Talk:Iran/Archive 7

Suggestion to improve the quality of the article about Iran
We see almost everyday comments about news on the main article about Iran (i.e. Iran-USA relations, Iran's role in the M.E., Iran's nuclear program, Iran's alleged support for terrorism, etc.)

I would like to know if there is a more efficient way to direct people to the sub-article concerning those specific subjects. It seems to me that people use the article about Iran to express their personal views or to report news (and WP is NOT for that: See also WP:NOT).

Also, may I suggest to place a banner on the top of the article to direct readers to those sub-articles or to Wikinews for that kind of information and reports (I just don't know how to do that). It should read something like this: "This article is about the country Iran. Please direct any pertinent information and news relating to Iran's nuclear program or any political developments to Nuclear program of Iran, United States-Iran relations, Politics of Iran and Wikinews respectively ".

Unless something is done about it, I think it will only get worse with time, given the political climate surrounding Iran's current situation in the world.

Please feel free to comment if you disagree. 69.116.234.208 22:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of references to Terrorism and WMD programs
The text "Iran is labelled by the U.S. State Department as an active sponsor of terrorism, and is believed by many nations to be attempting to develop nuclear weapons." is both sourced and of great interest to readers. It belongs in the Intro. I do not see where above any "consensus" was actually reached. Simesa 22:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the closest I found to a "discussion" on this topic was in Archive1, where K1 used a great amount of abuse in attempting to keep references to terrorism out of the Iran article. Simesa 22:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Simesa, before reverting edits, please allow others to make their views heard by giving some time (a week or so). This is only the rules of civility that I am asking you to follow on Wikipedia. Regarding your comments, explained above under “history of Iran” and “How to improve the quality of the article about Iran”, are the reasons why we decided to leave those subjects in the specific articles dedicated to them. As you might know, very often people come to this article (Iran) to express their views and disappear without any interest to improve the quality of the article. They (some) use it as a tribune to express their anger to an entire nation. Besides, I am not here to censure anyone, but please read those 2 discussions above and you will see that by following those suggestions (which are not mine only but of others) it has only improved the quality of this article over time. Moreover, people who are genuinely interested in those topics (United States-Iran relations or Iran's nuclear program) can finds links to those articles at the bottom of the page Iran (so it is not hidden in anyway). Besides, as explained more than once before, those subjects will inevitably have new developments and the article about Iran is already too long (that's what the Wikipedia page says when I try to update, even fore one line). This is one more real argument, if need be, why those topics should be treated separately.69.116.234.208 30 December 2006


 * Before accusing someone of vandalism in an edit comment, you should actually read WP:Vandalism -- my inclusions are proper, but your deletions of sourced material clearly border on vandalism. I didn't find Discussion or Archive sections labelled “history of Iran” or “How to improve the quality of the article about Iran” -- I did find "History section" and "Suggestion to improve the quality of the article about Iran", neither of which had anything like a consensus.  The article and its See Also nowhere link to Iran and weapons of mass destruction -- you have to go through Nuclear Program under "Energy" to find it.  The link to United States-Iran relations is there but the article has exactly one sentence relating to Iran's support of terrrorism and no cite (clearly needs work).  You may think I'm picking on Iran; my viewpoint is that the most important information about Iran is basically completely shunted aside.  Yes, I think the paragraph is needed.  I'm probably going to file an RfC on it. Simesa 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not contest the validity of the fact about the UNSC vote but the unbalanced representation of the factual developments relating to this sensitive subject, specifically by your censuring of other facts and the focus on how to represent the chain of events. Regarding the talk page article, you are again playing with words and I do know you have the intelligence to realize yourself: Those articles are right above on this same page. Regarding Iran and weapons of mass destruction, it is mentioned at the TOP of the article Nuclear Program. Again, your report of those facts is evidently inaccurate.69.116.234.208 17:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Alain10 has proposed a resolution below. Simesa 17:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Mention of terrorism and/or weapons of mass destruction in Intro
This is a dispute about whether to mention Iran's alleged support of terrorism and/or the article Iran and weapons of mass destruction in the Intro or elsewhere in the article text. 01:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

*These are the most controversial aspects of Iran and yet are not included anywhere in the text. There is a link to United States-Iran relations in the box in See Also. Simesa 01:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I read your comments and maintain what I said above. I can only wish that you adopted a balanced point of view when you mention the recent UN Security Council decision (15 countries in total). Specially, when you objected me to report in the same section of the article the vote of 118 UN member countries (only 3 months before) regarding the very same subject: Iran's nuclear program. Honestly doubt of your good faith now, given your behavior towards me and others on Wikipedia today.69.116.234.208 01:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments


 * Struck out Simesa 18:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to argue that anyone using the search term 'Iran' in Wikipedia is probably more after an historical overview of a nation which clearly offers so much to learn about the history of human civilisation. I feel mention terrorism at all, especially in the introduction would overpower this fact. I feel the topic of terrorism should be kept in a seperate article, or relegated to a subheading lower down in this article titled "Iranian Foreign Relations" or somesuch, and this section could outline Irans relationship with Hizbollah, etc. I think with 4000 years of history to offer, we can do better than referencing something in the opening paragraph which only covers such a small percentage of that 4000 years, yet has potential to overpower the rest of the article and create an edit-war.--60.240.197.199 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Compromise proposal
I'll make you a compromise deal -- we put the Terrorism/WMD paragraph in the Intro of this article and the NAM paragraph in the Intro of the other two articles (even though it is already in the text of at least one of those articles). Simesa 09:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the problem is that there are many issues regarding Iran. This is why I created a page : Iran international crisis which objective is to group all issues concerning Iran. Therefore the page "Iran and weapons and mass destruction" does not have to discuss terrorism. Alain10 11:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree, also I believe this can be found in all the articles mentionned above already. I have added a link under "See also" on Iran's page to this page. People can cast their vote now, with the understanding that no more addition will be accepted in the main page of Iran later on.69.116.234.208 04:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Question: Do you support Alain10 's proposal and mine?

Support 69.116.234.208 17:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't find in See Also, so couldn't check. I think a mention in italics above the Intro, as is common, is a better placement. I have placed it there, but will remove if not everyone agrees. Simesa 17:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Support Alain10's page. Simesa 17:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a message on my Talk page (diff ) saying this is acceptable, so the issue is resolved and I'll withdraw the RfC. Thank you Alain. Simesa 18:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

prevent the deterioration of quality!
Please refrain from insering too many images in the article especially those irrelevant to Iran. Including too many details about each subject will also reduce the quality of the article, excessive details belong to separate articles. Refrain from inserting irrelevant data in the article, for example construction of a mosque in China is definitely not relevant to history of Iran. Act according to WP:NPOV and do not insert your own POV in the article.

Happy new year, -Marmoulak 19:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Siamak. I'm trying to do this for weeks, and then the same images pop up again. The details in some sections are excessive as you said and the images such as Rumsfeld with Saddam has nothing to do with Iran article (although it's good for Iran-Iraq war). Or the Iranian soldiers in the war also it not appropriate for this article. For example, we don't see an image of German soldiers in the Garmany article. Also, please limit the portrait of important people in this article to those who are really significant in Iran's history. For example, Cyrus, the founder of the Persian Empire, Mohammad Reza Shah, as the last shah of Iran, Mossadegh as an important opposition to Shah, and Khomeini, the leader of the revolutions are the most significant people we need currently. Thank again Marmoulak and happy new year to you too. --Arad 16:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thx Arad. I will try to request semi-protection for this page if the situation doesnt get better. - Marmoulak 18:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
An individual with IP address 65.96.234.178 is constantly engaged in vandalizing the Iran article. I have checked his so-called contributions, and it seems that he/she is targeting articles related to Iran. Could anyone do something about his constant childish vandalism? In the meanwhile I believe the best possible course of action is to Revert his edits prior to any new edition. Thanks Persiano 16:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Bias Issue
This is a comment to all working on this page: I came to the page to get a good background on Iran. I left it feeling as though I had to take everything I read with a grain of salt. I don't KNOW that the information is incorrect, but I do know that the cites and the writing style leave your neutral readers doubting. I'll try to come up with some good examples. 1) Writing Style Issues: constant mention of how "X thing in Iran's history was almost never matched", one of its empires is described, without a good reason for the comparison, as existing "longer than most Eastern Empires"(why did this need to be stated?), that its early religion was the most influential on mankind ever!? (no cite???), etc. I don't know much about Iran, that's why I'm here. But the writing style varies from defensive to fantastical to downright insisting that I believe the claims. I don't get the same feel of factual reporting that I see on other countries' pages. 2) The huge section on the 1953 coup has the worst citations I've ever seen. I spent the afternoon reading all of the cites on "Operation Ajax" and I'm still not sure whether it's a real. 3) Finally, there are a lot of things mentioned without any explanation or reasoning. The second paragraph of the Islamic Persia/Golden Age is a nightmare of confusion. What thing "have its bases" in the Qur'an? Also, why is the period from 900 to 1500 skipped over, only mentioning in passing that Persia was wiped out until 1500? Spell/gramm errors are also a problem. I'm not intentionally trying to nitpick. I'm just letting you guys know that, as a neutral observer, the page is a mess--I'm now having to look elsewhere. Usually I use wikipedia to form a base, then evaluate for accuracy with more reputable sites. In this case, I have to start out completely new somewhere else. Sigh. Good luck with it! Kyraven 19:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have pointed out to the author some obvious examples of bias, basically Iranian chauvanism, but the author has refused to even enter into a dialog...Jakob37 10:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

- Well, we're starting now, but not quite done...Jakob37 02:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Dating
I am really sick and tired of the use of the BCE Ce dating system. Cant we use the B.C. and A.D like we learned in school.
 * you learned that in school. what is more accurate is something else which is being practiced here.

