Talk:Iran/Archive 13

National Anthem of The Islamic Republic of Iran [Eng Sub]
This site: [Iran's anthem] has the National Anthem of The Islamic Republic of Iran [Eng Sub].Agre22 (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

Wasn't Iran part of Ancient India?
Now I know some Iranians might not like this. But before the arrival of Islam wasn't the entire region of India, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. etc. etc. one big connected land? Their were no real boarders. And before the arrival of Islam it was and the land of the Aryans? And weren't the Aryans Hindu? And spoke Sanskrit?.....I mean if you go back far enough, Indo-Iranians, And Indo-Aryans were Hindu right? This is not a dispute I hope? Cus you can find this information on wikipedia......And let's not forget many Indian's and Iranian's have similar feature's.....So if all this is true, wasn't Iran apart of Ancient India? Not India. But Ancient India then? So shouldn't the history section mention something like that? Or at least mention how Iran has cultural and historical ties with Iran and the Indus Valley civilization? And South Asia? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right when you say "before the arrival of Islam wasn't the entire region of India, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. etc. etc. one big connected land". The land you want to name is "Iran". Xashaiar (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, although at that time, you would spell it as "Eran". warrior  4321  06:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No. You are wrong. The Eranshahr/Eran would have that spelling. The spelling of "Iran in very ancient period (far enough in previous editor's language)" is not known in English language! Xashaiar (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC
 * Really? What time period are you referring to when you say "very ancient period", which tells us nothing. Very ancient could do 2000 BCE or even 20 AD, that's only your perspective. Give me a era or time period. warrior  4321  06:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on! Read the message by 71.105.87.54]. What you say about Eran is about era of Shapur the Great onwards. Even in this case the spelling Eran is almost the same as Iran and the distinction is made for conventional purpose. Otherwise most non-central iranians call Iran in fact "Eran". The word Iran is new in English language and hence it is absolutely irrelevant to say how "Iran in pre-Sassanid era" was spelled: because "Aryānām xšaçam" is one of the name you are asking for its english language spelling. Now "Iran" is the english language spelling of "a" Middle Persian word (er-an) for "ary-ān" and you "do not want" to tell me that you know what "english spelling of an Iranian word which was not (Middle) Persian" would be. Beside this explanation, you should see your mistake by looking at the article [[arya|aryan which is not "ēran"!!Xashaiar (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * God, not once did you give me a time period of years in that whole paragraph. Are we going further back than aryana? warrior  4321  15:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No as I said (by pointing to non-Middle Persian terms) I am going back as much as Achaemenids and Arsacids. Xashaiar (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, and aryana dates from the time of Zoroaster, which is further back than the Achamenids. warrior  4321  03:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent protest movement
Is the recent protest movement in Iran covered in some other article? I see widespread news coverage of it, but no mention in this article of any protests against the regime since June 2009. See Google News for recent coverage. Google News archive has over 6000 articles on protests in Iran in the past 6 months:. Omitting any mention of the last 6 months of continuing protests and government responses to them leaves the article unbalanced. Edison (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Iranian Tourism
I can't find any data anywhere to back the assertion that "Iran is among the top 10 most-touristic countries" under "Economy." I can find data backing up the fact that it is between 68-87 on the list of tourist countries, however. The citation references an article in which the author makes about as empty an assertion as the Wikipedia article -- nowhere does he state the source for his data. "Some Iranian guy in an article about Iranian tourism" does not constitute an official source for this kind of information. Find a real source or get rid of it, please.

EDIT: The closest I can find is (http://www.payvand.com/news/07/aug/1181.html), in which the Iranian foreign minister, himself, addressed a conference on investment in Iranian tourism and told them that, "given a large number of cultural and historical sites, Iran is among top 10 top countries in terms of tourist attractions." Perhaps the article should be re-written to suggest that Iran "considers itself" among top 10 countries...

http://www.persian.asia is a site dedicated to Iranians and has amazing pictures... over 5,000 I think... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.193.203.130 (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree, should be removed 68.115.83.140 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC).

Drives On left
I dont know how but someone should correct the info in the right side box. Drives on the LEFT not right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.182.128.61 (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Religion
Iran's history has been divided into pre-islamic and islamic period. This is an incorrect and biased presentation. We should designate Iran's ancient history as either "Achemenid" Parthian, Selucid, and Sassanian Eras or clump them all under "Zoroasterian" Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1979omen (talk • contribs) 00:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Several times Baha'i faith was added to the list of the religions as being the largest minority, but it keeps getting deleted. Anyone know who does it and why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.114.140 (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Typo in article
In the "Language and literature" section the second poem the third line of the poem written in Persian has typo. The last character should be removed. Danialfarid (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Danial Farid Jan 13, 2010

7000 BCE removed?
Someone removed Iranian settlements dating back to the 7000BCE and replaced it with fourth millennium, but archaeological research shows Iranian settlements dating further. This research on a 5th millennium Iranian site at Rahmatabad dating back to fifth millennium.

source: http://www.jstor.org/pss/25067607

However in the article the archaeologists state that they found older artifacts and pieces of pottery dating back to perhaps 6th or 7th millennium but their research specifically focuses on the fifth millennium period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.104.208 (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary Politics
hey guys I'm all about the green movement, but the section and picture concerning " A motto of demonstrators against the purported vote fraud".. does that really belong in the wikipage of Iran? USA had major issues with the Flordia elections and the Bush administration but none of this is on their USA wikipage. Same goes with other countries.

I think that space in Iran's wikipage should be devoted to something else, you have 3000 years of history, and most of the content on this page covers the last 30 years...
 * 1. Please Sign. 2. You mean this policy? Maybe. 3. But I made a saying for you "it took 3000 years to build a culture, and took only 30 years to destroy it". You got it? Xashaiar (talk)


 * "citation-needed" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.89.106 (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"PreIslamic State" should be replaced with "Zoroasterian State"
In the history of Iran, the ancient Iranian history has been entitled "Preislamic State." This is a biased representation of Iran's history. Iran had a rich civilization prior to the Islam. In fact, it was the muslims that became absorbed by the rich Zoroasterian Iranian culture. Therefore, instead of labeling 500bc to 600 AD as the " PreIslamic State", please rename it "Zoroasterian State" or "Ancient Iranian Empire". Please refrain from referring to this period as pre-Isalmic. If anything, let us be more liberal in our use of the word "Post Zoroasterian" era in Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1979omen (talk • contribs) 00:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your point is a serious one. That is "pre-Islamic" is a silly label. But it is accurate as Islam did not exist in that period. But "pre-Islamic" is not neutral and in my opinion silly. On the other hand "post Zoroastrian"(ism) is inaccurate. Because Zoroastrianism in Iran did not die after Sasanids. It will be an important topic to be discussed by wikipedians to get rid of division of Iranian history into Pre-Islamic and Islamic. I think the simple solution is simply not to divide at all. Xashaiar (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We somehow need to indicate the various invasions of Iran by foreigners starting with Greeks, then the Arabs, the Moguls, and Turks (Qajar). These foreigners harmed the peaceful civilization of Iranians and destroyed much of our rich art/literature. However, Iran has continued to persist.

Iran religiosity bar
The Iran religiosity bar currently is so long it covers the picture of a graph of Iran's population in the demography section, can someone fix this technical problem? Kermanshahi (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Update City Population
Hello, can you please update the Iranian city population section? The current stats posted are based on 2006. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 10:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Iran or Persia?
Because the Europeans keen to nominate a country to it's capital city name - for example Roma, Athens or Florence, Venice - Iran would to name of the usual capital, Persia, was known. "Persia" is an Aryan race, which usually were- and are- the leads of the Iranian governments. Persia with words such as Prussia or Prezeus is from a root. But "Iran" mentions the race of the peopleas aryayian and is considered an ideal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightdevil40 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The country's official name both internally and internationally is Iran so the article will remain to be called like this.Kermanshahi (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Instead of using the word "race" to refer to the aryans, it is preferable and more accurate to use the term "tribe" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.245.71 (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Why the Name Persia was changed to iran
You should include the facts about why and who suggested that the name Persia, be changed to the name Iran. The name Iran, "land of the aryans" in farci was suggested in world war two by none other than Adolf Hitler. Whom Iran was alighned with then. On the suggestion of Adolf Hitler Persia changed its name to Iran.

http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2004/December/PG2/index.html

