.archive.org/web/20061101092818/http://www.rferl.org/newsline/2006/10/031006.asp#donato-if:~:text=bill%20was Baratiiman (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• @El C:@Pahlevun: i am going to undo your edit based on this page i found sometime later https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Iran's-second-chamber-The-guardian-council-Naini/18e1b154d2c0052f1071eeaa598348282209b600
• and also this page https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13572330600739512?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=fjls20 Baratiiman (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Baratiiman: Please quote where the sources explicitly say Iran is not unicameral, or is bicameral for example. Pahlevun (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• it has written guardian council irans second chamber in its titleBaratiiman (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

request edit semi protected extended

add this to legislature national budget https://en.radiofarda.com/a/khamenei-circumvents-parliament-to-get-controversial-budget-bill-approved/30466677.html

Baratiiman (talk) 07:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Locked for new users

I created a new wikipedia account recently and I'd like to know why the article is locked and how I can access it. I am iranian and have a lot of knowledge about Iran (more than a lot of the users here) and would love to contribute to this article. I do not want to remove anything from the article, I just want to add onto it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinoob2939 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Wikinoob2939, it's because in the past, new users and anonymous users (IP addresses) liked to vandalize this article and so it was protected to stop that. You can edit this page when you meet the requirements (500 edits and 30 days). In the meantime, you can make edit requests.--Danre98 (alt) (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Pinging User:Wikinoob2939--Danre98 (alt) (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit extended-protected

Two factual issues with the following statement in section 7.3 Religion: "But the Bahá'í Faith, which is said to be the largest non-Muslim religious minority in Iran[418] is not officially recognized, and has been persecuted during its existence in Iran since the 19th century, while according to statistics center of Iran, Bahais constitute only about 0.37% of Iran, namely about 25.000 to 40.000 people, and it is also said that there does seem to be a kind of exaggeration in declaration of their population by the order of Bahais heads.[419][420]"

Firstly the two linked references [419] and [420] refer to pro-government sources that are highly biased and support the government's persecution of Baha'is, which has repeatedly manifested itself in the intentional under-reporting the number of Baha'is within the country. There is no impartial evidence to suggest an "exaggeration in declaration of their population by the order of Bahais [sic] head".

Secondly, more trusted sources place the number of Baha'is livng in Iran as being significantly higher than Iranian governments estimates:

1. United States Commission on International Religious Freedom places the figure at "Over 300,000"

2. United Nations report on the Situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran estimates the number at "350,000" (page 13/23)

Both sources agree that the Baha'i Faith is the "largest non-Muslim religious minority in Iran"

Please change the statement to: "While not officially recognized by the Iranian government, the Baha'i Faith is considered to be the largest non-Muslim religious minority in Iran, with an estimated 300,000 - 350,000 believers . Members of the Baha'i Faith in Iran have been repeatedly subjected to "persecution and victimization" by the Iranian government, and more than 200 Baha’is have been executed since 1979, solely on the basis of their religious beliefs. Many more have been subjected to varying degrees of human rights abuses. "

References

--WikiEditT96 (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

heads of government

• add head of assembly of expert and head of council for expediencies

like this version in 2008

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran&diff=243145796&oldid=243145594
• and this Image
• https://majlismonitor.com/en/2016/01/what-is-the-assembly-of-experts/
• and then add the 2 councils to legislature
• https://english.khamenei.ir/news/5072/What-are-statuses-and-duties-of-the-Expediency-Council-in-the
• https://irandataportal.syr.edu/political-institutions/the-expediency-council#post-9851:~:text=%2C%20it%20may%20function%20as%20a%20legislative%20body%20in%20the%20following%20manner
• http://www.iranonline.com/iran/government/government-branches/islamic-republic-of-iran-expediency-discernment-council-of-the-system/
• https://majlismonitor.com/en/2015/12/how-does-irans-parliament-work/
• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00263206.2019.1585346#_i4:~:text=Over%20the%201980s%2C%20laws%20and%20bills,of%20an%20unelected%20upper%20chamber%20(

Baratiiman (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. These positions are not generally included on country-level articles. They may be appropriate on the respective articles about the Iranian legislature. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit request foreign relations

add this picture to foreign relations File:Isfahani tie given to swiss foreign minister21.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baratiiman (talk • contribs) 12:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Change Religion Demographics to Resemble New Data