Reduce the size of History part
I would like to bring everyone's attention to our first priority which is reducing the size of History section by moving details to History of Iran article and using Wikipedia's Summary style. - Marmoulak 21:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this the reason for taking out the section that was entitled "Iran 1989-Present"? I had thought to make a few spelling and grammar corrections there, but found the whole section removed just a short while later. I know there's already an article about the History of Iran, but why not have a short summary paragraph covering the years since 1988? It may be recent history, but it's still history. -- wacko2 23:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And now the user Cyrus111 has added the section back. While I appreciate some detail as to recent years, I would agree the section is too large and should be summarized. -- wacko2 23:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Current events belong to wikinews, not here. The article is too large as it is. --Mardavich 01:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Question
What was the GDP of each province of Iran in 1980? thanks

"the predominant culture"
In the context of the Middle East, it is quite controversial to say that Iranian culture is "predominant" (I say this even though I am personally much more familiar with the Persian language and culture than with Arabic) - the Arabs and their language and culture would seem to be quite a bit more wide-spread, an certainly quite influential --- indeed they were once the overlords in Iran, and have left their writing system and vocabulary as basic parts of the modern Farsi language. Likewise, there is a lot of traditional Arabic literature that was not derived from Iranian sources - this whole paragraph strikes me as quite chauvanistic in tone. At the very least, such sweeping statements should have clear references to back them up (good luck!). My suggestion: "a dominant culture" or "one of the major cultures" along with the later part to read something like "some of the major works of Arabic literature are in fact translations from Persian sources" Jakob37 09:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed "the" to "a", it sounds fine now. --Mardavich 10:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's an improvement. May I also suggest that instead of "Nearly all philosophical, scientific, or literary work of the Islamic empires...." it read:

Much of the philosophical, scientific, or literary work of the Islamic empires.... Such a slight change would make it sound more fair and not like Iranian boasting. Certainly the Persian cultural influence on Turkey (and the previous Ottomans) was great, but don't forget that a lot of the ancient Greek scientific and philosophical books were translated from Syriac into Arabic, and then into Latin (much later), so that didn't involve Persian (or Pahlavi).Jakob37 13:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC) :p.s. for a good example of an even-handed approach which has received praise, see the article on Persian Literature. Jakob37 15:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Persian not Farsi
The correct designation for the lingua franca of Iran in English language is Persian and not Farsi. This is an effort to replace the word "Persian" with "Farsi" is not only inappropriate with the history of the Persian language but also creates confusion and misunderstanding. While the use of the word "Farsi" is a political statement for some Islamic republic authorities, for others it may indicate a unawareness about the history of this language. It points towards those who carelessly promote the use of the word Farsi are indeed engaging in an ambiguous representation of this language and may not, by any means, be promoting Iranian culture. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk)  20:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What year did Persia start using the name Iran instead of Persia? Tracy


 * Please read the article about it. In a short summery, because Reza Shah wanted the international community to recognise Iran (Persia) by the name the Iranians recognise themselves. There could be many reason why he done this. But many Iranians still consider using the name Persia, because it does not create confusion with the neighboring Arabs States. --Arad 17:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

no only iranians in america di that because Iran has such a bad name there. but in Iran they call it Iran especially the minorety's because they are Iranian but not Persian

Farsi not Persian
The overwhelming majority of Iranians, even when they speak English, refer to their own language as Farsi. The overwhelming majority of people familiar with Iran or Iranians, when speaking English, refer to the language as Farsi.

There is a vocal minority - mostly academics, especially historians of ancient history - who would prefer to use the words "Persian" and "Persia" instead of "Farsi" and "Iran." One of the reasons they cite is that Persia is associated in the western mind with many aspects of ancient and medieval Iranian culture, while "Iran" sounds strange and foreign.

There are three things that ought to be balanced against this opinion:

(1) The overwhelming commonality of contemporary usage.

(2) Respect for the desires of the overwhelming majority of Iranians, including Iranians outside of Iran when they are speaking English, to use the proper (rather than historical) terms to refer to their country and language.

(3) The fact that an accurate reflection of both actual usage and the desires of the people in question is perhaps more important than western-imposed nomenclature and western associations with certain words. For instance, "Cathay" may sound very mystical and appealing to a westerner, much like Persia, but we're not about to start using it instead of "China." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.82.25.114 (talk) 06:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Google Earth
Wikipedia Google Earth Geographic Web Layer for Iran appears to be incorrect. On Google Earth, 4.0.2722, Jan 5 2007. It shows the Iran Wikipedia icon inside Iraq. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mlnovaaa (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

History section is History not current news or BBC station
Wow guys. Someone or some people are going way over the history section. we're having very recent dates as history and each is one paragraph. The least section of history, is way too long. History section stops at Iran-Iraq war. Even the section for the war is too long. I wont erase them until we have a consensus but this is WAYY to loong. --Arad 22:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

LAND OF THE ARYANS?
iv seen in many places that Iran is all persian people or w/e but genetics show that afghanistan has more aryan in them then iran and yet they dont include Afghans in that section. Afghanistan also means "Land of the Aryans" before Afghanistan it was Aryana and before that Khorosan, this is the first time i have seen taht Iran is called Land of the Aryan. some one help me on whats going on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.74.177.116 (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC).


 * It's the definition of the word "Iran" (Airiana). See the etymology article.--Nightryder84 02:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The response by Nightryder84 is correct and this meaning has been widely accepted by almost all historians, etymologists, and Linguists. Also to your comment regarding the name of Afghanistan, the name Afghanistan means the "Land of Afghans" and not Land of Aryans. Also to your comment regarding the name of Aryana, what you I think you are referring to is Airyanem Vaejah, which is what Achaemenid Empire was regarded as and not only afghanistan which was part of the persian empire in that time. --( Aytakin ) | Talk 02:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

IRAN the land of Aryans
Eiran is plural form of the "eire" or "eir" with "an" as suffix it also adresses PROPERTY referance to the definition, EIR+AN = ARYAN'S, what belongs to ARYANS! The definition ARYA is not racially but culturally referance as in India also arya has cultural meaning rather than racial ! AR = Nobel + YA = like..... or ISH as in englISH...nobelish. Afghanistan too belongs to same cultural haritage but the name of state does not mean ARYA or similar ! true that north Afghanistan encluding part of sentral asian Uzbekistan, tajikistan, turkemenistan were called Aryana but that definition is not used any longer ! so todays geographical situation in that area differs from the time when ARYAN people only lived there ! Afghan is synonymous with Pashtuns and I have spoken to many Pashtuns which are devoted muslims ,, they would rather be assosiated with ARABS than IRAN or ARYANS ! Pashtuns are extremely ARAB-LOVING tribals with many similar cultural codes with Arabs,,,yet IRanians are majority city people and tribal measurements of life or values are lost ! PS:Afghan is an Arabic plural form for Pakhtuns or Pashtuns ! as one says Atrak means the Turks ,,, Akrad ,, the Kurds ,, so naturally Afghan is Arabic and means Pashtuns!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.109.208.153 (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Images
That world without Zionism image has to go. We all know that the presidency in Iran doesnt have any real power. He only has some domestic executive powers. He doesnt control the armed forces, or policy making. IOW, his words are not necessarily representative of Iran.--Nightryder84 02:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear issue?
I can't seem to find any mention of the nuclear issue, and the debate between Iran's right to nuclear power and the international community's fear that the nuclear technology and material could be misused. Is there another article on that subject? Isn't it a crucial current event? Scotchorama 16:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * see this Nuclear_program_of_Iran (full of details)--Pejman47 16:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I had found it by searching, but I do think that it's not very visible. But my comment may be a little POV-ish... Scotchorama 16:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * anyway, this article is about a country with atleast 2500 years of history, its cliamte and culture and etc. Putting more than a link to the mentioned event is somehow "currentism"--Pejman47 17:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The intro mentions "Iran is significant in international politics on account of its large supply of petroleum and influence in the region." While this is true, it should also mention--at least briefly--the debate over the development of Iran's nuclear programme. The 2500 years of history don't mean that one should ignore major current events. The main China article contains information on the current political situation. Omitting the topic completely is POV. Scotchorama 11:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Having a section on Iran's nuclear energy program and human rights just reflects the U.S. bias against Iran. There is no such paragraph on other countries' main pages. It just reflects U.S. attitudes and prejudices- most non-American people will not associate Iran and nuclear weapons. It's totally POV. Or if you leave them the U.S. human rights situation and the U.S, usage of nuclear weapons should be added to your front page to make it fair. 217.42.82.12 13:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for destroying the article
This article is destroyed by meaning. I can keep up cleaning it. It's the longest article on any country. The Cinema part is far from ridiculous and the history section (present part) is just stupid. Thank you for making this article one of the worst of wiki. (as mentioned before it's also very confusing). --Arad 00:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Again: why does the history section end in 1988? At least a link should indicate where information can be found on post Khomeini Iran. Scotchorama 11:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with scotch, who are you arad to decide what is stupid and ridiculous in the article all other countries have sections of music, art, film etc you dont have the right to revert others contributions! The western media empire is portraying iran as a backward nation while we are winning awards for our arts and sports worldwide, at least here it can be known. Also dont you think the earthquakes, millions of refugees, sanctions, Khatami, Ahmadinejad elections, zionist conferennce etc are major events worth of mentioning as well as Ahmadinejads actual statements and how they then are tainted and exploited in order for our brothers and sisters to get bombs rained on them again!!!??? You sit there in your cozy little house in sweet Canada and erase the truth I will at least let the truth get out there! Anybody that agrees with me should make this clear to this guy and let the truth be known!!! se Iran international crisis (the talk page) and see how Iranians from Iran are debating about their fear of military action, You are not the one who have to fight and die when it really comes down to it. Wake up Arad!--Cyrus111


 * Cyrus111, your massive, undiscussed, often unreferenced and messy additions to the article violates rules of Wikipedia (read WP:NOR, WP:V) as well as reducing the quality of article. I think you have completely misunderstood the purpose of this article. This article is not a collection of copy-pasted information related to Iran, we are not writing a book here. The purpose is to give an overview of the country to the reader and be concise and get-to-the-point. Information that are related but not required to informativeness of the overview and excessive details belong to separate articles. Original research and POV material are not allowed. Current events belong to news section, not here. Please stop disrupting the improvement process of the article and help improve the quality of the article instead. Thank you! - Marmoulak 21:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Marmoulak, I understand why one would tend to keep current events out of main articles, but this current event in question, i.e. Iran's stance in world politics and it's nuclear programme, is one of the major issues in the world today that attracts a lot of attention from everybody. Forget POV: to blatantly ignore it very misleading. Contemporary politics in Iran can be tackled in a very NPOV way. Right now, the history of Iran ends in 1988, according to the article. The article should present a fairly complete comprehensive overview of Iran, its history, culture, geography, and role in the contemporary world. To say that Iran is an important actor in international politics because of petroleum and its influence in the region is incomplete. It is also an important actor because of its declared political stance regarding crucial issues in the Middle East. Furthermore, it is also an important actor because of its stance on the development of nuclear. That's an unbiased fact. See China or the USA. The articles mention briefly current events. Scotchorama 23:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there already existed a brief present section but the one cyrus111 was trying to insert was a too long and mostly POV. - Marmoulak 00:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Again I agree with Scotch, millions of people read these articles to get a another source of information, a source that is based on facts and not P.R controlled media, there is not many other places they can get their factual news source. I am not saying lets make it in to a newsstation but at least mention on a factual base major events that are going on in Iran and which obviously gets major attention. Hence the article 1989-present is justified! Think of it this way: last part Irans history is the Iraqi invasion, and then nothing, and then suddenly Iran gets attacked again...-the follow up to that should be there! Iran is so much on the news these days and you only get to hear the "brainwashing part side" and not from a neutral journalistic point of view (which is non existent these days since there are only a few networks left). Apparently, for some strange reason some "Iranian"? editors here seem to think that thats Ok???!! And that its not needed, and that the human rights part where we have the -"freedom house-US backed-aipac lobbied-Iran liberty ranking-to justifie war" is ok, and that not bringing up cultural achievement such as the music part, architecture, poetry etc is ok, but doing so  is ridiculous and ruins the article (see above). Here is an advice, if you can, "step out of yourself, think outside the box and stop the personifying of the article" and start representing your fellow iranians in Iran, this is what the article should mostly be about and not your personal opinion of what is ridicolous! They complain that the article is to long, an article that is now 84 kb and together with "present history" and "cultural mentioning" is about 100 kb altough tons of other aricles are way longer, just look at UK’s article for example, here is a country way younger than Iran and has not the fraction of Irans news coverage, but has 121 kb at its display, but thats ok... To some "Iranian"? editors (am I the only that sees whats going on here?)... Iran is today one of the greatest civilizations of the world Gore Vidal. Excuse me Cyrus111