Kevin Freedman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.34.97 (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * unreliable source, it's on the opinions section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.89.106 (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The notion that Adolf Hilter caused Iran to adopt its real name is BOGUS and FALSE. There is no truth to this. the truth is that Reza Pahlavi I (Reza Shah) asked the world to recognize Iran by its Iranian name, what Iran has always been called, instead of Persia, which is the anglicized version of Greek name: Perseus, which referred to only a small region of iran, Pars. This nazi rumor was started by the British who wanted to discredit Pahlavi Dynasty and sever iran's relationship with America and Germany. Somehow, this rumor generated by the English has taken a life of its own on the internet and has been replicated a million times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.245.71 (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

ethnic map
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iran_ethnic_groups_map.png This map proposed by Pournick is more correct. It has still some mistakes but it is much better than the former one based on national Geographics. I think we should give Pournick credit for this. We can slightly correct it and put this map there.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maps in Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources, not based on bargaining among Wikipedia users. If the previous map is too erroneous, then just remove it, but do not replace it with a made-up map. Wikipedia is not the right place for Original Research. Alefbe (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the old map is still Original research because who said that there are Pashtuns in Sistan? The maker has just labelled it without being consistent with the national geographic. A map made recently by Mehrdad Izady seems to be the most conclusive one (he as the only one also places the central Iranian languages on the map), but he exaggerates the Kurdish populated areas. Besides that that is a good map. Also the very old map at the university of Texas is a better one. There are more cases of maps which are made by users on wikipedia, but even in case you do not agree with that it is better to put all three maps.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Alefe please don't remove the map. You can replace it by Mehrdad Izady's map if you want but he exaggerated the extent of Kurdish inhabited areas, but is generally more accurate than this one.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As I have extensively discussed on the talk page of User:Pournick (here, here, here and here), the map made by him is faulty and ahistorical. I believe that Pournick's vision is clouded by his political convictions, as spelled out, in no uncertain terms, on his talk page ("This user strongly supports independence of south Azerbaijan from Iran.", "This user supports unification of Azerbaijan  Rep. and South Azerbaijan (of Iran)." --- as I have pointed out to him, already the term "South Azarbaijan" is a perversion of undeniable historical facts --- the interested should consult this paper). His actions on Wikipedia seem to follow the political agenda of Pan-Turkism. Of course, these are his own private business, but one should realise that Wikipedia is not a party-political platform and should not be used for advancing one's political agenda. Earlier (see here and here), he has been doing political canvassing on Wikipedia. All leading me to believe that he should be on the streets campaigning, not here, if he wants to communicate his political convictions to others. Put simply, he is in the wrong place. --BF 16:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ps: I do realise that Mr Bahram Moshiri's religious and political views are offensive to some, however, and with apologies, this video is very pertinent to the discussion at hand. --BF 16:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
 * The terms Prnick uses are ahistorical and wrong. So the ethnic lables, for example Azerbaijani Turk instead of Azeri are wrong, but the distribution of ethnic groups on his map is closer to the reality on the ground that the current map by national geographic.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

How about mentioning...
Rhazes, Farabi, Biruni, Khwārizmī, Haytham, Ghazali, Omar Khayyám, Rudaki, Asadi Tusi, Jamshid Kashi, Bukhtishu, Mansur Hallaj, Abu Sa'īd Abulḫayr, Kharaqāni, Junayd Baghdadi, Bayazid Bastami, Saʿdī, Hāfez, Nezāmi-ye Ganjavi, Sanā'ī, ‘Attār, Shams-e-Tabrīzī, Mowlānā Jalaluddin Rumi, Mulla Sadra, Suhrawardi... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.113.143 (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They have their own articles, and an articles covering science in Iran. But they should mention Mulla Nasraddin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xullius (talk • contribs) 21:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Some new findings to be reflected in the main article
This article in journal New Scientist is worthy of consideration. --BF 18:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The article voids neutrality law!
The very first paragraph has no citation of The name Iran in Sassanian era! the rest of paragraphs so in terms of refrences and ref 12 dosen't exist. None of the refrences mentions any gegraphical region wich was called iran before 1700s. The only thing I got when reading the refs was the claimd parts have never been called Iran before 1700s! The group of articles about Iran is mainly dominated by ethnocentric persian writters who value nothing else than thier ethnocentric benifits! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir.azeri (talk • contribs) 10:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read the section "Name". Please do not call the writers of Wikipedia "ethnocentric" . Thank you --Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He's not trying to offend anyone. That's what he thinks and it's true.--Xullius (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but i don't see any "ethnocentrism" here either.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.236.229 (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I read the name part again but found nothing in support of information there. The wiki writers write neutrally, Just to mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir.azeri (talk • contribs) 17:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No you do not seem to have read the article. If you have any doubt that In Sassanid and Partian era Iran was called Iran, then you have one chance: challenge the entire scholarships. This is much more difficult than reading and clicking in wikipedia that you failed to do correctly. Good luck. Xashaiar (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This post is a true sign of vandalism. The author mentions no reference or answer to the question of refs. But merely attacks me for my post. No reference of mentioned scholars have been given!. Amir.azeri (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC).
 * I think this is sufficient and next time you label users by their background (because you disagree with historical facts), you will be reported and if you do it couple of more times, you will probably be banned. See WP:battle, WP:forum, WP:soapbox and WP:attack as well as WP:OR and WP:RS.  This is an Encyclopedia.  Xashiar is right with this regard that if you think your theory is correct, you will have to challenge scholarship and then come back to Wikipedia. Thanks  --Pahlavannariman (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Geography detail incorrect
In the Geography and climate section, 2nd paragraph, there is a claim that Mount Damavand is "also the highest mountain on the Eurasian landmass west of the Hindu Kush". This is not correct. It is based on the old height measurement at 5671m. The latest height for the mountain is 5610m which is shorter than Mount Elbrus (5642m) that is also located in the Eurasian landmass to the west of the Hindu Kush. There are numerous sources (including Wikipedia's own entries on these mountains) confirming this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FelixMonkey (talk • contribs) 23:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Iranian Revolution
There is absolutely no mention of US, European support for Saddam Hussein during Iran-Iraq war. The chemical weapons used in the war to kill tens of thousands of Iraqi Kurds and Shias and Iranian soldiers and civilians were provided by a man in the Netherlands (google results shows many, here is one http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5678681). France also provided Saddam with aircrafts. U.S. shot down a commercial airplane carrying 200+ Iranian passengers, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.113.143 (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Energy
Iran is currently 3rd in oil reserves not 2nd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylbow (talk • contribs) 04:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2178rank.html

Languages
User Mani has been removing the regional languages of Iran (Azeri, Kurdish, Luri, Mazandarani, Gilaki, Baluchi and Arabic) from the article based on the justification that there are "20" languages spoken in Iran and that representing the previously mentioned languages implies that they are the only languages spoken in Iran. Personally, I do haven't a clue about which 20 languages he is referring to. He has engaged in an edit war, reverting the consensus/status quo and justified his edits simply through the edit summary. I respectfully invite him to discuss his proposed changes here. Agha Nader (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There was no concensus about that, there was one before that. User Babakxorramdin which is now banned because of rude behaviour and edit wars added that wrong section to it and messed up with the form which enjoyed concensus. Everything has been explained before and you can find the discussions in the archive. It is logical. None of those languages are taught in Iran and your list is even incomplete. It is good enough for explanation in the text not in the box. By adding that section to the box you are implying that Luri, Azari, Kurdish etc. are now taught in Iranian schools which is not true. In case you insist that local languages which theoretically are supposed to be in official use by you should be added to the infobox then you should add all of these to it, which will disform the box.--ماني a.k.a. &#91;&#91;User:Mani1&#93;&#93; (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I fail to see any logic behind your "argument". Just because the regional languages aren't taught in schools doesn't mean that they are not spoken in Iran. But here, by belittling the regional languages, you betray the "justification" you gave for your edits in the edit summary: "There are 20 local languages in Iran why naming a few and presenting it as such!" Before you gave the impression that your motivation was in the interest of fairly presenting all of the regional languages (of which there are not 20), but here it is clear that you are only interested in presenting Persian because (you incorrectly think) it is the only one taught in schools. The problem with your 'argument' is that it is inconsistent. The listed languages are constitutionally recognized in Iran, and substantial proportions of the population speak them. To omit them would be misleading, not to include them. Indeed, if the article were changed to the version you prefer, it would reflect the POV of pan-Iranian nationalists. We must present a neutral article to our readers. Of what importance is it if the languages are not taught in school? Arabic is, in fact, taught in Iranian school, does this mean that it is of greater importance than the other regional languages because it meets the criterion of your arbitrary 'taught in school test'. Agha Nader (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The situation of the languages in Iran is quite the same as that of France. There are some local languages and their existence is mentioned in the constitution, but they are not mentioned by name and they are not listed in the constitution. babakxorramdin was arguing that Iran is not like France and "France is a fascist state and Iran isn't". I don't see much meaning in his reasoning and I think that I'm not alone on this issue. Alefbe (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S: AghaNader's edits on this issue have begun just after the indefinite block of Babakxorramdin. Before going further to argue with Agha Nader on this issue, it's better to check if he is Babakxorramdin's sockpuppet or not. Alefbe (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Alefbe please refrain from making personal attacks. Your ill-considered accusation that I may be a sock of Babak is absurd.
 * Back to the topic at hand. You are right about one issue: you are not alone, Mani agrees with you. But that is it. Seriously, no one else agreed with Mani when this was discussed. I'm not making this up. Take a look at as well as  where I engaged in discussion (and I disagreed with Babak about one point, and that was in 6 October 2008 !). If you take the time to look at the archives (and that is a big IF, given your careless accusation that I may be Babak's sock), you will see that the only user to support removal of the regional languages was Mani and that the users that supported inclusion were: Alborz Fallah, Agha Nader, Sina111, Larno, Raayen, and Babakexorramdin. Take the time to review what has been discussed (your argument was presented by Mani and rebutted by six users, and supported by none) before you change the long standing consensus version of the article. Agha Nader (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * One correction: there were seven people who supported inclusion, I forgot kwami. No one other than Mani supported removal. Agha Nader (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Splitting Up Iran and Persia
It is my opinion that Iran and Persia should be split up into two different articles, or series of articles, instead of Persia simply redirecting to Iran. I am fairly certain that when people type in "Persia", they generally mean Iran before it was called Iran. I admit, it would be a bit of a kind of annoying task to go to all the articles about Iran before it was called Iran and changing it to Persia, but this is merely my opinion. 66.67.141.216 (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Read Iran (word) before writing comments like this. Alefbe (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

change title of history section "pre-islamic statehood" to "the classical Iranian empire era"
The section entitled " Pre-Islamic Statehood" is a wrong title for this section because it fails to recognize that Iranians had a rich native legacy similar to Greeks, Egyptians, etc and have continued these classical traditions into the islamic era. Therefore, this epoch of Empires of Achemenid, Seluecid, Parthian, and Sassanian --should be called the "Classical Iranian Empire Era"

thank you,

Fight4truth (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. You need to reuqest in the change this to this format. Also, please establish concensus before continuing as you are asking for opinions. Please feel free to re request after. Thank you. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 18:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You also recently changed the recent History of Iran (Mossadegh)> To the best of my knowledge Mossdegh was overthrown by the British because he nationalized the oil industries in Iran and not because of "lack of support" by the Iranian people. 69.116.236.229 (talk)