Religion should change as per below to resemble more close to reality stats from recent survey from Gamaan.org pdf

Iran Religions

32.2%	Shi'a Islam
5%	Sunni Islam
8.8%	Atheist
7.7%	Zoroastrian
7.1%	Spiritual
5.8%	Agnostic
22.2%	No Religion

No, it shouldn't. gamaan.org is not a reliable source for such information. Pahlevun (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

By the way, this is pretty laughable that in this "reality stats" there are no Christians, Jews or Bahais, while Zoroastrians are more than Sunnis. Pahlevun (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Gamman.org is a reliable source. You can check its credentials from the link provided. Its methods of surveying is transparent and reliable

99% Muslim (which is currently stated on the wiki page) is far from reality. This figure is propagated by mullah propaganda as "official" to
suite mullah purposes by ignoring realities on the ground.

For religion Iran page should either say "no reliable stats available" or state the best available statistics (which is the one from Gamman)

Check out the pdf; Christians, Jews and Bahais are also included. They have always been a very small proportion of Iranian population
In regards to Zoroastrianism, there has been a big surge in conversions from Islam in recent years
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindbad behzad (talk • contribs) 23:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Gamman.org is a website that conducts online surveys. Their social media snowball sampling and self-reports are nor scientific nor valid. Unless you provide a WP:RS, no change should be made in those numbers. Pahlevun (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• 50k people where surveyed 40k inside Iran and this is supported by Utrecht University in NL, Professor something from turkey,Patrick Loobuyck which are legit scholars not Wikipedia editors.

https://twitter.com/UtrechtUni/status/1304384323286638592 https://twitter.com/timurkuran/status/1304282401145847809 Baratiiman (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Tweeter posts are not reliable sources. You need a peer-reviewed source to back it. Pahlevun (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

https://iranintl.com/%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86/%D9%86%D8%AA%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%AC-%DB%8C%DA%A9-%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%B1%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%AC%DB%8C-%D9%86%DB%8C%D9%85%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%B9%D9%87-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D8%AF%DB%8C%D9%86%E2%80%8C%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%A8%DB%8C%E2%80%8C%D8%AF%DB%8C%D9%86%DB%8C-%D8%B1%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8%AF%D9%87%E2%80%8C%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AF

• http://theconversation.com/irans-secular-shift-new-survey-reveals-huge-changes-in-religious-beliefs-145253

Baratiiman (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

None of those sources are peer-reviewed. Pahlevun (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

So are you claiming the 99% Muslim figure currently shown on the page is peer reviewed? As I said before the 99% figure is rubbish anyways so the main article either have to say no reliable data available or opt for the best data which is the one from Gamman. Its a no brainer! Just cite the reference. This is Wikipedia! --Sindbad behzad (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In the lead, is it possible to add "a country located on the Iranian plateau in Western Asia"?2603:8081:160A:BE2A:B1DE:5BA6:F09F:B7AE (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: In the Iranian Plateau article we are told that the plateau "encompasses the greater part of Iran, all of Afghanistan and Pakistan west of the Indus River". So it would be incorrect to indicate that the entire country of Iran is located on the Iranian Plateau. Thank you for your interest! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

PS. Reference to the Iranian Plateau has been added to the middle of the lead paragraph. We'll see what other editors think about it. Again, thanks! (PS added by P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC))

Editing the article

Hello friends, I am Iranian, you think very badly about Iran, I ask you to re-edit this article based on real information. We Iranians have given women a lot of freedom and a lot of value that can not be found anywhere in the world. Nynavid (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I think if you make 500 edits of other articles (for example in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Iran) then after a month you will be able to edit this article. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Mehmoonifinal2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Removal of info and vague explanation

