Jump to content

Talk:Persian Empire

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

WTF?

[edit]

Why is a major article on the Persian Empire unfinished and from a single source? Is it cuz you're all arguing over stupid things?--Weasel tango (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, I was thinking the same thing why tf is this so short also; correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't the Parthians be mentioned SOMEWHERE ???!??!?!?

usage

[edit]

polling google books,

now of course this blind polling includes all sort of abysmal literature, but it can be taken to show that "post-Sassanid historic Iran more generally" is an existing, albeit marginal of the order of a few percent, application of the term "Persian Empire" in "literature" in the most general sense. Enough to link history of Iran on this disambiguation page, but hardly enough to argue that "Persian Empire" refers to historic Iran generally in any significant, let alone primary, sense. --dab (𒁳) 14:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to correct this a bit.
You have missed even more: "Persian Sasanian empire" (90), "Persian Sassanian empire" (196), "Persian Sassanid empire" (314) and "Persian Sasanid empire" (65) and the same for other entries. These particular combination shows "Persian empire" is indeed itself a term quite independent from Achaemenids. So we can see from this gogle book results that
  1. "Persian empire" as reference to Achaemenid empire has 617+126=743 blind google books hits,
  2. "Persian empire" as reference to Sassanid empire has 298+380+80+115=873 blind google books hits,
So there is real case for "Persian empire is not Achaemenid empire". Xashaiar (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. @harej 03:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Persian Empire (disambiguation) → Persian empire — Persian empire redirects to this disambiguation page, which makes no sense. There is no need for a separate page with the word disambiguation needed then. warrior4321 03:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
What is the point of having the same page redirect here? Why does the page have the seperate disambiguation in the title? Why can the disambiguation page not be on the Persian empire page. warrior4321 10:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Persian Empire does not redirect here. Page names are fine as they are, please leave it alone now. --dab (𒁳) 18:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Persian empire (note lowercase "e") redirects here. It probably should redirect to Achaemenid Empire, as Persian Empire (note uppercase "E") does. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completly Agree with Akhilleus. 'Persian Empire' and 'Persian empire' should lead to the same subject. I personaly don't agree with 'Achaemenid Empire' but that's clearly a diffrent matter. Flamarande (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion

[edit]

I think "Persian Empire" and "Persian empire" should redirect to History of Iran, I've pointed that out in the RfC at Talk:Persian Empire. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC mentioned above concerns whether or not the content that some editors would like to put at Persian Empire is or is not a POV fork of History of Iran. In all the hundreds of kilobytes of discussion about that, no objective reason has been given why that content should occupy the page name Persian Empire, to the exclusion of every other existing Wikipedia article that could occupy it. Absent a clear primary topic among all these articles, the dab page should occupy the ambiguous base name. Already on this page is an analysis that establishes there is no clear primary topic. Hence I support this proposal to move the dab page to Persian Empire, which is independent of the content dispute. --Una Smith (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC and previous discussion at Talk:Persian Empire does point to a reason why Persian Empire should redirect to Achaemenid Empire--that's the primary use of "Persian Empire". The "analysis" above is also discussed somewhere in the archives of Talk:Persian Empire, but they show that the Achaemenid Empire is the primary referent of "Persian Empire". --Akhilleus (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't require a rename, since a dab page occurs in the history of Persian Empire, someone just needs to retrieve the previous version of the page, or histmerge this page into that page (probably a better solution) a rollover of this page onto that page is a bad idea, since (A) an ongoing RfC is on that page (B) this page appears to be a content split. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing its dab status again

[edit]

This change which you have made on many articles as of today, aka changing Persian Empire into Greater Iran,[1] is wrong. Greater Iran is an ethno-cultural region, and absolutely not the same as the Persian Empire (!). The concept is in some limited way related to it, but absolutely not the same. How did you even come up with it to change all of it just like that? :-) I hope you are able to revert all changes back through the same way you added it. That saves a lot of effort..