Iran Name Origin
The Iranians used Iran as the name of their country before Sassanid's era.The eldest historical documents which denotes this fact is Avesta, the holy book of Zoroaster. The name of Iran in Avesta is Iranveej which was translated to ĒRĀNŠAHR in Pahlavi. Ardeshir Papakan the founder of Sassanid's dynasty used this familiar name in his reliefs and this name is not his innovation. D. N. MACKENZIE in his article entitled "ĒRĀN, ĒRĀNŠAHR" denotes that" ērānšahr properly denotes the empire, while ērān signifies “of the Iranians.”" Then ĒRAN means Aryan and ĒRĀNŠAHR means Aryan Country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.z.saeidi (talk • contribs) 07:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Gaugamela was more decisive than Issus
This sentence is misleading:
 * In 334 BCE, Alexander the Great invaded the Achaemenid Empire, defeating the last Achaemenid Emperor Darius III at the Battle of Issus in 333 BCE.

Darius III was not fully defeated until the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 BCE. I suggest the following change:
 * In 334 BCE, Alexander the Great invaded the Achaemenid Empire, defeating the last Achaemenid Emperor Darius III initially at the Battle of Issus in 333 BCE and decisively in the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 BCE.

--Intentionally unsigned 04:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The Baloch
re:these edits by User:Looslion. Some problems I've reverted.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * no sources = WP:V non-compliance
 * the Balach aren't a religious group
 * the information isn't in the Baloch people article so it's unclear why it has been added here.

Demography
This is iranian prosperity!!!.refrenced from www.prosperity.com: http://www.prosperity.com/prosperiscope.aspx?sel=CA,IR&index=prosperity&year=2009

please go and check!! it is because of iranian perfect(!!!) leader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.50.52.96 (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Ajsadeh, 13 July 2010
editsemiprotected

'Drives on' in the sidebar should be changed to "right". This seems to have been listed as 'left' in error.

Ajsadeh (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 14:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"arid" link is wrong (Geography and climate)
Someone should change the "arid" link to "Desert climate" (penultimate paragraph in the "Geography and climate" section). Because desert climate (also known as "arid climate") is properly a type of climate, while arid is simply a characteristic of lack of water in a region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.21.74.44 (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Gonello (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please add Ferdowsi
The Persian language has produced a number of famous poets; however, only a few poets as Rumi and Omar Khayyám have surfaced among western popular readership, even though the likes of Hafez, Saadi, Nezami[201] Attar, Sanai, Naser Khusraw, Jami are considered by many Iranians to be just as influential.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.97.19 (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Anthem
This is not the current anthem of Iran, but the Imperial one. 92.195.118.200 (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Fletchinator08, 1 September 2010
Under the section Middle Ages in the first paragraph the sentence "Many provinces in Iran defended themselves against the Arab invaders, although none in the end was able to repulse the invaders." Should be,"... although none in the end were able to repulse the invaders."

Fletchinator08 (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Persia
I've noticed what could be construed as an edit war going on over the inclusion of the name "Persia" in the article. Persia redirects to Iran (and that fact is prominently hatnoted), it is a name that was in use in the British Empire for a long time and is to be found in historical references to the country. I'm of the opinion that the alternative name should be presented in the lede of the article. If anyone can present decent arguments against its inclusion, please feel free to state your case. If it can be demonstrated that there is consensus for the removal of the name "Persia" form the lede, I'll not stand in the way of its removal. Mjroots (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've created an edit notice which will be visible to all who edit the article. I've also notified the Administrators' Noticeboard of my actions, which means that a lot of admins will be aware of this. Mjroots (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was actually going to say adding "formerly known as" would solve the problem, but see you've added "historically" instead. Good job! Thanks! Fin©™ 17:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you ever read the first 2 lines of this article?! The name Persia is mentioned (now twice bold in 2 lines). The revert of addition of Persia right after Iran is because the country is no longer named as Persia in any official document.Xashaiar (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I only read the addition in this case. That's a fair point, I've stricken my original comment above. Thanks! Fin©™ 17:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Xashaiar, I'm not saying that Iran is known as Persia nowadays. As the article says, the name has only been known internationally since 1935. The inclusion of the name in the lede reiterates to those who are looking on info about "Persia" that they have reached the correct article. I agree about the second instance of bolding of Persia being unnecessary and will correct that. Mjroots (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mjroots you are wrong. 1. You say "I'm not saying that Iran is known as Persia nowadays", therefore according to wp:lead you can not include it right after the official name. 2. You say "the name has only been known internationally since 1935". Please consider reading this yourself. Iran was named this exact "Iran" since Parthian/Sasanid times (see Eran, and a bit about history of the name). 3. You say that this "[..]reiterates to those who are looking on info about "Persia"". For the very same reason that there is note before the article that helps to choose historical persia in this page. In short the word Persia should be removed completely from the lead except the small note at the end of first paragraph. 4. May I ask you why you chose to unbold "second instance of Persia" but kept the "unnecessary and wrong instance of Persia right after Iran". If complete removal of Persia is not agreed by everybody, I suggest keeping Persia as in this version. Xashaiar (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I too, in fact, prefer the version Xashaiar linked to at the moment. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I've redone the lede again, the bold occurrence of Persia now occurs some distance from the bold occurence of Iran. Mjroots2 (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you please revert to years old stable version? At least the stable version should be there until wp:cons is reached. Xashaiar (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reverted to the lede in the version Xashaiar linked to. The only difference is the SS Iran hatnote above it. That hatnote is in line with WP:SHIPS policy in having redirects form alternative names with and without prefixes. If there was a dab page for alternative uses of Iran then a link to the ship would appear there. Mjroots2 (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not know why such a simple issue has became quite compelicative for some of Wiki users! Iran has been called "Persia" for 25 centuries and still in certain contexts is used. "Iran" is just popular since 1935 in English. The majority of sources, documents, maps, etc. have referred to the country as Persia in English. So naturally it should be mentioned in the first line. Many thanks for your attention as well. Shayan7 (talk) --Shayan7 16:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do not revert without consensus. I think the second sentence "The name Iran has been in use natively since the Sassanian era and came into use internationally in 1935, before which the country was widely known as Persia." aptly covers any issues you may have. Thanks! Fin©™ 17:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi paragraph is not complete. Also as I mentioned earlier, for countries - which like us - have two popular names such as Burma, the issue has been mention in the first line of the articles. Meanwhile Persia is still popular in the West. It's not a dead name. In 2006 the maps of Iran from ancient till modern time was published in the Netherlands entitled "Historical Maps of Persia", Abbas Milani's book name is "Eminent Persians", Homa Katouzian's book is titled "The Persians". Various culture and art exhibitions of Iran in Europe such as "Persia: Thirty Centuries of Culture and Art" in Amsterdam or "7000 Years Persian Art" in Vienna and Berlin used "Persia"/"Persian" for "Iran"/"Iranian". I do not know why some poeple are going to pretend Persia is a dead name, just related to the past! It's true that in UN it's now Islamic Republic of Iran but everything is not UN and politics. Even in recent "Plan B for Persia: Responding to Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program Absent Diplomatic Agreement" articles about Iran nuclear programs sometimes "Persia" have been used. (More Examples: 1, 2)
 * Yes, the region, especially when speaking historically, is known as Persia. The nation-state is Iran.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

We are talking here about the history, culture and society, etc of a country which is widely called "Persia" in the World/ Also remember the terms Persian Cat, Persian Carpet, Persian food, etc. is quite popular terms for the carpet, cat and food of Iran. They are not dead. There are still Persian carpet, cat, food, etc. I have already presented these "sound documents". Thanks. User:Shayan7 --Shayan7 12:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the editnotice should be removed. I think it is now clear that the world Persia should aslo appear in the lead but not twice. The current version which is, as far as I can tell, the stable one and the one we should keep. Xashaiar (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that the edit note should stay. However, it may be re-worded should an alternative be proposed and gain consensus. Mjroots (talk)


 * Just goes to show you, there's no agreement where Iranians are concerned. That's my 2 cents anyways. 114.76.97.107 (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Persian Islam"?
Who has written this? Some atheist from Iran that want´s to prove to the West that Iranians are not Arabs? True, they are not. But(!), there is only one Islam! There is no "Arab Islam", "Persian Islam", "Turkish Islam", "Nigerian Islam".... This is an insult to all believing Muslims in Iran and completly incorrect, ask any Islamic scholar from Iran or anywere else! There is just one Quran, one Prophet s.a.w.s. and One Allah s.w.t.! With regards to the great project of wikipedia! An oasis of knowledge! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.147.85 (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, this was clearly the work of the CIA "paid agents" in order to divide Muslim brothers. Semper Vigilans! ;)