@Power~enwiki: I didn't realize the user was referring to something in the text, I thought he was referring to the sources, as in they 'suffered from deppresion'. Sure I could done more research, but still, the edit summary wasn't exactly the most clear one. Could you please be willing to explain why the content seems dubious? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The following content is disputed: Inappropriate situation of Iranian soldiers has caused violent incidents in recent years.[299][300] Most of Iranian soldiers suffer from depression.[301][302] In addition, some researches have reported high rate of suicide among Iranian conscripts.[303][304][305] There are obvious copy-editing problems. I don't see any good evidence for "high rate of suicide" in the sources given, and am not sure why this detail needs to be in this article anyhow. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: there are 3 sentences here. For "violent incidents", we have an example of one violent incident, and an article about a "rising suicide rate". Sure, there have been violent incidents, but it doesn't prove that it's common or relevant to this article. For the suicide rate being high, (former) ref 303 [26] says that it is lower than other militaries, and 12 per 100k compared to 9 per 100k for civilians. Again, technically true that it is higher than civilians, but not notably high. I think there's too much WP:SYNTH and insinuation in these sentences to include them in this article, which is about the country of Iran, not mental health in the armed forces. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I tried the best about to explain in that short edit summary, why I removed content. Content and labels (as "Most of Iranian soldiers suffer from depression" that "most" is one serious claim and " high rate of suicide among Iranian conscripts") is highly dubious and seems someone made there original research and WP:SYNTH. Also this is one general country overview article. I acted in a good faith, without any bad intention, just about what I noticed and being bold. And I stand with my actions. I am sorry if I made some confusion. Nubia86 (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I removed the following content what is added without relevant explanation: "The Iranian government's officially stated goal is to establish a new world order based on world peace, global collective security and justice" Supported by references from Press TV. Considering WP:NOT policies especially WP:ADVOCACY and WP:SOAPBOX, wish lists, advocacy, soapbox content, this time on the side of the Iranian government also not supported by independent notable and relevant sources (and not confirmed by secondary sources what can approve that as the real policy), is not content for this place. That subsection already seems pretty balanced. Nubia86 (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. In your opinion, can we edit WP according to this source ?Timetravel12 (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Please this is not a forum or a personal blog. Nubia86 (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

To be honest it is a TEST to see if you are a FRAUD!... Timetravel12 (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

See above reputable source entirely and see its WP article! (See for yourself who controls the WP encyclopedia "anyone can edit"?) or the "encyclopedia anyone can EXIT" (once they know about truth -verified by reputable multiple and very reliable sources (N. S. A itself).. Timetravel12 (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Please, you called me a fraud, why? I am sorry I really don't understand, who controls what? About the Wikipedia? What truth? Please you have to understand I just follow neutrality policies, policies about the Wikipedia is not a place for any propaganda and advocacy, wish lists etc. We here make edits by encyclopedic value of content, report notable events, facts, researches, studies, etc. In a way of NPOV policies and with verifiable and relevant sources perfectly with secondary sources. In general that subsection about foreign relations is neutral, it says about everything. It says much, policies since 1979, covers international org. participation etc. I just checked article about Russia and how foreign relations subsection is made there, no words about "official" policies, self proclaimed things etc. Just short facts about some main things as it is here and as it should be. Nubia86 (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The "truth" refers to the above linked documentary. It is clearly marked and you play "stupid" by pretending you don't understand which brings into question "good faith" editing. It was a litmus test to see what your REAL agenda was and I think you revealed yourself completely in writing....I let others judge for themselves but ONLY after reviewing the above documentary by Al-Jazeera three times and reading and editing its corresponding WP article, including the reporting of National Security Agency personel who witnessed the incident firsthand and the Israeli recordings during the attacks on this unarmed -clearly US flagged- military vessel. Again it seems the advocacy is solely YOURS here... you seems to have a hidden agenda to depict Iran in an aggressive manner. We (general editors) at WP should aim for truth/fact neutrality and verifiability (Please see WP editing guidelines). The sentence your secret handlers have decided to remove (regarding foreign policy) seems to confirm that. It is a long standing sentence that was sitting there for YEARS until you got your instructions from God knows where (Israeli MoFA?). And stop bringing Presstv as an issue and it is only an official reported statement as can be seen also on (U.S.) ABC's website for example and contrary to your belief, official statements are an essential component in determining the policies of countries.172.58.236.65 (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I think what your Fake-Jewish "handlers" (I use "fake" as a way to distinguish criminals from regular majority Jews) are much afraid of the ideas and policies that will bring World Peace and justice, namely GOLBAL COLLECTIVE SECURITY (as reported in this article and other articles on Wikipedia). I am neutral. Why? Because it will end ALL wars immediately, and the United States (& all United Nations members, including ALL other permanent security council members) could agree- (I know many in the US air force veterans who agree), by making wars technically IMPOSSIBLE to win. That is what your handlers in Israel don't want people to see on WP, as reported by "reliable sources"! (and this NOT a matter of advocacy but TREASON & in Federal Courts PROVEN HIGH CRIMES against US citizens at large and all citizens on earth and very active and secret CENSORSHIP. Timetravel12 (talk)|