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I absolutely disagree with your assessment - all of the incarnations of "Persian Empire" are covered at Greater Iran, which makes it a suitable target for the links until someone else wants to make more precise corrections. bd2412 T 04:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that article X is in some way covered in article Y doesn't prove anything. Nazi Germany is also covered at History of Germany. Should we also change all redirecting links to that? Apples and oranges, dear BD2412. We specifically have the article "Persian Empire" as there were numerous Persian Empires through history. The article was specifically made for people to have an easy overview of the various Persian Empires, and from there to have the possibility to get to the specific Persian Empire in question, be it the Achaemenid Empire, Safavid Empire, etc. Simple logic. When for example at Mausoleum of Halicarnassus you change Persian Empire (though the article specifically states in the infobox that it was made during the Achaemenid era of the Persian Empire), thats simply not a good change. Changing that to a ethno-cultural meant article, which is what the article "Greater Iran" stands for, is completely unhelpful. I contribute alot to articles of that region, and basically with this me and alot of other are saddled up with much extra work. Furthermore you did not even discuss such changes, though they involve quite alot of drastic changes as I convincingly explained regarding reader utiliy and content. - LouisAragon (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The undiscussed changes that created the problem in the first place were those changing Persian Empire to a disambiguation page; prior to this change, the links were pointing to a more abbreviated equivalent of the content on Greater Iran. bd2412 T 05:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since none of these links were pointing to a "correct" article in the first place, I'm just going to unlink them all and add a note for them to be linked to correct articles if at all. Not everything needs to be linked, of course. bd2412 T 05:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a drive-by comment, but if you're making changes with AWB running in bot-mode, then you should be able to point to a discussion that approved those edits. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for at least unlinking the Greater Iran link. A further issue is, is that you've done that initial change (idk, looking at my watchlist) for maybe hundreds of articles, making it therefore impossible for me to go through all that and to give the exactly correct link. I agree that links are not a definite must have, but I'm convinced having Persian Empire as a link was still better than having no link at all. - LouisAragon (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguation links are always an error, and where the concepts are closely related, they are a nightmare to clean up. No link at all is better than an unnecessary link to a disambiguation page which will confuse both the editor and the reader. bd2412 T 12:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's wrong actually. Says who? You are wrong to say that, and wrong to say "none of these links were pointing to a "correct" article in the first place". You are removing many valid links to "Greater Iran", not bothering to add links to the correct Empire even when this is obvious from the date or context, and wasting a vast amount of other editors' time in a badly-neglected area. It's not the first time I've seen bad edits by the hundred from you. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there are others, please point to them. The links I addressed in this case were pointed to Persian Empire, which has been a disambiguation page in the past, was changed to a WP:DABCONCEPT page listing the different iterations of a "Persian Empire", and was recently changed back to a disambiguation page. I don't see how I can be removing "valid links" to Greater Iran when those were originally links to "Persian Empire" that I just changed to point to "Greater Iran" and for which (following the above objection) I am undoing the change that I had just made minutes before. bd2412 T 14:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Wikilinks shouldn't go to disambiguation pages. Since "Persian Empire" usually refers to the First Persian Empire (550–330 BC), I suggest that the dab link be replaced with that, rather than with Greater Iran. (I'm suggesting that the wording be First Persian Empire rather than Achaemenid Empire, based on the principle of least astonishment/confusion.) Softlavender (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, bad idea. Having fixed a good number of these, properly, MANUALLY, I can tell you that though Achaemenid Empire is probably the commonest correct link, the proportion is not that high. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we go ahead and fix the problem at the core and simply revert Dbachmanns "WP:GF" edit back? I guess we can somewhere understand his "point" for changing it, but clearly he was not aware of the consequences. Anyone who has edited a lot of that regions' articles knows it's simply bogus at best to link a historical entity such as the Persian Empire to a very loosely based ethno-cultural concept. It's nonsense. The mess started with changing it to a dab in the first place. Not only are numerous people now saddled up with extra work, it's a totally invaluable wrong change in the first and foremost place. I suggest we add a note to the article as well that the change won't be made in be future again. The Persian Empire is a definite historical termination used for various empires in-Iran based empires from 550 BC up to including the course of the 20th century. You can't dab that. What do others think? - LouisAragon (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree, but I think that the place to discuss this would be Talk:Persian Empire. bd2412 T 12:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will copy-paste this then to there, and revert the changes back later today. @BD2412:, do you think your bot can revert all changes back to the original (aka, so that it links to "Persian Empire" again?) after its un-dabbed? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