69.116.236.229 (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * lol there's one islam? What are they fighting about in Iraq then? lolfaillol 12:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)12:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)12:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)12:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)12:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)12:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)12:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)12:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.97.107 (talk)

Please change the shia islamic status in iran. this is totally wrong. 90% of the iranian people are shia muslim, not 89%. who has written this? a sunni muslim? or an non-muslim person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denniturk (talk • contribs) 23:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

regional languages
As a non-Iranian studying Iran I see two things: Iran has an official language. This is not similar to the USA, where there is no such a thing at federal level. And, the Iranian constitution article 15 recognizes all regional and ethnic languages. Therefore the recognized regional languages should be add. I think only a few should be named with reference to the constitution. One can look for a complete list in the corresponding article. I do not see why certain individuals delete this information. Their action is in contrast to the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia. They have never explained their deletions convincingly. Therefore I suggest the section recognized regional languages be put back.140.247.136.145 (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

regional languages
As a non-Iranian studying Iran I see two things: Iran has an official language. This is not similar to the USA, where there is no such a thing at federal level. And, the Iranian constitution article 15 recognizes all regional and ethnic languages. Therefore the recognized regional languages should be add. I think only a few should be named with reffrence to the constitution. One can look for a complete list in the corresponding article. I do not see why certain individuals delete this information. Their action is in contrast to the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia. They have never explained their deletions convincingly. Therefore I suggest the section recognized regional languages be put back.140.247.136.145 (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

salam/dorood!
I just wanted to thank everyone who worked on this wikipage as well as other Iranian related articles. You guys have done a great job and I really appreciate how much extra time and hard work you put in. Kheli mamnoon ممنون :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.113.143 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Please add Iran
Iran is missing from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_colors_of_national_flags

Merci! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.113.143 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Anthem!
Dear all, Anthem or Iran is wrong in it's page, Please correct it

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emdadgar2 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed it Mardetanha  talk 16:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Iran Population Ranking
Quick heads up. 17th Largest not 18th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muskydusky (talk • contribs) 21:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done SSZ (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: Factbook gives 66 million in its latest estimate, while the U.N. gives approx. 75 million.

Neutrality and inappropriate sources
This article is (occasionally) far away from being precise and neutral. Most of its problems come from the usage of inappropriate sources, eg primary sources like Ibn Battuta. Take this example: Between 1220 and 1260, the total population of Iran had dropped from 2,500,000 to 250,000 as a result of mass extermination and famine. Or this one: Iran currently ranks 89th in tourist income, but is rated among the "10 most touristic countries" in the world. Come on...--Dipa1965 (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In reference to the toursim sector: mind you, it is properly sourced. 68.197.144.38 (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Khomeini Islamic Republic
the name is forged and non-existent. it is ridiculously stupid to see such mistakes on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.218.18.8 (talk) 10:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. It has no sources. A quick look through google books, scholar, news etc comes up with a some hits, none of which struck me as justifying an alternative name for an entire country in bold in the lead of an article. I also couldn't see a discussion in the archive. If someone wants to restore it they need to demonstrate compliance with WP:PLACE.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 95.146.180.110, 5 November 2010
Hi,

please make the required changes to reflect the new HDI figures released in 2010 by UN: http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

regards, Amir

95.146.180.110 (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done -Atmoz (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Məhəndis, 28 November 2010
There are 6 cases in the article that the word "Azeri" is used as an language that is popular in Iran. But it is an abbreviation for the word "Azerbaijani", so I think it is better to replace all "Azeri"s to "Azerbaijani". This change can improve scientific level of this article.

Məhəndis (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Done Done--since the Wikipedia article lists Azerbaijani language as the main title, it makes sense for this article to do the same. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

With all respect, I should say that the exact word which is used in Iran for that language is "Azeri". In fact (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * However, Wikipedia is not actually concerned with how the word is used locally, but how the word is used in English. ompare, for example, all of the following languages: Japanese language, called Niohnogo in Japan; French language, called Français in France, and Russian language, called russkiy yazyk in Russia.  The first, and last, of course, are written in different characters in the respective languages.  In all cases, we are concerned with what word is used in English, not locally.  21:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely understand your point.But since "Azeri" is the short form of "Azerbaijani", I think it's totally different from the examples mentioned by you.Is it OK to use it in parentheses like this: Azeri(Azerbaijani) ? Thanks ! In fact (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We could list the short form once, in parentheses, after the first mention of Azerbaijani. This follows the standard convention for what we do anytime a thing has more than one name--the main name goes first, the secondary names in parentheses, but only the first time it's mentioned.  I'll go ahead and add that in now.  Qwyrxian (talk) 08:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! In fact (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Linking wrong!
the linking to the pronunciations of "Iran" seems to have been reversed, the naming is right but the order is reversed which could lead to misunderstandings. Sorry if I'm doing something wrong, I'm n00b at Wikipedia :) 62.20.235.202 (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC) to clarify, the link to the audio files that is. 62.20.235.202 (talk) 12:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

'Plastaic Keys to Heaven'
Might the following commentary be added to the discussion regarding the 1980s Iraq-Iran War? Occassionaly this topic appears in the media, I thought that the following might correct/clarify some of the discussion. Might the appropriate monitor-person add it?: Supposedly about 1984 the Iranian government distributed golden-colored, plastic ‘Paradise Keys’ to its soldiers; they were told that these keys would ‘open the gates of Paradise’ where 72 ‘houri’ (celestial virgins) awaited battlefield martyrs. This is unsubstantiated; soldiers were issued metallic identification tags, and/or plastic identification cards, along with a copy of Shaykh Abbas Qomi (d. 1959) prayer book entitled ‘Mafatih ul-Jenan’ or “Keys to Paradise”. Some contend this comingling of military items enabled opponents of Khomeini to misrepresent that the soldiers had been issued ‘Plastic Keys to Heaven’ – a concept that they hoped would evoke derision in the Western media against Khomeini [cite: “Khomeini’s Search for Perfection: Theory and Reality” by Baqer Moin in Pioneers of Islamic Revival, 2005 ed. by Ali Rahnema, p. 68.]. Although 500,000 of these keys were allegedly ordered from Taiwan, and were allegedly found by Iraqi soldiers in the clinched fists of dead Iranian soldiers, no photographs of them have appeared. BillGarrisonJr (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed it only because we cannot mention EVERYTHING on the main page - see WP: Undue, WP: Size. I think you might want to place this mention in its appropriate section on the Iran-Iraq war's page instead. 68.197.144.38 (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010 Kerman province eathquake
7 were reported dead and just over 100 hurt in a relatively sparsely populated and rural area of Kerman province  after a magnitude-6.5 earthquake hit an area between the cities of Zahedan and Bam. according to state-run Press TV on the 20th. The governor general of Kerman province told the IRNA news agency that the death toll would probably start to rise as rescuers found more dead and injured in the rubble. The ground tremors were felt as far away as the Pakistan-Afghanistan border .--82.11.99.44 (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review
I have recently requested this. Some users are helping. I should specially thank User:SSZ for helping this article to improve. Most of his edits are acceptable. But some of them are not corrcet that I would like to mention: *** in fact  ***   (contact)  06:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is supposed to be only one picture in Sports section, It's better to be the most popular one (football). Other pictures as well as Azadi Stadium should all be in here.
 * removing this picture from the article is also not appropriate in here.
 * The size of this picture should be a little larger to best fit the article, as I did it here.
 * Why this category has been removed ?
 * Finally, as I have described here, I did it according to the cover of the book.


 * As you mention, please note these changes were initiated by your own request for review and explained later in my edit summaries here and again here. Basically, in Sports and one History sub-section that you mention, there is not enough room to have as many pictures if you want to avoid sandwiching text between images. Finally, navboxes are generally not placed at the top of the page. See one example here. Kind regards, SSZ (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I add this category because this page is a redirect page of IRI and IRI is a regime, not being of Iran. but someone removed that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazdakabedi (talk • contribs)


 * Dear SSZ, I already thanked you for helping. Please read my notes again (carefully) and try to discuss them one by one. We all want the best for this article. Cheers. ***  in fact  ***   (contact)  04:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear ***  in fact  ***, I don't mind if you want to choose this picture. Sorry, but I don't have much else to say here...SSZ (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Iranian election protests
The part about the Iranian election protests is much to long. In a country with 7,000 history, the relevance of a few monthts of protesting, which failed to change anything in the political system at all is very small. At the time there was a lot of hype about it, but now, almost 2 years later, as it is clear that this was not the new Iranian revoulution, I think the part about it should be cut down, a lot.
 * Dear user Kermanshahi, First of all, please sign your messages in the talk pages.
 * About your suggestion, I disagree. It's not the matter of How long something is. It's the matter of importance. I believe That part shouldn't be cut down. I think if there should be a change, then that part (Iranian election protests) could be in another sub-heading under "Recent history (1921–present)". It would look like this in the list:
 * 3.6.2 Iranian election protests
 * This is all I can agree with. But you should also ask other editors' ideas as well. Regards, *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  06:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree to reduce this section. Comparing to other section, it's too long. In a historical point of view, it's not more important than constitutionalization efforts, the coup d'etat of 1953 or Iran-Iraq war. Let's see what's others opinion.--Aliwiki (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there is too much detail. The next-to-last paragraph in this section can be deleted. There are sub-articles that contain all the details. See Iranian presidential election, 2009. 68.197.144.38 (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Persia again
I did an edit removing Persia from the opening sentence "Iran (Persia)" which is 1. Wrong 2. The sources were falsified. It would be appreciated if editors 1. read wp:lead and do not add Persia again and again (because it is mentioned at least once more in the lead!) and 2. See the discussion on this in the archive of this talk page. Xashaiar (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Flora
While there are list of native and common fauna for Iran, should there also be a short list of native flora and common flora?74.216.44.7 (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea to me. *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  04:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