Please stop. That what you doing are just personal attacks on me. You use Wikipedia as a blog, soapbox and advocacy platform and that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Nubia86 (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Timetravel12: At best, which is what I hope you are, you are overly idealistic and possibly suffering from anxiety issues, to which I can relate. As long as there is a finite quantity of resources, and people who want stuff for themselves, there will be war. Also, unless there is a Wikipedia policy I'm missing, I don't think Wikipedia litmus tests are policy or guideline. So please stop. 4D4850 (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

LoL (2X) Timetravel12 (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Timetravel12: At this point, I'm just utterly confused about your goals and motives for editing Wikipedia. Also, if you didn't know, there's a discussion on WP:ANI concerning you, in case you didn't get the talk page message. 4D4850 (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Miniator hotel shah abbas deevar.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In the intro, please mention that “the greater part of Iran is located on the Iranian peninsula” as this is geographical.2603:8081:160A:BE2A:65A5:3DF2:996D:76B0 (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. What's the Iranian Peninsula? There's no article on it at Wikipedia. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 11:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment: they probably meant to say the Iranian plateau. Easy mistake for a non-native English speaker to make (or even a native English speaker for that matter - Arabian Peninsula and Iranian Plateau both are mentioned often enough, and are right across the Persian Gulf from one another, so flipping them is a likely occurrence). Firejuggler86 (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Please assist with new article about leaked Zarif audiotape

Leaked Mohammad Javad Zarif audiotape Thank you The Kingfisher (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2021

فارسی

2A01:5EC0:B803:A1AF:1:0:C440:F7BF (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◎ | melecie | t 14:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The Ukraine plane

English is not my first language so please bare with me. I react on the last part of this segment: «On 3 January 2020, the revolutionary guard's general, Qasem Soleimani, was assassinated by the United States in Iraq, which considerably heightened the existing tensions between the two countries.[185] Three days after, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launched a retaliatory attack on US forces in Iraq and shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, killing 176 civilians and leading to nation-wide protests. An international investigation led to the government admitting to the shootdown of the plane by a surface-to-air missile after three days of denial, calling it a "human error".» I looks like wikipedia is trying to make a connection between the accident with the Ukraine airplane and Soleimanis death. The possible "opinion" or "assumption" that this was done as an act of revenge is new to me. It should be written in a different way.--Ezzex (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Clear politicised anti-Islamic Republic

Why the Islamic Republic part of this page is a list of every protests - small or big - that happened in Iran? Isn't there anything happening in Iran? No JCPoA, no other things, Only protests? Maybe it's better we name it Islamic Republic of Protests! P. Pajouhesh (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree! We should add more things. There is clearly a bias going on here. More things need to be added to keep it neutral. GucciNuzayer (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2021

Currently the lede says the Achaemenid was the "world's first superpower". While I don't necessarily disagree, there's no universal agreement on what a superpower even is, let alone who was first. The superpower article outlines the issue pretty well, but in short the term was originally used to describe the US/Soviet Union, so arguably these are the first true superpowers. The term has since been used retroactively to describe the British Empire, Roman Empire, or Achaemenid all as the "first". As such, I think it best we qualify the claim with "has been described as the world's first superpower". 2600:8800:2396:4600:E0AC:8324:6E99:345F (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Overemphasis on Western Asia term

Hi @LouisAragon: Your explanation for your recent revert was not clear, so in line with WP:BRD best practice, I'd like to discuss it here.

My perspective is that only defining Iran in terms of Western Asia (a novel term) and not the Middle East (the older, more natural term for readers) is applying WP:UNDUE weight. The entire article is framed in terms of the Middle East, not Western Asia. The opening text is meant to summarise the information on the page (WP:SUMMARY), and given that Western Asia is not mentioned again, the use of this term could more readily be considered an WP:UNDUE weighting. On the other hand, using both terms is providing a balanced weighting. What is your alternative perspective? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi there Iskandar323,

• "My perspective is that only defining Iran in terms of Western Asia (a novel term) and not the Middle East (the older, more natural term for readers) is applying WP:UNDUE weight."