[edit]

Is this a list of all Persian dynasties in that covered the Greater Iran area, including Iran proper, or that were based directly in what is now modern Iran proper? I think the former would work better, since you have dynasties such as Khwarazm that consisted of the entire Greater Iran area, and is often called "Persia" in reliable sources. I think that this list should be a list of dynastic empires called "Persia," not a list of dynastic empire called "Persia" that were politically centered in Iran proper. If I'm looking for "Persian Empire," I want to find a Persian Empire, and, in this case, if there were many, I want to find empires that were called Persian, and not limit it to empires that were based in Iran proper only.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Median empire

[edit]

I can't find a reference cited Median empire as a persian empire
Are there any sources indicate the Median empire as a persian empire ?
Some help please--Anẓar (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anẓar: I've removed it. We don't have an article for a Median Empire, that's a redirect to Medes which casts doubt upon the whole concept of such an empire. I think there are some people who believe there was one based on passages in the Bible, but that's clearly not sufficient for us. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: That's what I thought about the medes. But I hesitated to delete it .
And Thanks for the quick response
Another question, why the Seleucid Empire is in this list ?--Anẓar (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)1[reply]
Anẓar I searched Google books, I think I can see why but I didn't put it there. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]


Parthian Empire

[edit]

How does it come that the Parthian Empire is listed in "Persian" Empires? Any sources? CengÎzolî 09:58, 07 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Issues

[edit]

1. The leads says:

  • The Persian Empire is any of a series of imperial dynasties centered in Persia (modern–day Iran)...