This clearly distinguishes the two terms accredited as the original form of "Iran". As "Eran" seems the more feasible i think this version should be given full credit. Although Aryana may have served to describe the same thing as Eran and Iran, as it has no connection with these two terms i think it should only get a brief mention in the section, of any. comments welcome, especially if it enlightens us all on the true origin of the term "Iran"Karafs (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good points but OR and Synth. Here is what we know and what the article says: The term "Iran" is directly related to Eran of Sasanids as "a name of the empire/state/group of people" but as an Ethnic-Religious-... word Eran is (by all sources) a sasanid way of writing of the fully attested Old Iranian (Avestan which is older than Old Persian) word "Aryanam ..". The term "*aryānām xšaçra-" is what the Old Persian term SHOULD have been. Xashaiar (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * Looks good to me, covers pretty much all the important information in the section in a much concise and reader-friendly way. I say replace it, but let´s wait to see what other editors think. Uirauna (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes the section should be reduced to a few sentences. And the version you propose seems to have some problems: ", while the Parthian language inscription that accompanies it uses the term aryān instead" this is a misrepresentation. Parthians spoke no Persian but rather Parthian and thats why they WROTE differently. So the sentence (which is unnecessary) should be "and the Parthian version of the inscription that accompanies it uses the Parthian term "aryān"in reference to Iranians ". Xashaiar (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with ur modification, as the sentence in question IS misleading. i was also thinking of finding what the greeks called the persians. i think it was Persēs but i can confirm it. so the sentence would look like this:
 * ...mainly due to the writings of Greek historians who called Iran Persēs (Πέρσης), meaning land of the Persians

Karafs (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Boldly go ahead!. If your changes need further edits people will do it. Xashaiar (talk) 15:41, 27 hi wats up

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

You will need a concensus to delete materials. Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What exists in other articles is not a concern of this article. However, article on China and even United States have a long history section.
 * Your content: "I mean, i studied history at school in iran, and apart from saffari i havent heard of any of these guys.".. that is not a good argument for Wikipedia. And that is exactly why it should be in this article, so you can learn part of the history of Iran.  Now you know alittle about "who are these guys".
 * "Remeber we're writing for people who know little of iran and want to learn, not academic researchers".. No we are writing Wikipdia to be on the highest level of scholarship. --
 * "Further separation of Proto-Iranians into "Eastern" and "Western" groups occurred due to migration. By the first millennium BC, Medes, Persians, Bactrians and Parthians populated the western part, while Cimmerians, Sarmatians and Alans populated the steppes north of the Black Sea. " I think this is a good statement to have in the article as most of the languages of Iran are mainly due to these groups.  We can related to the article better saying Persian and most languages of Iran related to these groups..--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for a consensus as i haven't deleted, i have rewritten and even added to the section. Last time i did ask beforehand (see section above concerning the etymology section) i was given this encouragement:
 * Boldly go ahead!. If your changes need further edits people will do it. Xashaiar (talk) 15:41, 27

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

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

lol. there seems to be a wikipedia policy for all view points. Fair enough, I'll finish editing the history section on my own userpage n when im done i'll put it up on the talk page n see what ppl think. but the section is too big. i mean on the to do list it says shorten the article and on numerous occasions it has been brought up in this discussion page.Karafs (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, yeah I think that is a good idea to put it up for discussion.. However, I think the section should even be expanded . --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Karafs, it makes no sense to have such a long and detailed history section when you already have some many pages covering the history of Iran. It makes the article too long to read. Uirauna (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

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

What he means is that there is no need for the amount of detail, and is distracting from the important information. It could also do with better organisation.Karafs (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it makes no sense. The purpose of the history section is to provide an OVERVIEW of the information already present in its own article. WP is not a data dump, place yourself in the position of a reader of the article, who wants to know more about Iran, when he goes to the history section, instead of getting an overview on how the cilization evolved from ancient times and turned into the modern coutry it is today, he/she will be faced with a huge section with too much detailed information. If the reader wants to know more about the history of Iran, there is the link to that article. And what about my edit history, do you really want to get into ad hominem arguments here? Comment on the content, not on the contributor. Please read WP:PA. Also, please sign your posts. Uirauna (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Have you considered why all three of those articles (i.e. Iran, Egypt and China) have been crossed off the good article list whilst Turkey, India and Japan, all three with ancient and proud histories, have progressed to the level of featured article. We're meant to be improving the article, not keeping the status quo (thought i'd add my own latin phrase:P). But seriously, which articles should we be comparing it to? A bunch of B-rated articles, or the finest wikipedia has to offer? And what kind of article is this when readers are advised to skip sections? What if they wanted a brief version of iran's history? The general rule is the broader the topic the less detail, and an article on a country of over 70 million is pretty broad. We're writing for learners, not for our own egos.Karafs (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please follow wikipedia policy. The history section is actually very small to the actual level of Iran's history.  How other countries are written is not relavent to this article, but Egypt, United States and China are good examples.  It would be better if new users in Wikipedia actually try to contribute in expanding articles rather making contributiong in deleting WP:RS sources.  Deleting WP:RS sources is violation of WP:vandalism, and all the information in the history section are relavent to this article and very important.   We write Wikipedia to make it a free Encyclopaedia on the same level as say Britannica, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Iranica (this one is free right now) and etc.  And even the United States has a long history section, and the article in my opinion on United States is better than Turkey and India.    Again the long history section is not the reason why the article does not have a featured status. Basically no has attempted yet to give it featured status.  And finally, when looking at academic Encycloapedias, Encyclopaedia of Islam for example has an excellet article on Iran.  Or check out Iranica where the Iran article is very long, dealing with all spects.  If you want to make the article featured, then you should ask for variety of inputs, not simply delete sections.  As I said, removing historical information is VP:vandalism as all the information in the current article is related.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


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


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


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

in my opinion, comparing to similar articles, the history section must be expanded.--Aliwiki (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree.. Plus, one can also rewrite the current paragraphs in the article into a more terse version without deleting any information. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

I agree that the encyclopaedia should have academic quality, with a wealth of detail. but the Iran page isn't the same as the encyclopaedia. The encyclopaedia is a collection of all the articles on wikipedia, and frankly, the more accurate and detailed the collection is the better. But the information has to be put in the appropriate places. The more specific the topic, the greater the detail and factual knowledge, but the broader topics should have many topics covered in concise (not simple) sections. I do not think that this specific article should delve into complicated, confusing and contradictory detail which accompanies any topic in history, but should be brief, and encourage the reader to learn more on the topic by visiting the History of Iran page.Karafs (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see any "contradictatory" details. However, "Complicated" is a relative word.  History sometimes is complicated.  I personally do not think that the history section is long, and it should even be longer.  However, if length is an issue, one can rewrite the same information but in a more terse format.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

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

Hi, Where is your edits and links to it? Also I thank you for providing inofmration. I think we can cleanup the Middle Agres more, but four important aspects need to be there and emphasized even more:
 * Iranian resistances (Yaqu'b) was just one of them, the rest of the guys are important.
 * New Persian language and literature, and its development from Middle Persian of Khorosan.
 * Iranian contribution to the various sciences in the Islamic era, which is mentioned by Frye amongst others. Frye's book: "Heritage of Persia", Chapter 8 is called "Iranian contibutions to Islamic culture", and it has an excellent summary of the material.  I would use this
 * Iranian influence (cultural) on those of neighboring groups specifically the Indians and Turks.
 * The heavy role of Iranians in Sufism.


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

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because... (It is obvious that it's wikipedia admin's error to put speedy deletion for this article. ) --Gazaneh (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My fault, Huggle quirk. Sorry Iran :) - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 00:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Iran claims to be bigger
Irani defence minister claims Iran is 1,873,959 square kilometers rather than the known 1,648,195 square kilometers. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2011/Sep-05/147943-iran-is-larger-than-thought-minister.ashx#axzz1X5gHvimr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.12.178 (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It was edited already, so I looked at the various sources, and there is absolutely nothing to indicate that Iran's defense ministry isn't just using an inflated figure. There are no explanations or scientific rationale for the change. Furthermore, the "water area" figure isn't even covered by the new Iranian number, so it becomes automatically incorrect if you use differing sources for the two. Therefore, I went ahead and changed it back to the generally accepted value. I expect this may become a point of contention... – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff)

Edit request from 198.151.130.1, 5 September 2011
Area: 1,873,959 km^2 (with the addition of islands, ref: http://www.aftabnews.ir/vdcjtxevvuqetyz.fsfu.html)

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


 * Sorry, I can't just change that at this time - it needs discussion; current area information has appropriate reliable sources; please discuss it here and form consensus, then re-request; perhaps it would be appropriate to add a note that 'sources vary' - but, I think this needs some agreement; there's no point just changing it from one claim in one RS to another, as it could just be changed back again. Thanks,  Chzz  ► 01:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Introduction Section
The introduction states that Russia and Kazakhstan are Iran's direct neighbors to the north. They are not "direct neighbors". Russia and Kazakhstan are opposite Iran on the Caspian Sea but they do not share any borders with Iran whatsoever. Iran's direct northern neighbors are Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.45.91 (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Cardboard Kingdom of the Gulf
Why does al-Zarqawi refer to this country as the "Cardboard Kingdom of the Gulf"? Letter from Musab al-Zarqawi to Osama bin Laden (January 2004) 81.68.255.36 (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 18 November 2011
The part about the 2009 elections is clearly not neutral and hides some information in order to discredit the green movement and support the regime's thesis.