 * Cyrus111, neither wikipedia is a discussion board nor am I willing to participate in a political debate with you. Read my previous post, WP:NOR and WP:V carefully. For every subject there exist and article in wikipedia, stop adding lengthy texts to this article and try editing the main article on subjects instead. - Marmoulak 00:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's makes really angry if anyone says I don't care about Iranians and Iran. The only reason I'm here is wiki is in fact Iran. You're not getting the point. I didn't revert your edits (except some seriously irrelevant ones). As you said we can BRIEFLY talk about current events but not in detail. Cyrus111, you added dozens of paragraphs talking about Zionism, Ahmadinejad, the nuclear issue, etc ,etc. These all have their own respective articles. The article of UK is very much better written than what your writing. All you do it copy paste, without considering this is an overview as marmoulak said. You add images that have nothing to do with this article. We don't need details here, we need overview. We need more sections, yes we have to talk about Iran's culture, but not about every successful movie. Then if that is the case, we should see Titanic, Gladiator, etc etc in the USA article because they are successful movies. This article is not long because it's 84 KB but because it has few section with too many paragraphs (mostly confused, unreferenced, added by one user and too much in detail, These in formations should be added in Iran's Cinema, history and other article dedicated to them. This article is not about News. Even if USA article talks about news, that doesn't mean it's right. Yes we should talk a bit about the current events, but not 5 paragraphs. And I'll be happy to know, where do you live? From the beginning of history section, for every Empire and link them to their article for more information, but you add so many information for the present Iran, it has nothing to do with history. Make a different section about current events (only one paragraph max) and link it to another article (which we already have) about more current events on Iran. --Arad 18:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Now i see some improvements, which is very good. Keep up the good work. (some sectioned are shoretened and now we have more section about Arts and others. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arad (talk • contribs) 18:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Arad, I partly agree with you, therefore I have now squeezed in "Iran-1989 present" in an article of its own and because you thought the music section was ridicolous I havent even added that, which I think we should. You are more than welcome to add any recent major event in the iran 1989 present part, for instance Ahmadinejad is being criticized back home for failing to keep economic promises to the Iranian people as well as other important issues. --Cyrus111

Too many pictures
Is this article a picture gallery? For example, in the Etymology section there are 4 pictures. I remember that a while ago there was only the map! The new military section has 5 pictures. I think many of these pictures can be removed. This is a encyclopedia not a gallery. I think we should have a vote to see what pictures should be removed. Thank you. Wikilo12 18:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly dont think there are to many pictures. Again we have to remember that if the Iran article "contains a bit more" its because of the long long history and all the important and influential characters throughout its history! for example you have the etymology part it, is Zoroaster then Darius and Xerxes who are the "namers" of the country and also a map where its name comes from another source. Further you have Cyrus and his empire, Avicenna and his canon of medicine and so on. The military part represents the army, navy, airforce and a glimpse to the historical women warriors- which I think should be combined with the women Basij members. Also there are other country articles with tons of pictures but not half the history. The pictures stays and even more added when the article is expanded, reading an article on wikipedia should be accompanied with an image it gives flavor, makes more fun to read and much more dimension than just "empty texts". Thanx Cyrus111Cyrus111 23:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Tavajjoh
This news item needs to be on the main page on the news section. Why isn't it?



I dont know why the media is ignoring this. Please spread the word around.--Zereshk 21:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Use this Wiki-Award
I just finished making this Barnstar. Wikicommons has no National merit barnstar for Iran (which is weird). So I uploaded it there. Please use it to support editors who are taking lots of shit because of their efforts to improve all articles pertaining to Iran. I hope u like my taste.--Zereshk 22:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

unconstructive edits
For God's sake, Cyrus111 take a lead of other featured articles on Wikipedia. Do not enlarge the pictures over 200pix and for those that are rectangular 150pix at most. Four freaking pictures for small sections like military and etymology is too many it reduces the quality of the article tremendously, looks more like a picture gallery than an article. Picture of a book doesn't illustrate the content or importance of a book, there are much better choices of images for that section (and it has enough images already). Do something constructive for a change - Marmoulak 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Bias issue part II:
This is somewhat related to the initial bias issue. There are a few sections that cause the reader to doubt neutrality. For example-

"It should be noted that Iran as a country has not invaded or committed aggression to any country for centuries and maintains its military doctrine is that of defense.[61]However the country continues to be demonized, and maintains under the threat of military action. [62]"

(1.) The second sentence is not a sentence. (2.) Citation 61 is more of a paraphrase that subtly changes the meaning of the citations. You can check the original source under the subheading Iran is a threat to the stability of the region. (3.) "Campaign Iran" does not appear to be the most neutral of sources. Reading through the entire citation leads to some questionable responses that indicates bias.

I am concerned this page is becoming less of an objective overview and more of a series of questionable articles. I understand if people wish to present countries in the best light possible, but that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Sentineneve 06:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that still in there? I thought I saw it get removed recently; probably a revert restored it. Feel free to remove that particular sentence if you come by it.  It is rather silly; the people like to say that the country has 'always' been called Iran by the natives, yet when it comes to invasions, only IRI counts.  People boast about Achaemenids, Parthians, Sassanians, Safavids, etc., who are all 'Iran', but not when it comes to military action.  The double standard shouldn't be here.  The Behnam 07:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Taking a look at it, it did say "centuries", which is arguable, but in no way merits the "innocent Iran" idea portrayed by the statement. The lack of invasions in the last century or two can just as easily be attributed to incompetence on Iran's part.  The whole statement isn't necessary or merited; I think it was just added out of emotional response to Iran being demonized by its enemies.  The Behnam 07:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like it has been removed already. Sentineneve 15:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus
To settle the disagreement on certain parts of the article, please participate in the following consensus and vote what you think is the better choice of images for each of the following sections. Choose 1 to 4 images for each section, the number of images you choose indicates how many images you think, there should be in the section.

From the fall of the Sassanian Dynasty to 1500 CE

 * #2, #5 - Marmoulak 16:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * #5,#7 - The Behnam 16:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * #3 - Giorgioz 16:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * #1 because it is an actual picture, not an imaginary illustration.--Zereshk 17:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we can use one of the pictures of Ferdowsi, or a statue? The Behnam 16:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * #1, 4 or a good Ferdosi-related one --Rayis 17:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * #1, #3, #5, #6. --Mardavich 21:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * REPLACE #3 with #4 "slaying the dragon" is a strong cross-cultural symbol.--keep 1. 2. 4. SSZ 15:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * #1, #2, oppose to *#3, #4 --Pejman47 20:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * #2, #5 --Arad 21:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC
 * #1,#5The best images for this section.--Wikilo12 05:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * #5,#7 (I think #7 is much better than #1, because it's more illustrative and also, it's the original text, not the translation) Jahangard 01:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * #4,#5,#6,#7,#8  ← ← Parthian Shot  (Talk)  08:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * #2 and #5
 * Comment: sorry to spoil the fun, but #3 is a "fair-use" image allowed only "for critical commentary on    the work in question, the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or the school to which the artist belongs". Not in this article (and strictly speaking, not even here on the talk page.) #2 is of dubious copyright status and might soon be deleted from commons. #4 lacks evidence of release into public domain as claimed by the uploader. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For the Babak picture, right under the part about critical commentary, it also says English Wikipedia. The Behnam 20:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahem, yes. What do you mean? That's an implied "and" between those criteria, it doesn't mean every use on en-wiki is legitimate in addition to any use according to the other criteria. :-) -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I didn't realize that they were connected like that.  In that case, yeah, the second part is not implied by the first part.  The Behnam 20:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, if I may also "vote" here: I just love #7. By far the most informative of the lot, beautiful, characteristic of a great cultural tradition, and certainly free. Just an outsider's 2c. :-) -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

 * #1, #2 - Marmoulak 16:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * #2,#4 - The Behnam 16:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * #4 - Giorgioz 16:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * #1 - I think the map by Eratosthenes has more weight than imaginary illustrations.--Zereshk 17:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * #1, 4 --Rayis 17:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * #1, 2, 4. --Mardavich 21:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * REPLACE #3 with #2 (they look alike)-- keep 1. 2. 4. SSZ 15:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * #1, #2, oppose to * #4 --Pejman47 20:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * #1, #2, 3 --Arad 21:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * #1, very good map and other images are not great illusrations. --Wikilo12 05:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * #1, 2, 4. - ← ← Parthian Shot  (Talk)  07:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Military