The usage of "Middle East" in relation to the country is already mentioned literally two sentences further: "Iran covers an area of 1,648,195 km2 (636,372 sq mi), with a population of 83 million. It is the second-largest country in the Middle East, the sixth-largest entirely in Asia, and its capital and largest city is Tehran. "

It would constitute undue weight if we were to link and mention "Middle East" two times within the same lede (and same alinea even). Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

If that is your only objection then it is readily solved by removing the second mention, as I have demonstrated. This works quite readily here, because Iran is both the second largest country in the Middle East and Western Asia, as the first is Saudi Arabia in both. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I find the inclusion irrelevant - Iran also borders the Caucasus and probably other areas. Haven't seen this type of inclusion in other country related articles either, such as France and Spain. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand your response here. You are talking about the inclusion of what exactly? Iskandar323 (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh right, I meant the 'easternmost country in the Middle East' bit. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

What consensus required to state that Iran is the Middle East? You could have removed 'easternmost' without reverting the other material, which was all factually accurate and true. I want to know what your real reason is for this objection. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, restored your other edit regarding Saudi Arabia, didnt see it. The Middle East is already mentioned, no need to put in the lede along with Western Asia per WP:UNDUE and the fact that regions are not on par with continents in country articles as far as I know. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

First, my edit had already removed the second mention of the Middle East, so it was consistent with, and not in violation of, what you are terming WP:UNDUE. Secondly, both Middle East and Western Asia are competing terms for the same sub-region of Asia. Neither is a continent. I merely mentioned both for clarity. As it stands, the summary frames Iran's location in terms of Western Asia, and its size (also geographical) in terms of the Middle East. Why don't you say what its size is relative to Western Asia if you think that the more important geographical term? If you are viewing the Middle East as the cultural or geopolitical term, mention it as such, and portray the geography with respect to Western Asia. My version solved both, as it weighted both terms equally, and conveniently, in this instance, it is the second largest country in both regional terms relative to Saudi Arabia, so it was an elegant fix. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Ops, meant subcontinent*. The Middle East is indeed more of a geo-political term, whereas Western Asia is more a purely geographic term - hence why they shouldn't be in the same sentence like that imo. I did restore the Saudi Arabia bit. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2021

I was wondering if I could edit specific areas of this article mentioning the Mongol invasion of Iran. Accurate information pertaining to the scale of the Mongol invasion is something I want to shed light on. Iran and it's vicinity faced amongst other regions Mongol invasions and naturally many chroniclers exaggerated the level of massacres. I'd like to make additions in this regard and bring nuance to this issue using sources already cited and perhaps adding authentic ones to further bolster my addition to this article. You will find my additional comments meaningful and worth publishing. Thanks for reading this request. 2607:FEA8:4EE0:FFB0:B956:76C1:11FE:7F1A (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2021

I just wanted to add new comments and information based on citations already present as well as adding new Encyclopedia Britannica and Encyclopedia Iranica citations to shed light upon the Mongol invasions into Iran. Kindly allow me to make these small additions. David.Schwartz056 (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2021

I wanted to make some additions to the part of this article which talked about the effects of the Mongol invasion of Iran. First of, the invasions were mostly in the North-Eastern parts (in particular: Neyshapur City/Town). Moreover the rest of the Iranian plateau didn't face any large scale warfare or witness any massacre. Stephen R. Ward's book doesn't provide good citations in the regards of Mongol's killing 3/4th's of the plateau's populations. Accounts such as these were popularized in the aftermath of the Mongol invasions by Muslim chroniclers with an un-academic anti-Mongol bent, however they were never anthropologically backed up. I'd like to cite my source for this addition: https://www.britannica.com/place/Iran/The-Mongol-invasion . Indeed the bulk of the fighting in the Khwarazmian empire didn't occur in Iran, but in the historic Khorasan region (mostly in Central Asia, but constitutes a small part of North-East) Iran. David.Schwartz056 (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, but Britannica is not WP:RS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2021

In the History section of this article, please change Iran to Persia everywhere, as Iran means just the present day Iran bordered on the East by Afghanistan and Pakistan and on the West by Iraq and Turkey (Persia - at least according to people who are not from Iran - was much bigger, extending from the River Indus in the East, to Alexandria and Serbia in the West).