However, are there any sources to confirm the term Persian Empire for these entries? Seleucid Empire, Seljuk Empire, Timurid Empire and etc.
2. Article only uses one source and it needs several improvements. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of monarchs of Persia Your list is here. This list and page is completely different. Non-Persian origin Dynasty and States cannot be added to this list. List name;(List of dynasties described as a Persian Empire). Persian is a expresses an ethnicity. illusory and misleading--Halil Can (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, what's my list?! Second, the Persian may equal to "from Persia" or "related to Persia". I've asked another editor to come here and write his opinion. Just wait for 48-hour. If nobody argues about this issue, then I don't mind if you remove those disputed entries. But other editors can restore them if they provide their sources. OK? --Wario-Man (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is the page you are trying to tell. List of monarchs of Persia. The name of this page Persian Empire irrelevant to other page. Persian is a ethnicity. If you revert yourself, you will your good intentions.--Halil Can (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. Because this not the way we deal with content dispute(s). We bring our concerns to the talk page and discuss them. A consensus is necessary. The lead of this article is against your opinion. If this is an ethnic-based article (Persian as an ethnicity), then it needs a new revision. But if this is a region-based article (Persian as something/someone related to Persia), then those entries can remain. As I said above, due to several issues (single sourced articles and dubious claims), I'm not against the removal of those wikilinks. But we should wait and see what other editors write here. Plus, I don't really know if we need this article or not (e.g. is it fork of that list?). So other opinions is very helpful. Let me ping another familiar editor with this topic @Doug Weller:. --Wario-Man (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If an empire is referred to as a Persian empire in a significant number of reliable academic sources it probably belongs here. If not, it doesn't. That's the way we should proceed. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although we could say - if the sources call it one, they are included, or if they are sources as Persian-centered. Not just an empire that the area known as Persia was part of, but ruled from Persia. Doug Weller talk 19:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the page; Persian Empire. The name of the list; List of dynasties described as a Persian Empire. This refers directly to an ethnic origin. The lead of this article, contradicts list and page. It's obviously misleading and illusory. The page should be edited and revised.--Halil Can (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it refers directly to an ethnic origin. But we might be able to find a list in this[2] which says "For two thousand years, from Cyrus' conquest of Babylon in 539 B.C. until Sulayman Qanuni took Baghdad in A.D. 1534, the Mesopotamian floodplain and the Iranian Plateau were united, formally at least, under successive hegemonic states. Together these may be referred to as the "Persian Empires." The use of such a common designation serves to emphasize that these states, despite their often dramatic history, had considerable territorial and institutional continuity." Doug Weller talk 19:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This book has a chapter "The New Persian Empires". Doug Weller talk 19:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The page you are trying to tell already exists. List of monarchs of Persia. These empires and dynasties rulers and hegomonic states of Iranian Plateau. This page points to ethnic origin.--Halil Can (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't reach a consensus yet. You have ignored this discussion and my edit summaries several times. How many times I should repeat them for you? --Wario-Man (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't offer a solution. I did not enter the Edit war but you sent me a message. You can specify your reasons in the discussion. It is clear that the page is the misleading.--Halil Can (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a war-zone for pov-pushing and WP does not work like a forum. My edit summaries and comments are clear on this article and its talk page. While you just want to create your own revision without providing any sources or valid rationales. Just your personal opinion like this one[3]. I said you should wait for a consensus and you continued edit warring (3 times). Every time you ignored this discussion and used your personal analysis. I have provided my comments and I wait for other editors to reach the best possible result. My suggestion is: We can rename "List of dynasties described as a Persian Empire" to "List of dynasties in Persia". It matches with the lead of this article. But once again, DO NOT edit/change current revision. I asked some editors to write their comments. --Wario-Man (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The name of this page Persian Empire. Persian is a ethnic meaning and specifies an Origin. Non-Persian dynasties and empires can not be added to this list and page. If this page does not have an ethnic meaning, There are then dynasties and states to be added to the list. The page is quite misleading in right now. The best solution is to remove the non-Persian state and dynasties. If there is no ethnic meaning, there are states to be added. Reader have a misleading meaning. I think the best solution is this.--Halil Can (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The terms Persian and Iranian are not, at least persistently, equal in meaning. There exist distinct ethnic and territorial definitions on each of the terms. Therefore, it is not educational to use them interchangeably.
This equalization is not academically logical, and typically causes a lot of confusion, leastwise for an ordinary reader.
However, the two terms have been frequently used as synonyms within the context of a lot of well-recognized sources—e.g. the encyclopedias of Iranica and Britannica—resulting in the disorder that we are now dealing with here.
What I would recommend is that we consider the official and accurate name of the nation (i.e. Iran) to refer to the land and its inhabitants, and let go of the artificial and occasional usage of the terms Persia and Persian.
—Rye-96 (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not fully understand what you were trying to say. Persian has an ethnic meaning directly. This is an ethnicity and origin. The name of this page is the Persian empire. You are trying to say that this page does not have a ethnic meaning. The page is quite misleading in its content at this point. The page needs to be explicitly reviewed and revised. If the page is not ethnically, there are states to be added. The necessary informations and states are here.List of monarchs of Persia. What is your solution suggestion ?--Halil Can (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that this is a ethnic page and list. There were comments that there was no ethnic page. There is a page on which this opinion is described.List of monarchs of Persia. List of monarchs of Persia, This is the page trying to be told. An ethnic page and list, Non-Persian dynasties and empires cannot be added to this list and page. It is deceptive and misleading. Is misleading the readers. To give an example;[4]. Please watch the sample video and see with your own eyes how people are misguided. This page is the source shown in the video. Unfortunately, it is clear that the page has become a nationalistic page. I remove the Non-Persian dynasties and states from the list when everything is so clear.--Halil Can (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Informal Language

[edit]

The article uses the abbreviation "A.K.A." when describing the alternative name for Persia, Iran. Rather than using this abbreviation, it would be more proficient to write "also known as."

Yrbyott (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2018

[edit]
68.34.50.152 (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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. You have not made any request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2018

[edit]

I wish to add the Parthian Empire (247 BC–224 AD) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_Empire as one of the listed empires, as well as include a globe as a visual aid to show the farthest extent of the empire's borders, like the other listed empires. CascatheBrash (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you make 10 edits you'll be auto confirmed and be able to edit the page. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Date styles

[edit]

We really should conform dates to CE and BCE rather than AD and BC. Even though they mean the same thing we should avoid the Christian references. David Cary Hart (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems with the acronyms CE (Common Era) and BCE (Before the Common Era) is that the initial'C' can be read as 'Christian', converting CE into 'Christian Era' and BCE into 'Before the Christian Era'. Are they really an improvement? Can there not be something better? Such as Modern Era, or Universal Era, or International Era? O Murr (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Parthian Empire