 * #6, #4 - Marmoulak 16:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * #3, #5, #6 - The Behnam 16:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * #2, #3 - Giorgioz 16:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * #4, #6 - --Zereshk 17:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we get a picture of an Iranian helicopter? The Behnam 16:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * #5''' --Rayis 17:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * #2, #3, #4 - --Mardavich 21:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep #3 #4 (replace #2 with #1 if we need a thrid picture because picture 2 belongs to the Military history of Iran (everybody is encouraged to work on the "main articles" instead of focusing ONLY on Iran) SSZ 16:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If we can choose 4 pictures then we can keep the current four pictures for the etymology and military part, they all have the same weight. I have got the same response from Ira... Please try to see it from their angle as well... Cyrus111
 * #3, #4 --Pejman47 20:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * #3,#4 --Wikilo12 05:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * #2, #6 - ← ← Parthian Shot  (Talk)  07:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * #4 and #6--Sa.vakilian 11:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Pictures and text should work together. The current format of pictures and text for several sections do not. For example, the military section has four pictures which have a combined screen area that nearly overshadows the entire block of text for that section. The Etymology section is similar. However, it is not just surface area.  Many of the pictures have very long blocks of text attributed to them.  As the text and pictures are now formatted, you have five "points" of information within a very small area.  Namely, upper left, upper right, bottom left, bottom right, and middle.  Where does the reader begin to read?  What do ancient Iranian Women-Warriors have to do with a text section that deals exclusively with Iran's modern military?  The five point, four picture format may be used sparingly, but its usage is just pervasive in this article.  The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform in a concise manner, not bombard the reader with everything even remotely related to the topic. Please remove some of the pictures. --


 * --I am your random average reader of Wikipedia. Reading through the Iran article was a like wading through a quagmire. If I were a student doing research on Iran, I certainly would have a lot of information at my fingertips. Then again, I would have the same information if I just Googled "Iran". As it stands, I have no greater comprehension of Iran than if I had just googled Iran.  There is just too much information being presented at once for an unfamiliar reader to assimilate.   Sentineneve 23:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I didnt have any problem understanding the article, and I did a work based on the article as well as my friends, We found it very helpful indeed. I have been following it ever since, and I do think that the pictures go hand in hand with the text as well as making Irans history easierer to understand as well as more fun to read. I think the Iran article is one of the fancyest of all the articles. whoever made the article probably wanted to make it suitable for both adults as well as young people which should explain the pictures. Keep up the good work all.

Culture
In the culture section there is a sentence that is false. The article states: "Equality of the sexes also has a strong historical precedent in Iran: from the Achaemenian to the Sassanian dynasties, women were encouraged to pursue an education and study at universities; they held property, influenced the affairs of state, and worked and received the same compensation as men." From my understanding of the sentence, it is listing the ways women were equal to men during the Achaemenian and Sassanian dynasties. If this is the case, it is saying "women were encouraged to pursue an education and study at universities" during 559 BCE to 651 CE. This cannot be true. The first university in Iran was established in 1851 (Dar ul-Funun). If the universities it is referring to are some type of primitive school unlike modern institutions, it should be noted as such. I propose removing the phrase "women were encouraged to pursue an education and study at universities". Agha Nader 02:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
 * Go ahead. Most people didn't go to "universities" back then, regardless of gender.  The Behnam 02:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just change the sentencce from "university" to "education". That should work. No need to delete anything.--Zereshk 17:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wildlife of Iran
Kindly contribute to this article when you get time, and request others too.

Thanks

Atulsnischal 00:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work
Great article, pleasure seeing the pictures! --Striver - talk 08:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus Execution
The vote for the pictures has been up for awhile now, and I think it is time that the tally be acted upon. Does keeping the two top performers for each section sound good? The Behnam 18:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to keep it as it is now, except for the military section. There, I would move the picture#2 to the history of the Iranian military where it belongs. It's just my opinion.69.116.234.208 22:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to contribute your individual vote to the above section. The Behnam 22:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to improve the quality: French Version of Wikipedia-Iran
For those of you who read French (and I think some of you do), I would strongly suggest that you look at the article and take it as a good example of what Iran's article should be (with minor modifications). They (the French editors) have copied/translated many articles from us/English into French Wikipedia before and I think it is a good think to do a bit of the reverse now (specially for the main Iran article). It's a healthy competition in my opinion aiming at improving both articles (French and English). Besides the french version is now considered "a good article" on WP.


 * Specifically I think the education section is better in the French article (and could be translated in the main article in English.)


 * Wildelife/Fauna and flora (now in geography of Iran) can also be expanded taking the French version as a good source.


 * Their Iranian calendar is also good and could be taken as a model (couldn't find this essential information in the English version except many details.)


 * Social security system information could also be expanded by using the French version and be included with the Health section (in the English version) may be.


 * Finally, I would say that the French version is more detailed and well documented (with references). It also gives a comprehensive overview of each sub-articles at the same time.

Given the above, I would strongly suggest having a group OVERHAUL the English version/article (which is good), section by section to improve the quality further. 69.116.234.208 22:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, those sections seem pretty good, though I don't advocate using the French article in general. Some things were surprising; for example, the page pictured Khatami instead of Khomeini for the Revolution section.  Of course, I don't know French so I can't check for biased passages, but I am curious about the coverage of the political system.  There continues to be a big POV problem involving that on English Wikipedia where the opposition and their terminology are given dominance in the articles.  First I ran into "vicious circle," now I've joined the discussion over "mullahcracy."  Can you confirm if there is a similar problem in the French pages involving POV and OR about the government of Iran?  The Behnam 23:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * First I must concur that there is a general, real problem with POV on Wikipedia Iran (english version). Why? Biased media reports and also malicious intention to defame some Iran related subjects. The problem is that you have communication agencies (including some special interest group) who have the JOB to write biased articles for publication on Wikipedia - as acknowledged by Wikipedia itself (See Wikipedia) and people should be aware of it. That's also why it is always good to have a point of comparision (like the French version of the same article). Regrading your specific questions, I did not find an apparent bias in the recent history section of the French version for Iran, which does not mean it cannot happen in the future (the picture of Mr. Khatami is under that section and I don't see a problem with that either). Generally, I tend to agree that the political sections would be well served by this comparison (between the French and English version) and a possible revision as well. 69.116.234.208 23:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The Zoroastrian image of Faravahar
This states "The ancient Iranian religion of Wisdom is the first monotheistic religion, founded by the Prophet Zarathushtra over 3000 years ago. It has had a profound influence on Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Western and Eastern culture." While I don't doubt that the Imperialist Western Zionist Media Swine-dogs would be behind any hoax regarding Judaism being the first monotheistic religion, I WAS under the impression that Judaism is the first documented monotheistic religion. I recommend that the mistake is fixed to "is one of the first monotheistic religions". Splitting hairs? Perhaps, but we should strive to make every article, especially this one, more accurate. 68.7.70.9 07:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose "one of" would make it more neutral. For some reason the possibly syncretic monotheistic designation is favored here, perhaps because of a modern majority(?).  Aside from that, I'll change the caption to say "one of."  Thanks for pointing that out.  The Behnam 21:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Iran nuclear program
Added wikilink and small section to help people who are following current events. Djma12 16:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not for that (to report news). See WP:NOT69.116.234.208 19:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but when the nuclear issue is a major event on the world stage, to not include it reflects POV. I readded it.  Philippe Beaudette 20:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A clear link is given at the bootom of the page of Iran. Besides the issue is cited in Iran's recent history, which covers also the foreign policy of Iran (again with link to the main article). Respectfully, the article is about Iran. Not about the agenda of others regarding Iran. I really don't see ANY need to ceate a sub-section in the main article regading this specific subject.69.116.234.208 20:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The added section is not intended to be a news report. Rather, it gives a brief background to readers on an important topic concerning Iran in international politics and directs them to the relevant article. This is an overview article of Iran.  As such, it should also include balanced coverage of controversies concerning the state -- it is not simply a history article. Djma12 22:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a well established precedent in Wiki for doing this. (see North Korea, India, Israel, and Pakistan.) Djma12 22:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * * "This is an overview article of Iran" I am quoting you and I agree 100%. In my opinion, if you want to report on such things as the nuclear program of Iran in the main page AS AN ENTIRE SUB-SECTION (as it is your intention). Then, you would need to report on MANY other subjects more in detail like the foreign policy of Iran (and the Iranian nuclear program could be a sub-section of that.) Like in the good French article about Iran on Wikipedia. (see above discussions).


 * * It seems though that a decision has been made by consensus (or de-facto) not to enter into many details in the present form of the article. Therefore by adding this sub-section about Iran's nuclear program, it would DE-FACTO create (involuntarily) an important IMBALANCE in the coverage of Iran, in my opinion. With time, this problem will only get worse as new development will be reported on this page, as experienced many times before, regarding other sensitive international subjects relating to Iran.


 * * Again, please note that specific articles ALREADY exists about ALL those subjects and links are clearly given in the main article. I strongly oppose any addition of this sub-section in the present format of the article about Iran. For the rest, please feel free to comment on the overhaul of the article's structure/format, based on the French model of Iran at Wikipedia (As suggested above).


 * * For clarity, I would also like to repeat that the present article about Iran in English is good and most of the sub-sections have been copied by the French from the English version (it's a FACT)69.116.234.208 00:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue of the Iranian nuclear program is just as important, if not more, in the international community as "Human Rights in Iran." To remove it from an overview article on Iran is inappropriate given the current state of affairs.  If you would like to remove the section, perhaps we can request further input from the rest of the wiki community. Djma12 16:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue about whether articles on the matter already exist is immaterial. In fact, almost ALL of the subsections have articles that directly address them in further detail.  The point of an overview article is that readers can find summaries of important issues and be directed to the larger articles that may be more relevant to their research.  To hide Iran's nuclear program as an unimportant issue is a dramatically POV action. Djma12 16:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * * That wasn't the thrust behind my previous comments. I mean that ANY article (not only Iran) should be a truthful overall reflection of the reality. But here, it looks a bit like the "Deforming Mirror" to use a metaphor. All I am saying is that Wikipedia is NOT Foxnews (and you can quote me on that!)69.116.234.208 10:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * * I don't understand how including a fairly balanced synopsis on an important international issue somehow becomes a deformation. Yes, Wiki is not Fox News, but it isn't Al-Jazeera either. (And you can quote me on that.)  Trying to censor important information even when it is impartially presented is POV. Djma12 14:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * *I didn't try to censure this information: If you look at the French version about Iran on Wikipedia, that I have encouraged everyone to consider as a possible model, the nuclear program is clearly mentionned - but within a context (i.e., Foreign relation of Iran - which is completely missing in the English version. For the rest, please look at all my edits (specially in the economics section) and you will see that I did mention the issue, more than once ;-)69.116.234.208 15:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * * Fair enough! Do you think the section is appropriately placed within the Science section then? If not that, should we ADD a Foreign Relations section to the article?  Djma12 15:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Al Quds
I've read that there's an Iranian Revolutionary Guard organization called Al Quds. What is confusing is that there seem to be others by the same name. I haven't seen any mention of Al Qud in the Iran article. Reportedly, they are smuggling explosives from Iran, among other activities. Brian Pearson 18:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * not every thing, you see in the western media about the current events (or propagandas) must be mentioned here. --Pejman47 18:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And not all of it's necessarily true either. For example, everybody seems to be forgetting that it is the Saudi backed Sunni insurgency groups that are responsible for the majority of US troop's deaths in Iraq. But they are called "allies". Ah, the power of the petrodollar.--Zereshk 01:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

History section way too long
Is it just me, or is the history section of this article way too long? Why is half the article dedicated to the pre-history of the region, even before the establishment of modern day Iran? I think a brief mention of the prior empires which included modern day Iran + links to those respective wiki pages would help shorten the article.
 * I concur 69.116.234.208 17:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, why is there a whole section dedicated to Iran and Martial arts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.251.16.100 (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC).