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Arabeyes up for deletion

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Arabeyes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Open source publisher trying to aid Arab language users with their computers etc. It was established in early 2001 by a number of Arab Linux enthusiasts. Trying to find sources is hampered by the presumed language of sources. It is a systemic bias in Wikipedia. Arabic language speakers needed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Merging Hatnotes

Can I merge:

"Persia" redirects here. For other uses, see Iran (disambiguation) and Persia (disambiguation).

Not to be confused with Persis.

Into:

"Persia" redirects here. For other uses, see Iran (disambiguation) and Persia (disambiguation). It is not to be confused with Persis.

Faster than Thunder (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that's fine.--Coolcaesar (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The meaning of Iran

It is important to note the meaning of Iran; means "the land of Aryans"

I agree. That makes two of us. (By the way, why you don't put your signature at the end?) AMShfaiee (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2022

Change عِظْمَت (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2022 (2)

Change عِظْمَت (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2022 (3)

Change GDP (Nominal) $611 billion 2020 estimate to GDP (Nominal) $1.14 trillion 2022 estimate https://www.imf.org/en/Countries/IRN#countrydata عِظْمَت (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2022 (4)

Please Change GDP (Nominal) $611 billion 2020 estimate to GDP (Nominal) $1.14 trillion 2022 estimate https://www.imf.org/en/Countries/IRN#countrydata عِظْمَت (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: That's ppp not nominal. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2022 (5)

This article has wrong and old info, changes must be applied to this article عِظْمَت (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: عِظْمَت now has edited the page. I initially reverted their edits but then when I generated this report from October 2021 IMF database, I saw the following numbers:

Gross domestic product, current prices(U.S. dollars, Billions): 1,081.383 in 2021(835.351 in 2020 and 581.252 in 2019)

Gross domestic product, current prices(Purchasing power parity; international dollars, Billions): 1,189.149 in 2021(1,120.206 in 2020 and 1,070.593 in 2019)

so I self reverted my revert. what do you think?Premitive (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't really have strong feelings one way or the other, and don't know enough about economics to say anything with surety. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Same with me. so I just leave it be this way till someone else decide.Premitive (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I will note that I did remove some of their edit requests per WP:NOTAFORUM, like this, so I don't have high confidence in their edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

They have also edited Saudi Arabia's GDP according to the same fields in October 2021 IMF database.Premitive (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

GDP nominal/PPP

Both statistics of Iran's GDP in 2022 aren't right according to this IMF-link: IMF database Dennis1989 (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Current GDP statistics are based on IMF's October 2021 Database which is the latest release of IMF's Database. The link you provided is based on IMF's April 2021 release. for IMF's October 2021 Database see here.Premitive (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Redirects.

I honestly think Persia shouldn’t redirect here, yes some people call it that, but it’s (Islamic Republic of Iran) never actually been called Persia. The preceding government, however, has been called Persia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coco the Dawg (talk • contribs) 05:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

High income

According to the new 2022 GDP per capital income then Iran is a high income economy since its per capital income by both nominal and PPP exceed 13,000$ Nlivataye (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2022

The language is Farsi and not Persian 2601:283:4401:EE70:177:F43:D87B:58C6 (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2022

Change lower-middle to upper-middle income country as per citation 2A02:A420:15:549D:2:2:5DE4:C9F9 (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Happy Editing--IAmChaos 16:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

 Undone: This request has been undone. Per the source [27] Income level: Lower middle income ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

"theocratic government"

Could i ask what is the Iranian source for this? CIA world factbook? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsunet (talk • contribs) 18:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit request

In the intro, could one please add “Located mostly on the Iranian plateau”. Although not all of Iran is on the plateau, the vast majority of the country is.2600:100C:A211:C03B:E82D:16EF:EF19:D417 (talk) 06:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 04:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Map is incorrect.