[edit]

Looking at that article's map, should it be added, or was it not really Persian? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should definetely be added. Barjimoa (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it shouldn't. Why? Well because it's not referred as a Persian Empire, lul. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's referred as the second persian empire. Barjimoa (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that's the Sasanians. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, the sources I found said otherwise. Barjimoa (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Parthians weren't a Persian Empire

[edit]

There's a reason the Sasanian Empire is called the Second Persian Empire, what does that make the Parthian Empire? The 1.5 Persian Empire? Stop adding it to this article, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that's correct, it will be necessary to adjust the beginning of Parthian Empire, which reads: "The Parthian Empire (/ˈpɑːrθiən/; 247 BC – 224 AD), also known as the Arsacid Empire (/ˈɑːrsəsɪd/),[9] was a major Iranian political and cultural power in ancient Iran.[10] Its latter name comes from Arsaces I of Parthia[11] who, as leader of the Parni tribe, founded it in the mid-3rd century BC when he conquered the region of Parthia[12] in Iran's northeast, then a satrapy (province) under Andragoras, in rebellion against the Seleucid Empire." Unless Iran and Persia have different boundaries in some places. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surry but I don't get what you're trying to say. But no the Parthian Empire does not need adjustment, the statement is pretty correct. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me HistoryofIran (talk), but think I got what Selfie City (talk) wants to say. Now, first all, to my knowledge The Parthian Empire is the one called "Second Persian Empire". But if you are right, we should change several things:
1) the article on Iran and Persia as it says that Iran=Persia. You say that Parthia is an Iranian empire, but you also say that it's not a Persian Empire? So Iran is not Persia? What's your point?
2)The article Roman-Persian wars because it includes the years of the Parthians. (Now that article has also another issue, and that is that it is a bit of a mess as it wants to include also the Byzantine years.)
3)The Second Persian Empire as it redirects to Parthian Empire.
Barjimoa (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Iranian and Persian are not synonyms (Persia was in reality a province in southern Iran, not the name of a country), and if they are used as such, it's technically really incorrect. Also the article Roman-Persian wars really needs to get moved to Roman-Iranian wars (that is if the Parthians are to be included). Furthermore, the Second Persian Empire should redirect to the Sasanians, not Parthians, someone randomly changed it some months ago, I've fixed it now. Take a look at this article I'm working on [5] (name section). --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran

"Iranian and Persian are not synonyms (Persia was in reality a province in southern Iran, not the name of a country"

This is SO incorrect it's mind-boggling. How dare you call your username 'History of Iran' when you don't even know the basics? Iran = Persia, and Persia = Iran, DEFINITIVELY. Within Persia/Iran, the Persians/Iranians were always known as 'Iranian' or 'Aryan' to themselves. It was the Greeks and Romans and other outside entities who called the land "Persia", in reference to the province of 'Pars' (today called 'Fars'), because the first great emperor of Persia/Iran (Cyrus the Great) was born and raised in Pars, so this region became the culture's namesake. For thousands of years, Iranians/Persians have used the names "Persia" and "Iran" interchangeably. The only caveat is that in 1935, the government under the shah, Reza Shah Pahlavi, officiated the country's name as "Iran" instead of "Persia" for everyone to use, whether internally by the citizens or externally by the other countries of the world. Then, again in 1979, the official name was changed from "Iran" to "The Islamic Republic of Iran", due to the new government administration. So, in essence, from 1935 until the present day, "Persian" refers to Iran as a whole, as country, culture, etc., anytime before the year 1935, but today it also refers to the ethnicity of "Persian", meaning any member of this native ethnic group who has stuck around this region since the dawning of the original first Persian Empire (Achaemenid Empire) under Cyrus the Great.

tl;dr "Iran" and "Persia" are essentially interchangeable, and the Parthian Empire was ABSOLUTELY a Persian Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CascatheBrash (talk • contribs) 16:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure I know about this topic more than you ever will buddy. Also my name is just a name, there's no special reason why I chose it. Could you please show a source that proves that the inhabitants of Iran called their country for "Persia" for over thousands of years? Also, a quick search will show you that Iranian and Persian defintley isnt the same. HistoryofIran (talk)


“Pretty sure I know”?? This is the criteria? Where are YOUR references?