 * So you mean we should just talk very briefly about anciant empires of iran? They are most of the history of Iran, how can we eliminate them? Modern day Iran is the same country that Cyrus the Great founded. It's still called Persia. And it's already VERY brief. We didn't mention dozens and Empires who ruled over Iran. As you can see it's very very brief for such a long history. I think the last section is a bit too long, considering it only covers 30 years of Iran's history. --Arad 15:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would disagree. Look at the opening sentence of the article. The article deals with the Islamic Republic of Iran specifically, which is modern day Iran.  This is NOT an article about the history of the Persian people, which is what it's basically become.  Though it's appropriate to mention how modern day Iran occupies portions of the old Parthian empire, etc..., it's not appropriate to have those histories take more than half the article.  It's also not appropriate to claim that everything from the Medes to the Parthians were Iranian empires.  They were conglomerate empires of many peoples, not just Persians. Djma12 18:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Iranians are a "conglomerate" of different people not just Persians. That's why we call anyone living in Iran, Iranian. Iranian people are those living on Iranian plateau and they contain Persians, Medes, Parths, Kurds, Lurs, Turks, etc, etc. It is the same case for Iran or Persia. If the name is Persia it doesn't mean it only contains Persians. I don't know if you're Iranian or not. If you are, then this is sad for Iranians. If you're not please read some history books. Iran IS NOT a portion of Persia it IS Persia. This article deals with Iran, and the offical name of Iran currently is Islamic Republic of Iran. It's just a name that is changed. Same as Persia changed to Iran. --Arad 19:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure Arad, I don't contest that. And I think it would be great to have encyclopedic articles on the rich history of the region. However, that's not the point of an OVERVIEW article about Iran.

Basically, this article is a springboard from which individuals can read more about specific subsections. (History, Economy, Politics, Military, Science, etc...) It's inappropriate for ONE subsection to be more than half the article. To see how this topic has been treated in other countries with similarly long histories, see People's Republic of China and India. (Notice how the China website has a redirect on the top stating "For the Chinese civilization, see China.") Djma12 19:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Very good example. If this is what will happen to this article, then I surely agree that we can make an article called Iran, putting most of the history section there and another one called Islamic Republic of Iran, contaning the economy, etc ,etc. --Arad 19:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But still the title of the article is Iran. So we should actually move the other things for Islamic Republic. --Arad 19:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That might actually be a good suggestion. Though we'd have to move the government, military, science, culture, etc... sections as well.  Also, please feel free to contribute on the discussion on article splitting that I've just started. Djma12 19:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

My Thanks To Wikipedia
What a great article!! This one made me proud of my country. I think it's every Iranian's duty to read this. Thanks a LOT!!
 * ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.218.71.250 (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Article Splitting
'''This page is 98 kb long, well over the 30 kb suggested by wiki. If anyone has any suggestions on improving readability, please place it here. For reference, please see WP:SIZE. Djma12 19:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)'''

I think there is a confusion in this article concerning modern Iran vs. a history of the Iranian people. As such, I propose that the page be either trimmed, or split. For a template for what I propose on a similar page concerning a similarly ancient people, see People's Republic of China vs. China. Djma12 19:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As we know there is a article called Persian Empire. We can rename the article to Iran or Persia, dealing with the history of Iran (Persian Empires). And expand this article's other sections. I don't like the idea of trimming though. --Arad 19:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I know this article is dear to many people, but a 98 kb article simply can't be a long term solution. Not only are there readability issues, it severely taxes wiki servers during editting and additions.  Please see WP:SIZE for fully enumerated reasons for keeping articles around 30 kb. Djma12 20:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * sweet double standard? the size of United States is 117 Kb too and lots of other country articles like that. if you have problem with any part of the article why not telling it directly? and please don't bring "the server" excuse, and I don't think trimming the article to 30 Kb is mandatory law of wiki, is it? --Pejman47 20:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, b/c any suggestion on article improvement is obviously an american conspiracy. Read over WP:SIZE first before you sling accusations.  And if you feel strongly about the United States article, tag it.  Wiki is open edit. Djma12 21:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I have stated fairly explicitly what I think would improve the article. The history section is too long. Djma12 21:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree with bringing the article size to 30 kb. But many sections in the article can be split and trimmed. For example, We have a Topics related to Iran box on the bottom of the Iran article. So parts of the article like Nuclear program, social security, human rights can be removed from the article. Anyone who is interested in reading about those topics can search it up or use the topics related to Iran box. Also, the history section needs to be trimmed down. Some of the least important details are mentioned. We have to remember that our goal is to make a good Encyclopedia article about Iran not a book! Wikilo12 21:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the various subsectioned should be removed, as this is an overview article. It's good to get a SYNOPSIS on the important aspects of a country, then have links provided for further reading.


 * The way I see it, what type of information would a 6th grade kid look up about a country when doing a report? Probably wants to know a bit about brief history, what the government is like, economy, culture, important international issues, etc....  As the article stands now, the poor kid would be bogged down by the time he/she reached the Sassinaid empire.


 * I've been discussing with Arad and we feel it that it might be good to have the current article serve as an overview article for the Iranian Civilization, while moving the topics concerning the current government to an article titled Islamic Republic of Iran. This would be following the precedent of China and People's Republic of China.  Thoughts? Djma12 21:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that maybe some minor issues have been high lightened while some important issues remains stub, but NO Trimming, I am OK with the size of the history section and it only needs rewrite. In french wikipeia it is a featured article, as you can see the history section is not "trimmed", but other parts of the article is expanded as well. I will announce it in the Iranian notice board for major rework, and possibly promoting it to FA, I think reviewing the French article is a good start point. --Pejman47 22:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, I do not believe that the article needs to be 32 kb, but I do think that the history section is way too long. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who feels this way either.  Look at "Priority 1 (top) To-do list for Iran" at the top of this discussion page, even.


 * Reduce size of History section by moving details to History of Iran article and using Summary style. Suggested length: 10 paragraphs. 


 * I know that this is some people's pet article and are thus loathe to trim it. However, the "other articles ignore WP:SIZE therefore we should be able to ignore it as well" argument is weak.  The solution is to bring THOSE articles into improved readability as well, not to simply ignore wiki guidelines.
 * Djma12 02:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Article has too much fat, not enough meat
Here is my opinion.

I have to agree that the good meat of the article gets lost because of the unnecessary amount of details. The article has too much fat, and not enough meat. Take into consideration the following sentences from the article:


 * "In basketball, Iran has a national team" (this sentence is insulting, if u ask me. Even Burkina Faso has a national basketball team. So why should this even be mentioned?)
 * "Infant (IMR) and under-five (U5MR) mortality have decreased to 28.6 and 35.6 per 1,000 live births respectively in 2000, compared to an IMR of 122 per 1,000 and an U5MR of 191 per 1,000 in 1970." (Is this really something so important to put on the main page of Iran? It gives the impression that Iran is somehow struggling with health issues.)
 * "Theoretical and computational sciences are rapidly developing in Iran. Theoretical physicists and chemists are regularly publishing in high impact factor journals." (Insulting again. It prompts the impression of "Oh, so Iranians can publish scientific papers too.")
 * "High field NMR facilities, as well as Microcalorimetry, Circular dichroism, and instruments for single protein channel studies have been provided in Iran during recent decades." (These things should not be said on a main page. They actually give a negative image of Iran, as if scientific instruments are something new to Iranians)
 * "Pour down, O Lord! from the clouds of thy guiding grace, The rain of a mercy that quickeneth on my grave, Before, like dust that the wind bears from place to place, I arise and flee beyond the knowledge of man". (Is this the absolute best selection we can offer from Iran's poetry? Is this the absolute cream of the crop?)
 * "The quest for social justice and equity is an important Iranian cultural trait" (een deegeh chiyeh?! I mean, is there anyone who doesnt think this way about social justice? The article is filled with such amateur wordings)
 * "Iranian Cinema has continued to thrive in modern Iran" (for a main article, such information is simply redundant. Of course Iranian cinema thrives in Iran!)
 * "From 1950 to 2002 the urban proportion of the population increased from 27% to 60%." (again, is such information so important to mention on a front article of Iran? I think it simply turns the reader off because of too much irrelevant detail)
 * "Since the 1979 revolution the persecution has increased with executions and the denial of access to higher education. More recent persecution towards Bahai's has led to the United Nations Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights stating on March 20, 2006 that this latest development indicates that the situation with regard to religious minorities in Iran is, in fact, deteriorating." (On no country's main article do we see paragraphs devoted to disuccing its human rights record. Do we see even one word of "Guantanamo bay" on the US page? How about Abu Ghuraib? The United States article mentions only one sentence about Iraq and its involvement in the war!! Come on people! Think!!)
 * "Summer temperatures rarely exceed 29°C (84°F). Annual precipitation is 680 mm (27 in) in the eastern part of the plain and more than 1,700 mm (67 in) in the western part." (Again, needless information)
 * "The CIA faced many setbacks, but the covert operation soon went into full swing, conducted from the US Embassy in Tehran under the leadership of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. Agents were hired to facilitate violence; and,..." (good grief...why cant we just state the whole Ajax operation in one sentence? People can read the details if they want by just clicking on it! It doesnt have to all be said here)
 * "The first day of battle ended with Persian advances and the Arab force appeared as though it would succumb to the much larger Sassanian army. In particular, the latter's elephants terrified the Arab cavalry. By the third day of battle,..." (that is just way too much detail. Agha joon...state only the lobbe kalaam)
 * "Iran is significant in international politics..." (na baba!...sigh)

Anyway, these are just some examples of how big and bulky the article has become. And the pictures are not the best selections either. 30k is way too short for such an article, but I do hope there is a consensus reached to clean up the article a bit and make it into a lean mean article!