PoK is a part of the Republic of India It should not have been shown as part of Pakistan. 2409:4042:4C06:7C76:0:0:4DCB:4201 (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Per capital income

Iran is still described as lower middle income economy when in its intro it’s per capital income is 20,000$ Are wikipedians serious??? 41.59.51.195 (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Most-driven cars in Iran

Popular cars in Iran are "Peugeot Pars", "Peugeot 405 GLX" (they look similar, but the former has some additional features such as thermometer), Peugeot 206, Saba Saipa / Kia Pride, and Iran Khodro. Source: https://www.ra.camcom.gov.it/eurosportello/allegati-pina-newsletter/iran-automotive "There are also several official and semi-official representatives in Tehran, including companies like Arian Motor (Mitsubishi), Persia Khodro (BMW), Setareh Iran (Mercedes-Benz) and others who continue to maintain several brands." https://livingintehran.com/2019/09/01/where-to-buy-a-car-in-iran/

I can't edit the article and I don't even know where to add it, so I am mentioning it here in case some other user feels like adding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metro Siberia (talk • contribs) 20:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Use of Persia in the first sentence of the article

--> This element in the first part of the article has no use. It should be removed. It is an obsolete term. At the very least it should be noted that it is historically known as Persia.

• "This element in the first part of the article has no use."

According to? WP:RS sources in the article disagree.

• "It should be removed. It is an obsolete term. At the very least it should be noted that it is historically known as Persia."

According to? WP:RS Sources in the article disagree.

- LouisAragon (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

incorrect gdp per capita

Iran GDP and GDP per capita are incorrect, because Iran government does not tell real USD to IRR change rate officially and its not updated since 4 years ago there was a super-inflection in iran at this period(800%) they just have gathered the stuff price in IRR and converted it by official IRR to USD rate (outdated and impossible to find) and they gained 22000$ GDP per capita while in fact its 8x less because there is 8x difference between real IRR to USD and official one in real life as i see the gdp per capita is some where beetwen 2000 to 3000$ and not 22000$ , any other iranian could confirm that change rate is not (1usd=42000 rials) and its (1usd=320000 rials) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.57.57.136 (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected

In the intro, can one please mention that the majority of Iran is on the Iranian plateau? https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/books/book/2065/chapter/114076368/Development-of-geological-perceptions-and2600:100C:A201:2245:ECEA:1830:84FF:D32E (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I do not have access to the source you specified, so I cannot verify it. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The Luri Or (Lori) people population in iran is much more than what has the Wikipedia said!

Luri people (Or Lori people) mostly living in Luri origin Provinces as Ilam(EElam) ,Lorestan ,KuhgiluyehBoirAhmad ,Chahrmahal and bakhtiari and there are provinces that Luri people mostly occupying there are as by most to the least : 1-Khouzestan 2 million and 250000 Luri ppl 2-Fars (shiraz) more than half a million luri ppl 3- Isfahan 1 million and 100000 Luri ppl 4-Hamedan about 6 hundred thousands of Luri ppl 5-Bushher half a million or more 6-Bandar abbas less than half a million or 4 hundred thousand of Luri ppl

There are lots of Luri people also in other provinces of iran but much more than that , there have been researchs saying that there are 1 million and half in east of Iraq but we cant rely on this and we suppose that less than half a million or even dont mention it because until now they would speak arabic by now and we dont like to be mixed with Arabs and even create an atmosphere letting others sayin Lori-Arabi boys or girls whatever... Based on my own investigations and well as my Brother was mayor or the city and he has also helped me in this field i can say iran is included in sucha tree branch groups as bellow :

Persian speakers : 34%

Azeris(including turkmens, Qashqaies) : 24%

Lors : 14%

KURDS : 11%

Gilaki and mazandaranis : 8 %

Baluchi and sistanis : 5 %

Arabs  : 3%

Others (including bandari , some very great tribes and others...and also Afghans ) : 4% By the year of 2022 there have been about 2 million and half of Afghanistanis in iran 5.213.38.196 (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Reliable sources disagree with these numbers and we should not introduce original research into the article. You can rest assured that Wikipedia does not call anyone 'Lori-Arabi'.Premitive (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

...Yeah, Farsi speakers account for far more than 34% of the population, a more accurate estimate would be around 60% of the nation speaking it as their first language (although virtually all Iranians know Farsi, as it is the national language). Praxeria (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Updating the image for provinces of Iran

Can somebody edit this image so that it represent the current borders of Iran's provinces? here is an up to date image from provinces of Iran if you need anything for reference. Georgemoody (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Nominal GDP is incorrect