Here’s one of mine. WIKIPEDIA:

“The Parthian Empire (/ˈpɑːrθiən/; 247 BC – 224 AD), also known as the Arsacid Empire (/ˈɑːrsəsɪd/),[9] was a major Iranian political and cultural power in ancient Iran.”

IRAN = PERSIA

PERSIA = IRAN


Here’s more reference to the official name change from Persia to Iran in 1935. Why would the Iranians recognize this as such a monumental event if they only ever considered themselves under the words “Iran” and “Iranian”?

From the Wikipedia page ‘Name of Iran’

“In the Western world, Persia (or one of its cognates) was historically the common name for Iran.[1] On the Nowruz of 1935, Reza Shah asked foreign delegates to use the term Iran, the endonym of the country, in formal correspondence. Subsequently, the common adjective for citizens of Iran changed from Persian to Iranian. In 1959, the government of Mohammad Reza Shah, Reza Shah's son, announced that both "Persia" and "Iran" can be used interchangeably, in formal correspondence.[2] ”

Here’s the article referenced by the [2]:

https://web.archive.org/web/20101024033230/http://www.iran-heritage.org/interestgroups/language-article5.htm


Please NEVER make any more decisions about Persia/Iran articles again on Wikipedia, since you are clearly disgraced by the obliteration of your credibility at this point.

Have you considered clicking the Persian and Iranian links to see that you are wrong? The name of Iran article is obviously referring countries outside of Iran calling it for Persia.. Also try to behave a bit more accordingly, no one is gonna take you serious if you act like that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Just because the Parthians (originally Parni) weren’t ethnic Persians doesn’t mean their empire was not Persian.


First of all, the Parni were closer in ethnicity and culture than any non-Persian dynasty or empire within Greater Iran (Greek, Arab, Mongol, Turk, etc.). The Parthians were an Indo-Iranian (and, remember, before the year 1935, IRANIAN = PERSIAN, PERSIAN = IRANIAN. Yes, Persian is a specific Iranian ethnicity, but it more generally means ‘of the native culture and history of Iran/Persia’) nomadic tribe [1] “Parthia was overrun by the Parni, a nomad tribe from the Central-Asian steppe.” (like the Persians originally were),The Parthians spoke Persian [1] “Courtiers spoke Persian and used the Pahlavi script”, and modeled their empire heavily on the Achaemenid Empire. [1] “Another source of inspiration was the Achaemenid dynasty that had once ruled the Persian Empire...the Arsacid kings wanted to be called -as Cyrus the Great had ordered his subjects to do in the sixth century- ‘king of kings’.” They intentionally made their empire as ‘Persian’ as possible, unlike other empires or dynasties thus mentioned which (barring perhaps Alexander’s Empire) tried to force their will to change the configuration of power and culture within the region. Also unlike the empires and dynasties of Alexander or Timurlane or whatever other non-Persian dynasties, Iranians today look back on the Parthian Empire and consider it within the same canon of Persian-run, Persian-cultured Persian empires. [2] Iranians consider Parthians to be Iranian! Parthians (together with Persians and Medians) were one of the main groups of Indo-Iranians who entered Iranian plateau in ancient times, and their empire is counted as one of the four Iranian empires before Islam. Their empire is called ‘Ashkani’ by Iranians or Arsacid in English after the name each emperor used upon coronation: Arsaces I,Arsaces II …. Even though they had some Greek influence(like most peoples of western Asia in those days) Iranian culture and religion had a revival and comeback during their time, furthermore during the centuries following Arab conquest of Iran it was Parthians who retained and safeguarded Iranian culture until it could reemerge under a more politically open conditions in Iranian Intermezzo.”

[1] Jona Lendering, “Parthian Empire”, http://www.iranchamber.com/history/parthians/parthians.php

[2] Mohamad Karimi, response to “Do Persians consider the Parthian empire to be a Persian dynasty, or foreign overlords?”, https://www.quora.com/Do-Persians-consider-the-Parthian-empire-to-be-a-Persian-dynasty-or-foreign-overlords

Finally, what’s with this nonsense of “X didn’t call themselves Y, therefore not Y”? I’m ‘pretty sure’ the Ancient Greeks referred to themselves as “Hellenes” and not “Greeks”. That means they’re not Greek, right?