"The European Union and several western countries expressed concern over alleged irregularities during the vote,[129] and many analysts and journalists from the United States and United Kingdom news media voiced doubts about the authenticity of the results."

This is really not fair to only write this, if you want to talk about people expressing concerns over alleged irregularities during the vote, you should firstly talk about us (Iranians) first. Cinema directors (for example Jafar Panahi, Mohammad Rasoulof), usual citizens, bloggers, journalists, politicians, sportsmen (Karimi, Nekounam and most of the National Iranian Football Team during the game with Korea), actors (Pegah Ahangarani, Ramin Parchami), classic musicians (Mohammad Reza Shajarian), even Basijis themselves (see the Guardian's interview with defected Basijis, see Amir Farshad Ebrahimi, and many others...), & also people among the Iranian diaspora all said the votes were fraudulent. The most relevant file is the letter from the Interior Ministry exposed everywhere in Iran and even showed by Marjan Satrapi and Mohsen Makhmalbaf in European Parliament: http://news.gooya.com/politics/archives/2009/06/089337.php showing the real votes (Mousavi won with 20,000,000 votes followed by Karroubi who had 14,000,000 and Ahmadinejad only had 5,500,000). Mohammad Asghari, the employee exposing this letter was killed just after doing it !! (see http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF_%D8%A7%D8%B5%D8%BA%D8%B1%DB%8C ). You should also talk about the number of journalists arrested just before the elections, if everything was right then why so many arrests just before the elections ?? (You can see the names here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Iranian_presidential_election) You should also talk about the number of votes going down: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FakeResults_Iran.jpg You should also write that it is impossible to count 40 million votes in 2 hours. You should talk about the fact that during these 2 hours, the percentages stayed the same !!! You should talk about the fact that provinces that used to boycott in majority suddenly began to vote for the conservative party ! You should talk about the fact the green protests gathered millions of people while pro-ahmadinejad protests took people from all over the country with buses and couldn't even gather 100,000 people ! Unfortunately, I cannot edit the article, that's why I say "you". <

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

This has to be deleted. That is a joke and an insult to anyone living in Iran. I oppose the whole regime but if I am called asked if I do, I will obviously say I don't !!! You guys should start putting yourself into contexts before saying something and stop being naive ! This "independent poll" (only one) was made MONTHS after the elections, after Khamenei said anyone opposing the elections will be repressed harshly and hundreds were killed and thousands put into prison and tortured including some of my closest friends for contesting it ! What do you expect people to say ? Plus, on the phone ! That is ridiculous. And I suggest you to watch this video at 26:50 and you will understand what I am talking about http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/general/2011/11/2011118122637129536.html

Abirangdarya (talk) 08:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Much of what you want put into the article is your own synthesis. Even if you are right, Wikipedia can only report on verifiable facts, rather than truth. — Bility (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

City Population Rank (Minor Problem)
The rank of Iranian cities by population at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranian_cities_by_population is displaying rank between 11 and 20 as opposed to 1-10. I have no idea what is wrong. --Timtak (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

national employment is generated in the tourism sector
yeah the line in the Economy section that reads "Close to 1.8% of national employment is generated in the tourism sector which is slated to increase to 10% in the next five years.[213] " is probably very incorrect. The source that's quoted is over ten years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.153.181.230 (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Persian inscript-nast- farsi-khat e fasi nast..jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
{| Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
 * Image-x-generic.svg
 * An image used in this article, File:Persian inscript-nast- farsi-khat e fasi nast..jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
 * What should I do?
 * What should I do?
 * If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
 * If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
 * If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Great geopolitical analysis
There is a great Stratfor geopolitical analysis at http://dancingczars.wordpress.com/2011/12/16/the-geopolitics-of-iran-holding-the-center-of-a-mountain-fortress/ and probably a dozen other places, with great maps, as well. Alas, they all seem imbedded in (mostly) right-wing web sites and, superficially looks pov. The websites clearly are; the analysis definitely is not and is worth reading (and adding to external links, IF (and only if) a site can be found that looks more or less npov that carries it. (I got it sent to me without surrounding "stuff" in an email). Student7 (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * }

Vote
The user Iranic has since a few days ago (a few weeks to be exact) has added a link on the top of the page that state "This article is about the modern state of iran for 'historical uses' see Greater Iran"

I find this addition inappropriate on multiple grounds:

1)Such a reference at the top of the article gives the wrong impression in that it makes it look like Iran's history is really that of this made up concept of "Greater Iran", perhapse advocated (if not entirely taken out of Context by Iranic) by a recent Professor Richard Fry Nelson. Iranic's reference is basically insinuated from Nelson's "footnote" on the link that the user Iranic uses. I believe it is a miuse of Fry's text as Fry really is referring to Iran's challenges through the ages at the expense of political and social changes of the imperial powers and the cultural signature it has left on its surrounding neighbours. He by no means intends to imply that Iran is part of this made up entity of Greater Iran which at best is a Cultural not a political concept. (This much is clear from UN, and CIA fact sheets). Furthermore this addition also has a pan-Iranian or even anti-Iranian implications all of which are highly suspect and possibily insinuate agendas not suitable for this article. This article is simply about the nation of Iran as a political entity, and its history is that mentioned in the section "History" section. I even had no issue with this user using this tag in the History section. Iranic however has a tendency to bolden text and alter them based on a few sources only. For instance he simply picks on a source that looks like an outdated paper by Frey Nelson and is possibly used out of context.

2)Technically this attribution is improper and misguiding. The page to which it link the so called "Great Iran" is a page I believe made or heavy contributed to by Iranic and I checked the sources in that page and the content and it is basically mostly baesed based on personal experiences and original research rather than actual facts (WP:original research)

3)If such an addition is made to this article it should not be done through one user's persistent reversal of other people's addition into his own version: Namely Iranic's change of the header without any regard for other peoples' input simply citing a few outdated sources. It is clear that if I continue to reverse his addition he will simply go into a reversal and edit war which seem to, in large, plague Wikipedia. He also has a tendency to change data which seems to contradict his assertion. (For this see the recent changes in the page "Greater Iran" after I reversed his addition here citing that it is a "Cultural Continent" citing Encyclopedia Iranica which is at best questionable as a source. Upon feeling that his argument is questioned he went to the page Greater Iran and erased some data and changed the content to match his own assertion). Again I intend not to question his objectives or his impression but I disagree with his changes as they seem to be based on personal experiences rather than actual sources.

4) Wikipedia governs by the principle of the MOST COMMONLY AND WIDE SPREAD facts based on valid sources. Neither of which this concept of "Greater Iran" offers. It seems on the surface to advocate Pan-Iranianism but in reality it minimizes Iran's contribution and blocks direct access to a good historically accurate and eclectic source. (see Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and Article titles).

5)A quick search of Google books shows only Nelson as the author and also offers an interesting link showing the dangers of this type of newly created concepts. See [|this]

Therefore instead of petting myself against user Iranic I invite you to let us know whether you believe this addition on the top is warranted or not: If you agree please let us know by reflecting your opinion. But please do not turn it into an argument. I like to hear from you and we will have a consensus in a few days time hopefuly.

So what should we do, erase the link it for its problems, or keep it? Share with us your OPINION (does NOT matter if you are a established user or not. This is everybody's encyclopediae) Dr. Persi (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Please do not waste my time or yours over this. your "interesting link showing the dangers of this type of newly created concepts" is a fiction novel "this novel is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents either are the product of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously."


 * This article is about the term "Iran" and as I already mentioned, Iran in modern and pre modern eras has had two different meanings. Consequently what Ferdowsi called Iran in Shahnameh is not the Iran we know today. Richard N. Frye is one of the leading scholars and Iranologists and also a Full Professor at Harvard university. According to Frye: Greater Iran is the Iran which in the past so the word Iran in the past referred to the "greater Iran"


 * "I spent all my life working in Iran. and as you know I don't mean Iran of today, I mean Greater Iran, the Iran which in the past, extended all the way from China to borders of Hungary and from other Mongolia to Mesopotamia"

Iranic (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment While I agree with Dr. Persi in his/her concerns I see a possible way to satisfy Iranic's demands. Why not just put Greater Iran as a top link in the history section? (under "see also") I remember the same kind of discussion was made years ago on this talk page and someone argued that China and historical China were not the same and needed two different articles. The reaction was mute. I think someone also pointed to the possibility of a "hidden agenda" (which might be true) to split Iran (as the neo-con in the US have stated in their published documents). Nevertheless we must assume good faith (i think) and the above solution should be acceptable to everyone (I hope). My 2 cents. 81.62.66.15 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC).