Please give some feedback on this matter, so we can take some action. Peace y'all!--Zereshk 23:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * good points, go ahead and delete what you mentioned. --Pejman47 23:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, go ahead and remove those. The whole part about "social justice" has always bothered me, especially with its questionable assertions about Cyrus the Great & his supposed 'first human rights charter.'  Completely POV, and definitely amateur.  The Behnam 23:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hahaha. Zereshk damet garm. I just saw Borat and the sentece "In basketball Iran has a national team" is cracking me up. Seriously, how insulting that is. Or that Iran is important in international affairs. (seriously as you said "Na baba!") But I think this sentece is ok: "Summer temperatures rarely exceed 29°C (84°F). Annual precipitation is 680 mm (27 in) in the eastern part of the plain and more than 1,700 mm (67 in) in the western part." Because it states that Iran is not that desert country with camels that you have in mind. But in overall, most of those sentences are insulting.
 * In Basketball, Iran has a team. The players have big khraams. They all do very good and have sexy time after the game. I like. High five! --Arad 06:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Zereshk. But we cannot just trim those sections down all in a sec. After all, there are many other useless sentences and parts in the article. But i think that the climate part needs to stay, every country mentions the weather and it tells people that Iran is not a vast desert sitting on oil! Wikilo12 06:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The climate part should stay of course, but what Im proposing is that we paraphrase it all, by giving a description without going into too much statistical detail. Yes?--Zereshk 15:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Great idea Zereshk, this is necessary in order to improve this article --Rayis 15:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing a fact tag on a clear POV (presented as a fact), promoting views that are not supported in Western scholarship, this article is really an Iranian nationalist dream. Soon it will claim that Cyrus was a prophet of Allah. Nice job on respecting WP:OWN Rayis. You are above all policies. Miskin 10:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not mention the name of "Cyrus The Great" without the last part. He is as he is. To my eyes there is no title that can bring his position higher than what it is. shekarchi.5.march.2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.70.24.167 (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC).


 * There are actually many people that adhere to this belief, that Cyrus the Great was indeed a divine character (by Islamic standards): Cyrus the Great in the Qur'an. JFYI.--Zereshk 14:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: Agar movaafegh baasheed, Lets wait a few more days for some feedback, then initiate some cleanup of the article along the lines that I proposed above.--Zereshk 14:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah I agree. I moved the history section to the main article History of Iran. So please when the cleaning process began, remove the details from the history section. --Arad 17:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with some and disagree with some of the statements. More generally though it's the framework of this article that needs to be generally improved. For example let's take the first sentence, that Iran has a national basketball team. In it of itself, it seems out of place, but if it was structured in a paragraph that included general information about sports in Iran, it would be informative. For example, take the Canada article, which I helped move forward to featured article status, the Culture section states "Canada's official national sports are ice hockey (winter) and lacrosse (summer).[61] Hockey is a national pastime and the most popular spectator sport in the country" So if there was a statement that said something to the effect that football (soccer), basketball, and some other sports are important in Iran that would be good. Of course in general that sort of statement may not fit in this article as the section on Culture in this article will focus on other things which would not be in the Culture section in Canada and vice-versa. But that's the general trend.

Other statements that are in the same sort of thing is the climate statement. Again look at Canada, or Germany, both featured articles; "On the east and west coast average high temperatures are generally in the low 20°C (68 to 74°F), while between the coasts the average summer high temperature range between 25°C to 30°C (78 to 86°F) with occasional extreme heat in some interior locations exceeding 40°C (104°F)" and "Winters there are mild and summers tend to be cool, though temperatures can exceed 30 °C (86 °F) for prolonged periods" respectively. General trends about climate, which temperature is an important part of, is informative to the article.

There are of course many points above that should be culled as noted above such as the "''"Theoretical and computational sciences are rapidly developing in Iran. Theoretical physicists and chemists are regularly publishing in high impact factor journals." and "Iranian Cinema has continued to thrive in modern Iran"''.  I do however disagree with the removal of the one sentence on the persecution of the Baha'is.  The section is about demographics which includes information about population, ethnicity, gender and religion.  The Baha'is, as the largest non-Islamic religious minority in the country, and their fate, deserves mention in that section. Regards, -- Jeff3000 19:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

History of Iran
Guys I already moved most of History of Iran to its main article: History of Iran with a new template only for the article. It's true that the main article had less detail than Iran article. So we can start clean up the details from history of Iran. Anyone intrested in details can go to the main article. --Arad 17:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Human rights
Behnam, why did you remove that??? --Aminz 09:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It belongs in the historical section. I believe it is still there, so let's talk known facts about human rights in the real Iran, not the ancient kingdom.
 * Stuff about Cyrus tends to be rather nationalistic. I understand that it is a matter of pride to many Iranians, but as far as an encyclopedia goes, questionable assertions (first human rights 'charter', 'unprecedented') aren't acceptable.  Much of the 'charter' aspect comes from fake sentences evoking Mazda that are added to the normal translation in numerous venues.  Worst perhaps is that the cylinder is construed to represent Achaemenid human rights practices without question.
 * The cylinder doesn't actually tell us how the Achaemenid Empire was run & how its people were treated. It is just a government statement.  The current regime claims to be respectful & in accordance with human rights, and official writing sometimes reflects this.  But that isn't the reality of the situation.
 * Also questionable is that the 'charter' is 'unprecedented'. Many ancient statements have been argued as asserting rights, even as far back as Sumerian civilization.  While it should be noted in the historical section & in articles directly about Cyrus & his cylinder that some have assigned it these descriptions, to carry off these questionable assertions as fact is not encyclopedic.
 * It is best to keep the matter under historical issues, where its neutrality can be monitored easily, and discuss the actual human rights situation in Iran under the Human Rights section. This isn't supposed to be a nationalistic pamphlet, so let's keep our pride out of this.
 * The section is much more to-the-point the way I had it, so I will reinstate my version. From there information about the actual human rights situation in Iran can be improved upon.  Please discuss here if you think that the cylinder stuff really needs to be there.  But I hope you now see why I made the change.  The Behnam 09:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the sentence can be made neutral, right or wrong it has been claimed as first charter of human rights. Remember that we are not encouraged to research and prove sources wrong! as long as it has a source and is kept as neutral as possible, I don't believe we should remove it. --Rayis 11:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't just something I made up. I think livius is concise about the matter .  Accuracy & neutrality aside, it is simply not relevant to this page.  This article is about Iran, and the "Human rights" section should discuss "Human rights" in Iran, not the Achaemenid Empire.  The two are not continuous; this isn't simply a name change.  So, on grounds of irrelevance & dubious accuracy/neutrality, the cylinder & similar historical information should stay out of unrelated sections such as "Human rights".  The Behnam 16:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I never said you made up anything. What you are saying is in any case irrelevant on the case that it is at the end of the day, Iran and Iranians who claim it, and there are people who agree and don't agree with it, right or wrong --Rayis 17:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Iran is not the Achaemenid Empire, and this article is about Iran. Accordingly, the "Human rights" section will also be about Iran.  Hence, mentioning (highly questionable) notions of "Human rights" in very ancient empires with no continuity to modern Iran is very irrelevant.  Keep it for history.  The Behnam 19:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Acheamenids called their country Iran, but that's not the point. The point is that IRAN and Iranians claims this, right or wrong. If you would like I can translate it for you in to Persian for your better understandings. If you keep removing sourced material it is vandalism. Thanks, --Rayis 19:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Did they really call their country "Iran"? I don't think so. Give me a reliable source.  I have one, from Iranica (considered very reliable academic source on Iran),, saying the older form of Iran is unattested Aryanam.  Yes, the * before the word means unattested, so they don't actually have proof of that usage.  From the known facts, that name begins with Eran in Middle Persian, which is post-Achaemenid, and is now Iran today.  Of course, sharing the name doesn't make Sassanian human rights situation any more relevant, since the article is about modern Iran.  You probably would not like to include Sassanian details anyway; their record is abysmal.  By the way, I don't care about the nationalist propaganda (the 'claims'), the inclusion needs to be established as relevant to human rights in Iran.  On a variety of grounds I have shown it to be irrelevant, but you insist it is without compelling argumentation to back this up.  By the way, removing irrelevant sourced information is perfectly fine, so don't start threatening me.  Cheers.  The Behnam 20:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In fact, I will go further and put in to bullet points so you understand:


 * Iranians, widely, in or out of the country claim that Cyrus Cylinder is "first charter of human rights"
 * The Cyrus Cylinder is regarded as an important part of history of Iranian human rights, (see Human rights in Iran and Cyrus cylinder)

Here we go! the irrelevant factors that the country was called Persia and the ruling empire was Achaemenids and that what Cyrus did may have been politically motivated. But the sentence we are referring to is indeed related to human rights of Iran. It is not irrelevant, it is sourced, and it clearly mentions who claims it. If you feel like you need to make it less POV by claiming that it is challenged, go a head. However do not remove it --Rayis 20:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Proof by Wikipedia? Hmph. While these things may be appropriate for Human rights or Achaemenid Empire, it hasn't been established as relevant to the actual human rights situation of Iran, the modern nation, that this article is about.  The Behnam 20:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, the BBC source and CAIS source you use clearly describe the cylinder as a part of Iran's history. This article is about Iran in general, and there is already a history section.  Please keep information pertinent to "Human rights" in the actual Iran in that section, and do not add or re-add information that strays from this focus.  I would suggest that you instead mention it in the history section, but this has already been done.  Nothing remains but to remove the irrelevant passage from the "Human rights" section.  The Behnam 20:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's sourced and relevant, The BBC source explicitly says : "Iranian hsitory boasts the first charter of human rights". Please do not remove sourced information. --Mardavich 20:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "History" belong under the history section :) . Prove that the information is relevant to human rights in Iran.  This section isn't about Achaemenid human rights, it is about Iran human rights, and the section should reflect this.  It is fine to mention it under the history section since it is part of Iranian history, but the "Human rights" section, which is outside of the history section, should describe human rights issues in Iran itself.  This article is not the BBC article, and is not built the same way.  There is an explicit history section for historical information.  At this point I have provided a number of reasons that the inclusion is irrelevant & even questionable, so for starters, you may want to try refuting my statements.  And as I already noted, removing sourced irrelevant information is fine, so you don't need to remind me of policy.  Instead, try demonstrating the relevance of the inclusion to the passage in a manner that addresses my arguments, because demonstrating the relevance will allow the content to be protected under policy.  Thanks.  The Behnam 20:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Everything has a history, including the human rights of Iran :) Try to understand what the sentence is referring to. It is as much relevant to the history section, if not more, to the human rights section. If you are not willing to compromise, we may need some sort of Mediation --Rayis 20:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest moving the picture of the cylinder to history section, but at least one sentence with a link to that must be there. the current form is OK because it is not a undue weight: it is just a small sentence about history.
 * but the major problem is that there are users who wants to trim the article to 30 Kbyte and history section to one paragraph (see above). If this will going to happen, I very strongly oppose moving it to the history section. of course this should be here, the place of it is in the second importance --Pejman47 21:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, to under 90 kb  and the history section to ten paragraphs. Let's not exaggerate in order to make your points. Djma12 22:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, seriously. Djma12 I think we need to start voting. This thing is going into a chaos. --Arad 05:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The word "re-instated" as applied to the Shah
Using the word "re-instated" is wrong when talking about the 1953 events that led to Mossadegh's deposition from power. The shah officially had never been removed from office, and Mossadegh never stopped to regard him as the legal monarch, which is why he did not attempt to declare a republic. So the shah was technically never removed from power to be then "re-instated". By the same token, it is completely wrong to say that Mossadegh was "replaced" by the Shah. Mossadegh was the prime minister, and was replaced by Fazlollah Zahedi. The shah was the monarch, before, during, and after Mossadegh. He did not "replace" Mossadegh. Another wrong assertion in the article is the claim that Mossadegh "founded" the first democratic Iranian government. Mossadegh did not found anything, the democratic system in Iran was introduced in 1906 during the Persian constitutional revolution. Mossadegh was simply one of the prime ministers within that system, but he was not the first one.Shervink 11:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)shervink


 * Youre right. Perhaps you can replace those terms with more proper wording? I dont think anybody would object.--Zereshk 04:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Vote on trimming the History Section
This is posted on the top of the discussion page as a Priority One improvement for the page.