Not even going to bother to read that, I saw your two 'sources', Iranchamber and Quora, really? I'm just gonna quote the source used by KansasBear and move on; "The Origins of Globalization, Karl Moore, David Charles Lewis, page 191;"The Parthians were not Persian." There we go. --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bulgarian Empire which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proper Article

[edit]

Why nobody ever tried to write a proper article for this very important article? Something like Roman Empire, which also covers a lot of dynasties. Aryzad (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Original research"?

[edit]

@LouisAragon: Can you explain with more details? which parts you are talking about? Aryzad (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every part. Infobox, lede, etc. You have assembled a lot of discontinued events, time periods and factoids which resulted in WP:OR interpretations. Cplakidas, Attar-Aram syria, HistoryofIran, Wikaviani, Kansas Bear. Gentlemen, I reverted these WP:GF additions made by Aryzad.[6] Would you be willing to give your interpretation as for how this article should be re-designed? Does this article need an infobox? Thanks, - LouisAragon (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article obviously needs to be expanded and better sourced, however, i don't get how an infobox would be useful here. On my end, i have began to work on it some days ago, but only modestly for now. We could make some copy editing with the main articles linked in this one and thus import some sources in order to improve this article.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 17:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@LouisAragon: Yes, I accept that the all of those modern dynasties being ruling houses of same empire was OP, but what about other parts? You even deleted religions section. Why? The lead was good because I used lead of Roman Empire as a model. It need being edited, but not deleted.
@Wikaviani: The article should be something like that of the Roman Empire. That one has a very good infobox. This article is very similar to that article, and needs a similar infobox. Aryzad (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No because it's not the same. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran: Would you explain why? In my opinion, there is not much difference. Aryzad (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Migration

[edit]

Persian empire neanderthels and caucasian came from europe they migrated from europe and came to persia and then became persians and now conquered by muslim to form iranians who became parsis totravel to india means persians muslims parsis and indian are different and as suchthere was no caucassian war in persia since zoreaster left and muslims invaded and got settled inpersia and became iran since then no war in persia and acheneimid empire wasnt in persia it was in europe in alexander first and achaneimid was given to search maps of countries of globes. Amita samant (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2019

[edit]

Completely wrong article 49.199.219.97 (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2020

[edit]

The Parthian Empire should be included in the list of bullet points. Should look like:

Parthian Empire (247 BC–224 AD)


It should be listed after the Achaemenid Empire (550–330 BC) and before the Sasanian Empire (224–651 AD). The Parthian Empire is a VERY important empire in Iran's history and must be included.

There should also be another globe image visualization, maybe in baby blue, that shows the full extent of the empire's borders, as seen here:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Parthian_Empire_at_its_greatest_extent_%28geographical%29.jpg CascatheBrash (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been addressed a lot. The Parthian Empire isn't known as a Persian Empire in history. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: per HistoryofIran. Stickee (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Oh, yes it is! "PARTHIAN" as in referencing the province of "PARS" (today called 'Fars'), I.E. PERSIAN. The word "Persian" itself comes from "Pars". The 'Par' in PARTHIAN comes from the same word origin, "Pars". Who died and make you King Historian of Iran? You are WRONG, the Parthian Empire was not only indisputably a PERSIAN Empire, it was one of the most important, whose cultural influences are still felt to this day in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CascatheBrash (talk • contribs) 15:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes ....

[edit]

This Page Should Be Titled as " Iranian Empire(S)" , Instead of 'Persian Empires'.

Also Why there is No Mentions for Median Empire ????


As Well As there should be A Description for Non-Iranian Polity and foreign political Bodies like :

1- Greek Seleucid Empire As well As Macedonian Empire .

2-Mongol Empire and Subsequent Ilkhanate .

3- The Seljuk Empire which were followed By Timurid Empire , Mention it is critical one because The Timurid preceded the Safavid Dynasty and laid its foundation !!!

Idea ...

[edit]

If This Page 'Meant' Exclusively for Persian political bodies , than Why not Building A Separate Page For "Iranian" Empires ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.147.30.114 (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion ...