The word "Iran" is a word to refer Iran since the Sassanid era. In that era the country which was known as Iran, was in fact the "Greater Iran". Even today in academic sources, sometimes they refer to historical and cultural Iran (Greater Iran) simply as "Iran". So, the usage is somehow ambiguous. Those readers who seek specifically for historical and cultural Iran (Greater Iran), should be able to get to their desired article. In order to solve this problem, we can add a sentence at the top of this article to say this article is about today's Iran, for historical and cultural Iran (greater Iran) in particular, please refer to the "Greater Iran". In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with that sentence, and I see no reason for its removal. --Wayiran (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Greater Ian is not OR at all. It a historically continuous fact and it's backed by lots of highly recognized reliable sources; Few are here or elsewhere such as google books and so on. If one see the history of Greater Iran article, s/he can easily realize huge number of disagreement and attacks as well against it. This has made the article be written in a very clean and encyclopedic way, so it's useless to call it a POV article. If Dr. Persi goes to more detail and say exactly what is OR and unverifiable in his opinion, I can help to clarify it as much as I can, but making general comments, since this topic have been discussed several times on many pages before, seems to be useless. --Aliwiki (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

With all respect to user:Dr. Persi, I believe user:Wayiran is right. There is nothing wrong about that sentence at the top of the article mentioning Greater Iran. In fact 09:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Iran
Could someone check the last few days edits at Portal:Iran/Intro? The page could do with some more watchers. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

unverifiable claim
the claim that 95,000 iranian children died in the war is from the ny times. this is not a scholarly source, and its an OPINION page from 1988 at that...are there any other sources that can verify how many children actually died? and even if this is true, which i doubt -- not because iranian regime wouldnt have deployed them -- but because no other source can confirm this -- it doesnt belong in iran wiki article. move it to iran iraq war or something.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/19/opinion/l-child-soldier-treaty-has-wide-support-697888.html?src=pm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Demographics - literacy
The article misquotes from the CIA World Factbook, stating that the literacy rate is 83%, while the source says that it is 83% in males only, 70% in females, and 77% across the entire population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.75.63 (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Heavy propaganda about Iran-Iraq war
Examples:
 * 1) Estimates of killed Iranians range from 195.000 (official) to 300.000 (unofficial) deaths, not "500.000 to one million" as mentioned in article. There is a LINK with many reliable sources which proves that.
 * 2) Alleged using of "child soldiers" is considered as heavy anti-Iranian propaganda (showing that Iranians don't care about lives of own children), and here in article it's prominent even by photo (highly doubtfully person is U-16) and with ridiculous claim about "95.000 dead" (?!). According Iranian laws, no person can participate army or voting under age of 16 (academic source: Iranica). Iran also officially denied that (UN source)--109.165.184.85 (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Iran lies, though, remember that. I see you have fallen prey to the Iranian propaganda machine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blocky1OOO (talk • contribs) 00:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Seeing is believing, and I don't see anything from you Blocky.--2.97.33.86 (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

philosophy
Forgot to add Omar Khayyam, Khwarzimi, Ghazali, and perhaps Nimatollahi to the list below.

"Among important contributors to philosophy in Iran are Zoroaster, Jamasp, Mardan-Farrux Ohrmazddadan, Adurfarnbag Farroxzadan, Adurbad Emedan, Iranshahri, Farabi, Avicenna, Ali ibn Sahl Rabban al-Tabari, Suhrawardi, Nasir Khusraw, Biruni, Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi, Abu Yaqub al-Sijistani, Nasir al-Din Tusi, Qutb al-Din Shirazi, Mir Damad, Mulla Sadra, Mir Fendereski and Hadi Sabzevari." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo of the Cyrus Cylinder with Incorrect Subtitle
In the section "Pre-Islamic Statehood", there is a photo of the Cyrus Cylinder. The caption reads "The Cyrus Cylinder a document issued by Cyrus the Great and regarded by some as a charter of human rights". By whom? All the information I've found says that it is simply an account of Cyrus the Great and has almost nothing whatsoever to do with human rights. Amend this or support it with evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esterhammerfic (talk • contribs) 15:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Presidential Term Limits
The article states that "The President is elected by universal suffrage for a term of four years and can only be re-elected for one term". I know for a fact that this statement is dubious, but I cannot find the source to prove it.

The reason I know it is dubious is because former president Rafsanjani, who already served two terms, ran for election in 2005 and came in second to Ahamadinejad. Furthermore, former president Khatami, who also served two terms publicly contemplated running for his third term in 2009.

The actual term-limit in Iran is that a president can run for a maximum of 3 non-consecutive terms. But as I said I cannot find the reference for this claim, so I have added a tag. Any help in locating the correct source would be appreciated. Poyani (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That sentence is actually translation of Article 114 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran: president can run only for two consecutive terms. There is nothing about third non-consecutive term, neither prohibiting or allowing. Apparently, the case of Rafsanjani and Khatami shows there is no limit for the third non-consecutive time. BrokenMirror2 (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

once again - unverifiable claim
For the SECOND TIME

The following sentence: "Iranian child soldier (image) An estimated 95,000 Iranian children were killed during the Iran-Iraq war"

should be removed from the article OR referenced by a scholarly source. A NY Times OPINION article from December 19, 1988 ( http://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/19/opinion/l-child-soldier-treaty-has-wide-support-697888.html?src=pm ) is not a scholarly source. This is wikipedia. Why claims and arguments from different newspapers and global media outlets are used as references I don't know why.

And what is even meant by children? The definition of it is not even given and there is no universally accepted meaning of the term so it will have to be defined and sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

actually there is an international definition for the world "children”, and it’s any person under the age of 18. You can look it up in the CRC(Convention on the rights of child),or many other various international treaties. and about your comment that Wikipedia should check the facts, I’m actually glad that at least some of the newspapers  around  the world reflected some of the enormous atrocities committed during the IMPOSED war , by the Iraqi regime. So i thank Wikipedia for at least reflecting some of those.Siavashsabet (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Death sentence, fatwa, the singer Shanin Najafi
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Shahin Najafi, an Iranian rapper with a German address, bring on the wrath of the Iranian spiritual leader of one of his provocative song, which led to fatwas. Iranian religious site Shia-Online offered a reward of $ 100,000 for his life because in the song "I Naghi" insulting Shiite Imam Ali an-Nakija. The song which is sung in Persian Nakija sarcastically calls the Imam to return to this world to change the situation in his country, and has caused great outrage and video tracks in a caricature of the dome of the mosque replaced a woman's breast at the top of which fly the flag in rainbow colors. "If someone is offended, or subjected to ridicule the Imam Nakija, it is blasphemy and God knows what to do," said Ayatollah Safi Golpaygani The Big as the media interpreted as a fatwa, death sentence. This case raises two questions: where are the limits of artistic freedom, and what can be done in the name of God?78.2.93.78 (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Look at the bottom of the history section. Fix it, please.
Look, I don't care how many human rights violations something THINKS Iran has, the way it's presented is unprofessional at best and horribly offensive at worst. Definitely not up to the standards Wikipedia generally sets for itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.216.224 (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Islam prohibits nuclear weapons!
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Islam prohibits any nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, said the President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and added that the ban is based on the teachings of Islam, but also on fatwa published by the supreme religious leader. The message of peace to Israel to prevent war?78.2.68.77 (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm. Iran is not the only country with spiritual or semi-political figures with a dislike of nuclear weapons, for example the past and current Emperor of Japan isn't terribly keen on them either. I'm guessing the issue you're raising is best handled at Nuclear program of Iran rather than here, by the way, as for your last comment: Who knows? Speculation is...not a keen thing here. Analysing such comments is difficult. --OfTheGreen (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

reference 71
Is supposed to be about the death toll of the mongol invasion, but is a biography of a nuclear scientist instead.

"The memoirs of Edward Teller, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory "Science and Technology Review". July/August 1998 p. 20. Link: LLNL.org"

page 20 is about his work as a nuclear sicentist, which is not relevant for the Mongol invasion of Iran --Jesper Schnipper (talk) 08:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Iran withdrew from stoning
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Iranian authorities have abolished the death penalty by stoning for Sakineh Ashtiani and replace a ten year sentence for taking part in the murder of her husband. Winds of change in Iran? 78.2.56.50 (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Greater Iran tag
Please ensure you have read our previous discussion before changing this tag. Iranic (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Infobox
A user repeatedly deleted "Pashto" and "Pashtuns" from the article. The user claimed "Pashto is an immigrant language" in the edit summary. This claim is obviously wrong per the cited reference which gives the native population of Pashto speakers as 113,000 in Iran (which is a higher number than the Talysh speakers and is comparative to the other languages mentioned alongside it) and the source also clarifies this "population does not include refugees." So I restored the language in the infobox.  Massa getae  (talk)  19:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Issue
User:اردیبهشت and User:ResurrectionOfABeast (perhaps both related?) keep changing my edits and I don't know why. All I did was add S Asia in the article because even Wikipedia says that is correct under United Nations Geoscheme for Asia. WHat should I do? Mtheory1 (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Pre-Iranian?
Do you think it would be fair to call the Elamite kingdom and similar kingdoms (e.g. Zayande Rud & Jiroft) pre-Iranian? I am reluctant to use the term pre-Aryan due to racial connotations, and Pre-Historic doesn't quite cover Elam as it was part of the writing revolution, and survived well after the event. Thoughts welcome... Karafs (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it would be fine to do so. Irānshahr (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

South Asia?
There is a member here named Mtheory1 who keeps on editing pages related to Iran and adding numerous mentions of Iran being South Asian. His only source of reference is the UN, which is the only group to ever consider Iran to be South Asian. Everyone else considers Iran to be Middle Eastern/Western Asian. He uses such reasons as Iranians "don't eat rock hard pita bread" to show that Iran is not Middle Eastern. He also says because Iranians eat Lavash (itself a caucasus, Turkish and Iranian food) and roti (its Indian and not Iranian), that proves that Iran is South Asian. He has also shown a hatred for Arabs many times, and I believe this is the fundamental reason why he wants to disassociate Iran from the Middle East.