The calue for nominal GDP is hilarious even compared to the PPP value. 86.121.54.143 (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe Iran's GDP is "$200 billion" nominal according to the World Bank when Iran's Central Bank itself announced it injected nearly $100 billion dollars into the economy in 2021. World Bank source is even more laughable considering they are absolutely clueless about Iran's economy and cannot collect data on it, let alone be able to "estimate" it. It is not a reliable or valid source in this case. Iran Azad 1357 (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2022

I would like to request a reversion to the version of the article at 12:15, 6 September 2022‎ by Fad Ariff, Noha Erssam has changed the Nominal GDP to the World Bank source, which is not reliable given the reasoning I provided in the talk section. Further, another thing I would like to add to that reasoning that furthers my point is that the World Bank is an organization known for its deep connections with the US Government, and thus carries tremendous bias towards Iran as it wishes to prove the success of US sanctions policy against Iran. The official rates set by the Iranian government are a far better measure in these respects, and this page is also the main page of Iran. Iran Azad 1357 (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC) Iran Azad 1357 (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2022

I want to add information regarding the recent controversy over Mahsa Amini's death. Acriist10 (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Achaemenid

It is misleading to mention that it was the first superpower because this is not supported by the source.[28] At best, the source only says that it "was the greatest empire the world had ever seen" but nothing else. The publisher of this book, "Facts On File" is aimed at schools and thus not a reliable source. What was the first superpower is itself disputed with others saying Egypt was the first superpower,[29] or British Empire.[30]

After next few sentences, this source has been used for saying that the region became the "major world power" in 18th century but the source does not support it. I have changed the wording to "one of the major world power" for now. Segaton (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Segaton:

You are right about the book not being really WP:RS for such a claim. However, for the record, there are RS that do support this claim (although currently not listed in the article):

" Persians: The Age of the Great Kings", Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, page 5, "In this book, we will travel through time and space, plotting the rise, spread, and consolidation of the Persian empire from its modest beginnings as a tribal society in south-western Iran to the time it dominated the earth as history's first great superpower. We will examine the life of its monarchs, the Great Kings of Persia, the autocratic rulers of the mighty Achaemenid family..."

"Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia -Christopher I. Beckwith, 2015, Page 173, "The Persian Empire began as the Kingdom of the Medes, which was taken over by Cyrus the Great, who was half Mede and ... into Central Asia and northwestern India in the east. The Persian Empire became the world's first superpower."

- LouisAragon (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• "....has been used for saying that the region became the "major world power" in 18th century but the source does not support it. I have changed the wording to "one of the major world power" for now."

Could be rephrased. The ref says:

" He had demonstrated his supremacy over the Moghul Empire, was close to achieving the same with the Ottoman Sultan, and controlled the most powerful army in Asia, if not the world.". (p. 284)

" In the early 1740s the army Nader had created was probably the single most powerful military force in the world, and his officer cadre produced leaders who later went on to found independent states in Afghanistan and Georgia. (p. xv)

- LouisAragon (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

We can call it a "superpower" instead of "first superpower" since there are a few candidates for "first superpower" as I mentioned above.

"Under the reign of Nader Shah in the 18th century, Iran once again became one of the major world power" should be changed to what? "Under the reign of Nader Shah in the 18th century, Iran once again became the most powerful military in the world"? Segaton (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Segaton:

• "We can call it a "superpower" instead of "first superpower" since there are a few candidates for "first superpower" as I mentioned above."

Sounds good.

• "should be changed to what? "Under the reign of Nader Shah in the 18th century, Iran once again became the most powerful military in the world"?"

What about "Under the reign of Nader Shah in the 18th century, Iran presided over the most powerful military in the world"?

- LouisAragon (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Made these edits here. Segaton (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2022

SM1401 (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

New Hashtag Trend : #MahsaAmini and #مهسا_امینی  : twitter over 130 million times

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Please change the "caption" of Mount Damavand photo under "Geography" section from "Mount Damavand, Iran's highest point, is located in Amol, Mazenderan." to "Mount Damavand, the Middle East's highest peak, is located in Amol, Mazandaran.".

Thanks. Turealizer (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I implemented your suggestion. (diff)Premitive (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2022

change irans gdp rank from 14th to 11th Laithhh (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Islamic Republic

Iran ≠ the Islamic Republic of Iran 109.190.253.14 (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)