[edit]

Based on the information from users like HistoryofIran, the Parthian Empire is not included in this list of Perisan Empires b/c they were from Parthia, not Persia proper. Then, may I ask, why are the Safavids, Afsharids, Zands, Qajars, and Pahlavis included here? The Safavids were Kurds, Afsharids and Qajars were Oghuz Turks, Zands were Lurs, and Pahlavis were from Mazandaran. None of these dynasties are from Persia proper like the Achaemenids and the Sassanids, but yet they are included in here, while the Parthians are excluded. Can somebody clarify a reason for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.128.86 (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2020

[edit]

Change title from "Persian Empire" to "Iranian Empire".

Justification:

Three out of five of the dynasties covered by the article were not Persian. The Selucids were Greek, Parthians were Parthian and Safavids were Azeri. The umbrella term Iranian is both the prefered name for them in modern Persian and has been since antiquity. While the country was refered to as Persia in old European maps, this too has been rectified for over a century. In other words, all Persian Empires are considered Iranian but not all Iranian Empires were necesserily Persian.

To put things in perspective, the current title is comparable to calling the Spanish Empire "Castillian", The British Empire "English" and the French Empire "Parisian". PouyalePers (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2020

[edit]

its one of the raciest and worst articles i have ever seen in my life .... afshar and qacar and safavid were turks not persians . they were turks and ruled in iran . Karmida (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 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. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You might wanna read what racist means instead of throwing the term around [7] --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2020

[edit]

apparently this page has been the target of vandalism as they removed the whole content and redirected the whole page to another page . i humbly ask the wikipedia to revert back the content to this revision and remove the redirect from it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persian_Empire&oldid=990651513 and lock the whole page so no one else can vandalise it, this is an important page as it contain unique and important information about persian history. thanks in adance HHeidary98 (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might wanna look up what Wikipedia:Vandalism actually is instead of throwing the term around. A merge proposal was made [8] and the consensus was to merge them, end off. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i know exactly what vandalism is ,you might wanna look up what merging is before throwing the term around!! cause i dont see any merge here . they are simply removed! beside these two topics doesn't need merging, they both contain their respective information which defer from one another. this topic contain unique information which was vandalised and need to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HHeidary98 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What unique information exactly? This looks like a clear case of WP:JDLI. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

decent and consequent graphical map of each dynasty territorial might is one for example. actualy you are a clear case of WP:JDLI and not me, otherwise i dont see why you would try to vandalise a country's history. you keep making made-up allegation and claims against me while those allegation in fact apply and suit yourself and not me. first you said they are merged while in fact they are not and these 2 topics does not need merging AT ALL! then you said i am a cse of WP:JDLI while in fact this apply to yourself.i have nothing more to say to vandaliser such as you. something have been vandalised and i want it fixed thats all.

So basically information which is already in History of Iran but even more detailed? You keep accusing me and others of vandalism without any form of proof, and I'll gladly report you. You're not getting it "fixed". Good day. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Melmann 12:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nope they are not there at all. you obviously do not understand how reporting works! you are the one who deleted content and vandalised something and i'm the one objecting to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by HHeidary98 (talk • contribs)

No admin action needed here. As Melmann stated above, please work to form a consensus before submitting an edit request. To form a consensus you need to work nicely together so please stop throwing accusations around and start to comply with the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia, namely in this case assume good faith. Also HHeidary98, please sign your posts. WaggersTALK 13:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sorry but how should i assume good faith with someone who is intentionaly vandalising and actualy removing the whole content? you're kidding right?

i just joined wikipedia yesterday to object to this , in case wikipedia doesn't wanna fix this i doubt there's much i can do but you guys need to take a stricter policy against vandalism! otherwise "IT WILL" be cited that wikipedia "IS SUPPORTING" vandalism acts against countries/ethnic groups with political/social goals.

HHeidary98 (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You keep accusing ppl of vandalism/bad faith even after being told twice that it isn't appropiate, and then you call upon the help of an admin? That's one of the most elegant WP:WOOPS I've ever seen. I don't even have to report you - could the admin called here please address this behaviour? --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Persian Empire (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Persian_Empire&oldid=1195717258"