I honestly view his numerous edits as vandalism, and want to try and find a resolution to this dispute here. ResurrectionOfABeast (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I hear ya ResurrectionOfABeast, let's try and find an agreement. I care great deal about Iran and its VASTNESS, and this is why I am not trying to DELETE W Asia, just add S Asia (has nothing to do with techtonic plates; Balochistan-S Asian, is in Iran as well and 10% of pop.) and C Asia. I want to find compromise. And I never said I hate Arabs, we have religion similarities! But, like I said many times and you guys don't listen, we are NOT Semetic or Middle Eastern. The only Iranians ANYWHERE West of Iran are in Turkey, Azerbaijain, and NORTH Arabia (Syria and Iraq, and not Semetic, only KURDS!). We have same religion, but very very different culture. Shouldn't we be proud? Shouldn't YOU be proud (if you really are an Iranian)?! Mtheory1 (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It hardly needs pointing out, that Syria and Iraq are not "North Arabia". Irānshahr (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with culture. The United Kingdom and United States share a great deal of cultural similarities. However they do not encompass the same region. Also I don't believe our cultural similarities with Indians are as great as you believe. Sure we came from the same Proto-Indo-Iranian group 5000 years ago or whenever. But since then we have changed greatly. Indians have integrated vastly with the local Dravidian culture, whilst Iranians didn't integrate with Elamites to nowhere near an extent. Also while culture is a subjective topic, I don't see many similarities with Indian food (apart from rice). We don't eat spicy food for example. We also don't wear the same clothes, speak similar languages or listen to similar music. The only things we do share with the Indian subcontinent is what they took from Persian culture from their rule by Persianized Mongols. So in this subjective term, I believe that we share more with our other West Asian nations then we do with South Asia.

Beyond the cultural talk, the only important issue is that of location. According to almost everybody apart from the UN, Iran is a member of the Middle East/Western Asia. By taking this overwhelming majority into account we can look at the UN ruling as an anomaly, and one that doesn't warrant inclusion in an article about Iran. Also it is claimed by many sources that Pakistan is a country straddling the Middle East and South Asia, because the Punjab and Sindh regions are South Asian, whilst the Baloch and Pashto parts are not. Therefore even Baloch area of Iran can not be considered South Asian, (BTW they are not 10% of Iran's population, they are much less at only 1.5 million).

I don't mind mentions of Iranian similarities with South Asia (within reason) be used in the Iran article. As I wouldn't mind the same similarities with Central Asia being used. I done a quick check and found that there are already 12 mentions of India in the Iran article, which I believe to already be overkill. But to state that Iran is South Asian is not true at all. Not in a geographical sense, and also not culturally (which doesn't even matter as I pointed out in the US/UK example). ResurrectionOfABeast (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The UN has not 'ruled' that Iran is a part of South Asia. Only one UN scheme, the 'United Nations geoscheme' has included Iran in South Asia only for 'statistical purposes' and no other reason. See United Nations geoscheme where it clearly states that: "According to the United Nations, the assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories." - Iran is NOT a part of South Asia under any category (geography, history, culture, race, political affiliation). اردیبهشت (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. Do you know HOW MANY YEARS of history we have w/ S Asia?  W Asian neighbors have mainly ATTACKED Iran, and Turkey (which Iran is greatly aligned with in many ways) is primarily Central Asian.  NORTHERN ARABIA, is the only place Iranian peoples located in W Asia, and they are the Kurds, who were a migratory (and are) people. I am again NOT DELETING W ASIA, just supplanting more information to Iran to demonstrate its vastness.  Hello, what about the Mughal empire?!  And other empires before that were INFUSED with Persian genes and culture for YEARS.  Read the wikipedia article and the sources from Cavalli (geneticist): we share better genetic affinity with our central asian neighbors and even S Asian neighbors (except only Kurds) than W Asians (mainly a Semetic peoples).  Therefore, to reinforce the differentiation that MUST be made between Iran and Semetic nations (that Iran is NOT PART OF, genetically, culturally, many ways, we must at least INCLUDE Central and Southern Asia in these articles.  This is why I am compromising!  Is not this fair enough?  To let all of these places be included? I am an Iranian (Mazandarani), and from a heavy Turkish family.  I want to include our Central Asian influences!! My father is Balochi; which IS HEAVILY genetically South Asian, and homogenous with genes thereto with South Asia.  They deserve to be included too!  Why are we arguing about this!  WHy? -Mtheory1 (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

User: is causing daily disruption waging a self-declared POV campaign. This user has been repeatedly warned about their behaviour and has had their edits reverted by several users, yet continues to push their POV regardless (see contributions).

This user is unlikely to stop their advocacy short of being banned, in my view. Although this user has styled their recent talk page comments to appear seemingly conciliatory and open to compromise (perhaps weary of a ban), he has continued the disruptive editing on articles none the less. Irānshahr (talk) 05:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Iran AKA Persia??
Is this appropriate in an encyclopedic entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zurkhardo (talk • contribs) 05:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 September 2012
Grammar error. Please change the word "Followed" to "Following" as below:

Followed the premature death of Alexander the Great Iran came under the control of Hellenistic Seleucid Empire.

To

Following the premature death of Alexander the Great Iran came under the control of Hellenistic Seleucid Empire.

Ronaldws (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

✅ -- intelati  /talk 01:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 September 2012
In the phrase below the words national and system appear as duplicates in the formatted article. Please remove one copy of each word

Recommended change:

establishment of a national national education system system can be named as some of his reforms.

to

establishment of a national education system can be named as some of his reforms.

In the sentence below the word Mesopotamia is not capitalized when it should be.

Change

Elam, the most prominent of these civilisations developed in the southwest of Iran alongside those in mesopotamia.

to

Elam, the most prominent of these civilisations developed in the southwest of Iran alongside those in Mesopotamia. RonRonaldws (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Dru of Id (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST: Official Language
The official language is Farsi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.46.234 (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

In English, the official language of Iran in called Persian not 'Farsi'. BrokenMirror2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Iran opens the world`s largest refinery
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Biggest Iranian refinery Shazadu will begin to work with double capacity. This means that the day produce about 16 million gallons of gasoline, the Iranian government announced. The daily production levels refinery in Shazadu makes the world's largest refinery. All this is happening while international sanctions and threats of Iran war. 78.2.71.204 (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

SUPREME_LEADER != SUPREME_LEADER_OF_IRAN needs fix
Supreme Leader is NOT Supreme Leader of Iran

needs to be fixed throughout, or quantify "Supreme Leader of Iran" (reference) is "a supreme leader". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.201.210 (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Spelling Mistake
There is a spelling mistake here, just a missing "s":

"announced incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won the election with 62.63% receiving 24.5 million vote, while"


 * ✅ --Webclient101 (talk) 04:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Add ISO 3166 code
ISO 3166 code - IR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.25.20 (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Greater Iran tag and the word Iran
We've already discussed this tag however if you still have any question you can add it here. Iranic (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but any hatnote that is so fearful of deletion that it requires a couple of cited sources to hold it down is a hatnote which should be deleted because it is on unstable ground. What Wikipedia reader would be surprised that a search for "Iran" would unexpectedly dump them at the Iran article about the modern geopolitical nation of Iran? The answer is: none.
 * I have replaced the faulty hatnote with a more general one. This new hatnote should have been in place long ago. Binksternet (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no law against scholarly resources on Wikipedia and no doubt I an use them for hatnotes. Obviously you didn't even read the previous discussion page. Historically and culturally the word 'Iran' refers to 'Greater Iran' but the modern usage of the word is completely different. In all classic works of Persians - and even westerners - Iran referred to something we now call it the 'greater Iran'. You've removed everything about the history and significance of the word by removal of this tag. The new tag is completely wrong because still the 'greater Iran' is a country. Iranic (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect about my reading the previous discussion page. I saw that it was very weak at best, an echo chamber of yes-men who failed to argue against the superior reasoning of Dr. Persi. You are clearly pushing a pan-Iran point of view that is not needed in a hatnote here on the nation/state article. The general hatnote pointing to Iran (disambiguation) is perfectly suitable for your notional reader who might be looking for the article about historic Greater Iran. That page contains Greater Iran as well as other possible sources of confusion such as songs and albums by the name of Iran. Binksternet (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I do respect User:Dr.Persi. He is a valuable user, indeed. But as we have already discussed the isuue, There is no harm of bringing this tag in the beginning of the article. It provides more information for the readers. Why should we be afraid of that ?!!! I really don't understand! In fact 10:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Useful information" is good, of course. The hatnote is not where useful information goes. Rather, it is for helping the reader to discover if he is at the correct article, the one he was looking for. Your job here is to explain why Greater Iran is a better hatnote link for him to see than Iran (disambiguation). I cannot understand how that would be possible, since Iran (disambiguation) gives more possibilities to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)