'''Reduce size of History section by moving details to History of Iran article and using Summary style. Suggested length: 10 paragraphs.'''

Please vote here as if you believe reducing to the History of Iran section to 10 paragraphs with a redirect towards the History of Iran article would be a good idea. Djma12 20:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously, I believe this would help the page meet readability and technical criteria per WP:SIZE. Djma12 20:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. But we need to make sure the article History of Iran is well writen. In my opinion the article needs a lot of work. When we reached a good quality on that article, then we can remove the details from here. --Arad 20:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I object, the history section contains important information, and had already been reduced significantly. It's fine as it is, many other country articles are larger in size than Iran. --Mardavich 01:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A reduction in size, yes, but 10 paragraphs is just wayyy too short. Germany was a featured article, and it has 22 paragraphs. For a country like Iran that has a historical monarchical precedence of 7,000 years, 10 sections cannot simply do justice for this article. When I proposed reducing the size of the article, it was basically to make it more concise and professional. Not to delete out entire parts. If I were to delete a section, it would be the military section. In my opinion, that section doesnt belong on the front page of Iran--Zereshk 04:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I also object as per Mardavich and Zereshk. This makes no sense. The history section is already very short, but we are talking about a nation with 3000+ years of history, in reality, its very very short.Azerbaijani 05:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Iranian history is an essential topic in understanding Iran, if it appears this section is longer than ordinary that's because Iranian history is perhaps among the longest histories of the world ..Alborz Fallah 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the article should be made more concise. This isn't about eliminating Iran's history, but rather relegating the more detailed information or information of secondary importance to the History of Iran article. For example, the "Etymology" section could be much shorter by just explaining the etymology in a straightforward fashion & giving at most a brief mention to the alternate name, Persia. We should not confuse the purpose of this article, to provide a encyclopedic summary of the modern nation of Iran, with the purpose of the history article, which is to cover the history of the national entity. Hence, much less detail is required under the history section here, with less detail for earlier sections of history. For example, after an acceptably summary treatment of the Elamite empire (which actually enjoyed a much longer period of activity than the Achaemenian), a tediously detailed account of the Achaemenian Empire is included. We do not need to include promotional mini-biographies of the important kings for each empire; we should focus on general trends instead. Of course, we should indicate that Cyrus founded the empire, and then list the other notable kings, but there is no need for many details, much less complete asides such as 'Darius building a canal'. Same thing for Ashkanian, Sassanian, etc.

It seems that the sections after the Islamic conquest are much more appropriate. They are short, explain general trends, and mention notables without extensive biographical information, instead mentioning only key point(s) of notability. Noteworthy is the coverage of Ferdowsi. The section focuses on the preservation of Persian language/culture, and Ferdowsi is briefly but adequately mentioned for his contribution to this preservation. Also, as far as actual empires go, the Safavid through Qajar section is good. Then the modern era is, appropriately, a little more detailed (because of its greater pertinence to current Iran).

I speculate that the undue weight placed upon the pre-Islamic history exists because editors who cherish that section of history went all out, forgetting that those empires aren't the same thing as Iran. Of course, they are part of Iran's history, but despite the subtle POV pushed in the article, the modern nation is not a mere continuation of the old civilization.

An important example to consider is that of Italy. Just as Iran has its old influential empires, Italy has Ancient Rome, which is 'huge' in terms of influence. Yet if you look at Italy, each section of their civilization is briefly summarized, with earlier periods receiving less detail. There is no extensive recap of Roman history. We should aim for similar concision and focus on the modern nation. Not only will this meet the size requests, but it will also improve the article itself.

Sorry for the lengthy statement but I think the elaboration is necessary on this matter because of the massive article changes it proposes. So, yes, I support trimming the history section. Feel free to discuss my reasons, thanks. The Behnam 12:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Object, per Mardavich & Zereshk --Rayis 13:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Object, per Zereshk. Tājik 14:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Behnam, please don't compare Iran to Italy as their situation is very different. And I wanted to say that it looks like many users, specially very experienced one like Zereshk are OK with history section. And I agree that 10 paraghraph is VERY short and Iran has a VERY long history. So I think we can do Plan 2. I propose Plan 2 which is like the article China and PRC, we could make article Iran which talks about the nation of Iran and it's history, and another article called Islamic Republic of Iran which talks about economy, recent events, army, etc,etc. Please feel free to vote on this plan.
 * My comparison of Iran and Italy was on the matter of historical coverage of ancient empires. I don't know what "situation" you are referring to, but it probably is not relevant to the historical coverage of ancient empires.  Either that, or it is a POV that favors placing undue weight on the ancient empires, which of course is not acceptable in WP.  This is just my speculation about the "situation"; please do tell me what this situation is that makes my comparison invalid.
 * Also, it might be useful to note that trimming sections of the article other than the history section is a great way to push this article even further towards a "History of Iran" restatement. This is the modern nation's main page; best not remove information about the modern nation to focus instead on facts from ages ago.  Any trimming should be the other way around; the History of Iran article is for detailed history.  The Behnam 16:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Object to both trimming and Plan B. Islamic Republic of Iran is just the official name of a government. But I accept that it needs major rewrite. I propose about 20 paragraph is enough. --Pejman47 15:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose the splitting of the article between 2 names. ["Persia" should also be added after the name Iran (in brackets) in the title.] Regarding the history section, we can/should trim 2 paragraphs, at most, by moving those details to the sub-articles. SSZ 15:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Object, the history section is one of the best parts of this article IMO, overall it is true that the article needs improvement by reducing its size but that should be done with minimum loss of content. - Marmoulak 15:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I suggest trimming parts on "Nuclear issue" and "Human rights". The section on nuclear issue is bigger than the section on "War on terrorism" in US page! Please also consider deleting the section on Human rights. There is no such section in other countries with similar or much worse records of human rights (e.g. China and many other non-democratic states). The space devoted to Iranian history before 1920 relative to the space devoted to Iranian history after 1920 is 60%. This ratio is 55% in Germany which is a Featured article and 85% in Egypt which is a country with a similar rich history as Iran. Interestingly this ratio is 55% for United states! 60% is quite OK if not low for Iran. I don't see any reason for trimming the history section before 1920. The size of the whole article (98kb) is not an urgent issue either. B movie which is featured article has the same size (98kb). Please note that WP:SIZE is not a strict requirement. It is only a suggestion. Sina Kardar 16:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion - Perhaps we should get some non-Iran-affiliated editors over here for comment? It may help to have some opinions from outside of the Iranian box. Maybe RFC is the best channel, I'm not sure. The Behnam 16:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Please do so. About Italy and Iran. Roman Emperors didn't cosider themselves Italian. Rome is as much Italian as it is Greek, etc. Persian Emprors cosider themselves Kings of Persia (Parsis) (and later on King of Iran (Eran)). So Italia is just different. --Arad 18:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion - If we're going to keep history section as it is, the article History of Iran needs urgent attention. The article has less detail on Iran's history than Iran article itself. It's to some point ridiculous. Please contribute to that article by giving more detail. And NPOV, clean edits. --Arad 18:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - per Mardavich & Zereshk ← ← Parthian Shot  (Talk)  10:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Results? - So the discussion ends with ... result? I think the only result we get is that we should leave it as it is. Thank you all for the votes. I wait for Djma12 to take decision. --Arad 02:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I put out an RFC but haven't noticed any more editors showing up that are outside of the 'Iranian box'. I'm going to try other measures to get non-affiliated editors in here, as I really do believe there is a risk of our own perspective as Iranians affecting our ability to look at this article.  The Behnam 02:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Given my personal disposition towards consensus, I don't feel good about trimming the history section yet. However, I would like to hear some non-Iranian perspectives, and would appreciate the Rfc / non-affiliated editor input. Let's just say the conversation is still pending. Djma12 20:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Non-Iranian Perspective. I am taking you at your word that your are interested in hearing objective comment from a non-Iranian perspective on the length of the History section.  I am from Canada, educated in a Western tradition,  without extensive in-depth or expert knowledge on the history of Persia or Iran, but a genuine interest in all history.  Here goes:

I would Support a reduction in the size of this section. Without in any way wishing to slight or offend the sensibilities of any editors who have worked long and hard on putting the sections together, the history section is very long and in some places more detailed and involved than one expects to find in the "general" article about a country. I have done a quick comparison to other countries that have also had long histories, created great empires and had profound influence on their neighbours (China, India, France, Italy) and the history sections of all of the 'general' articles are considerably shorter, even accounting for the shorter recorded histories in the case of the European nations. There is too much detail in this section for a general overview of Iran's history. Specifically, some examples of things that I think may be unnecessary in the history section in this article are:  the analysis  of Rostam Farrokhzad's military strategy; the reference to Mary Boyce in relation to Zoroastrianism, the detailed discussion of writers and scientists under Islamic Iran, the details of the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 and the broken US commitments of the Algiers Declaration, and the detailed discusssion of the Iran/Iraq war. Noting that Alexander of Macedon was labelled Alexander the Accursed is interesting, but is it really necessary in this article? Iran has a long history that needs to be covered properly in Wikipedia, but the attention given in the general article does seem excessively detailed in comparison with how national histories of other nations (even those with long and interesting histories) are covered in Wikipedia. I hope these comments are of some help. Cheers Corlyon 17:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Corlyon

I am Swedish currently living in California. I just picked up the request for "impartial" input over at Requests_for_comment/History_and_geography. It will take me a few hours to do a reasonable job of it, but I should be able to provide a detailed opinion (for what it's worth) before the end of the day. --Psm 22:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Vote on trimming: an "outside the Iranian box" perspective --Psm 23:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
(I am commenting here in response to the request for impartial editorial input as requested at Requests_for_comment/History_and_geography. I would view myself as ethnically neutral with a reasonable understanding of history.  I am however raised and educated in the “western tradition” with various obvious biases related thereto.)

I chose to approach this as objectively as I could, gathering some metrics. I sat down and put together a short list of countries that either qualified as being tremendously important historically (e.g. Egypt), or tremendously important in the world today (e.g. United States), or both (e.g. China). I extracted the texts from each history section and counted the words:

As is evident, Iran stands out. Referring to the other countries, I would judge that the history section on Iran should be in the 1000-1500 words range, possibly 1800, but absolutely not over 2000.

Now, next I read in detail the arguments above that would argue that this should be an exception. Rather than address specific points above, I will paraphrase the key “object” arguments as I understand them:

Argument 1: Iran’s history is 7000+ years so requires extensive commentary.

Firstly, this in and of itself is not a sufficient reason. An encyclopedia needs to balance multiple factors to judge what space to give a specific subject – such as overall importance, likely interest from readers, and so forth.

Second, the issue here is not whether this detail merits coverage – nobody is suggesting that any level of detail of Iranian history should be omitted from wiki. It’s a question of how to *structure* that information. As the wiki guideline states: “Summary style is accomplished by not overwhelming the reader with too much text up front by summarizing main points and going into more detail on particular points (sub-topics) in separate articles.”

Third, this argument is not consistent even on the face of it. If you exclude pre-300BC from the history section, it’s still almost 4000 words (!), and that’s with all recent history (since 1989) omitted!

Argument 2: Other country summaries are even longer

Two wrongs don’t make a right. Again, the question is not whether to omit the information or not, but what amount is suitable in a *summary* that in turn can point onwards to any amount of further details.

Argument 3: You need to understand Iranian history to understand Iran

This is true of most countries, and, again, this is a structure issue, not a “should we write about it at all” argument. If you feel that the details of Iranian history are more significant for Iran than other countries, and you can back that up reasonably well with corroborative historian viewpoints, then that’s an argument that you can present in the summary section per se (e.g. “to understand modern Iran you really should read the following detailed (and separate) articles: ….).

Argument 4: Ok it should be shorter, but 10 paragraphs is *too* short

I have no idea what 10 paragraphs means. "Words" is the measure of textual scope generally in use by editors, and that's what I use. A subsection of 1500 words is not too little, as per table above.

Argument 5: Lots of good details here, we shouldn’t throw away those details until it’s been improved

That’s the wrong order of things. A main article on a country is not a scratch pad in that sense. Go ahead and copy the entire section to the Talk part of a detailed article, and then butcher the summary section down to 1000-1200 words. That will give room for people to flesh it back up to 1500-2000 words which will be more than enough.

I'm happy to pay attention to this page, and feel free to post (flame) on my talk page, to any follow ups. I love history and don't mind helping out by backing up my humble attempt to be “impartial” in this manner.

I'd like to make the following side note as well: I sense (perhaps incorrectly) a notion of "we don't get no respect" here, e.g. that Iran's historical significance is not given enough credit. Without addressing that directly one way or another let me say this: the absolute best way to get people to be convinced of the significane of *anything* is to write about it in an easy-to-understand, convincing, interesting manner. The *amount* of text is a small factor. Focus on writing a 1500-word summary of Iranian history that is so excellent that any reasonable random wiki reader will leave this page thirsting to know more about Iran and Iranian history. Then you will have taken this to a win-win for everybody. In other words, stop focusing on quantity and focus on what really matters: quality.

To reiterate, after careful consideration my opinion is that the current history section needs to be cut by 2/3 (to 1/3 of it's current size) from around 4500 to around 1500 words.

Aryanam
Just a heads up. There is a common misinformation that "Aryanam" is a known Achaemenian description of their domain. This is not true. Please see this Encyclopaedia Iranica article. The asterisk in their Old Persian description "*Arya@na@m" indicates that the term in unattested; aka not a known usage. Basically, Aryanam is the hypothetical OP word based upon linguistics, but has not been used in actual Old Persian findings. So, I will remove the statement that Aryanam was indeed the name of the Achaemenian domain. The Behnam 05:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Its in the avesta though from the same time. --alidoostzadeh 12:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, use of words containing Airya are definitely in the Avesta. While I imagine this helped linguists determine the unattested OP form, it doesn't indicate that *Aryanam was a term for the Achaemenian domain.  Also, it is important to note that the Avesta doesn't actually talk about the Achaemenians; oddly enough, they don't exist in genuine Iranian tradition.  The most I've seen is some speculation identifying Husravah with Cyrus (and hence Kai Khosrow with Cyrus), but it didn't even approach being solid.  This should be obvious seeing that they don't really share anything.  Basically, this article (& elsewhere on WP) portrayed Aryanam as just 'the' earlier form of Iran, but this is not known to be the case.  The Behnam 13:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well Ariana is mentioned by Strabo during Parthian era. I agree in Old Persian *Aryanam is a hypothetical OP word based on linguistic sound laws although mentioned by scholars of linguistics.  As per Avesta and Achaemenids you might be suprised but there is a lot of connection.  See the article (Avesta quotations in Old Persian) by Oktor Skjærvø.  If you google it, you'll find the actual article.  --alidoostzadeh 02:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While I don't think it will change the highly prevalent unattested designation, I'm quite interested. I'm having some trouble searching it out; I see plenty of references to it but not the article itself.  Mind proving a specific link?  The Behnam 02:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay I found it here: . As per Aryanam its various form is in the Avesta which is the ultimate source for the word Iran.  But the first western attestion we have for Iran is Ariania in Strabo quoting another greek historian.  --alidoostzadeh 03:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is the origin, but not known to be used by Achaemenians. It should be noted that much of the Zoroastrian influence comes with the Sassanians.  Thanks for the link.  The Behnam 03:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Avesta was widely available during Achaemenid times.  It pre-dates Achaemenid times.  Actually Ariana was for sure used in parthian times (Strabo).  --alidoostzadeh 16:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Image Consensus Execution Proposal
As part of reducing the article size, I think it is worth it to try to execute the image consensus. The voting has been open for a long time now, and eventually should be acted upon; now is a good time. I propose that the top two performers for each section be used in those section, and the others be taken out. The Behnam 16:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * go ahead. but I think most of it already has been executed.--Pejman47 17:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's already done. Long time ago. Plus Images don't add much to article size. But too many images make article too busy. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arad (talk • contribs) 18:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Why is there a section on Iran's nuclear energy program?
I don't see why there should be a section on Iran's nuclear energy program, it just reflects anti-Iranian bias and the American bias of Wikipedia. There isn't such a section on the main page of other countries (USA, France or UK). The same goes for the "human rights" section. If you want to make the article shorter then the obvious thing is to be fair and delete those sections. It's blatant prejudice.217.42.82.12 13:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have the same point of view. i dont know why there should be so much stuff on current things. baba yekam ghairat dashte bashim. this wikipedia is too americanized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.70.24.167 (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
 * There is a lot on wikipedia about US, French, and UK nuclear technology/ nuclear weapons programs and testing systems. There is also a lot about atomic energy.  Its just listed on their own pages.  If anything happens the info on Iran's nuclear program should just me moved to its own page.  Stating that its not important or notable enough to be on wikipedia is rather short sighted. Drsocc 06:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Everyone who agrees please say so here. Actually, If the article is to be made shorter then really the obvious thing is two remove these two large paragraphs and just have a link to the main articles on those issues as a compromise. 217.42.82.12 18:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay - I just checked the United States of America article and there is definitely a bunch of information up about U.S. nuclear activities throughout history as well as links to other articles detailing those activities.Drsocc 06:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is fairly common to include a little bit on nuclear stuff. The main concern here is keeping it NPOV in spite of the current Western campaign against Iran over the matter.  The Behnam 06:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While NPOV is important - just having a section exist about an emerging nuclear program isn't a violation.Drsocc 07:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify that I think the section should stay. The Behnam 07:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear Program
Why is the Nuclear Program section classed as a part of Scientific Progress? Is that not POV in favour of Iran continuing with its nuclear activities? I thought Wikpedia was supposed to have NPOV. Seems to be the NPOV rule is used as a tool to block some points of view like on the Tibet article to prevent it having a factbox and used to defend others like on here where it is used to defend Iran's nuclear activities. Is it any wonder these days Wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source anymore? Read google news time to time. It's becoming a well known fact that Wikipedia is somewhere to the left of Stalin now. 88.110.139.15 17:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * NPOV would be having a section on the development of nuclear energy only in its own section as it is for other countries. Otherwise it only reflects American opinions of Iran. There is no such section on the USA main page, why should it be on Iran's main page except to reflect American negative perceptions of Iran? If someone wants to find the information on Iran's nuclear energy program then they may do so by following a link from the main page. Otherwise, by having that section on the main page one is making a statement that so-called nuclear activities are a prominent feature of the country, which clearly they are not. Leaving that section in just reflects a tiny part of the long history of Iran, a part that is being highlighted by the current U.S. administration. 217.42.82.12 18:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that some user with apparent sockpuppets keeps adding his own little unsubstantiated bit to the nuclear program. The reason we consider this POV is because the factual selection is unfairly geared against Iran. You want to mention the abundance of energy, which is one of the reasons the West tries to dismiss Iranian energy concerns. But adding this energy bit without the evidence that this abundance will not prevent an energy crisis in Iran based upon current trends is POV. While we could add this response, it would become rather inappropriate for this page to cover the lengthy and complex debate over Iran's nuclear program. Right now we are simply stating what is known about Iran's nuclear program, not POV-pushing selectively chosen "energy facts".

Besides, you have consistently not used a source, so that is also a problem. While you may be able to find a source for that argument & those facts, be aware of NPOV & Undue weight regulations from now on. Thanks. The Behnam 18:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

PS - Do not use multiple accounts to push your view here. I suspect, , , & perhaps some IP edits of being the same person based upon contribs, recent creation, & apparent single purpose. Action may be taken. The Behnam 18:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * add this too: . If It was up to me, I would rather delete whole the nuclear section due to the undue weight of it. But the current version is at least some how natural ; so, I let it remain.
 * Interesting. I'm probably going to start a case.  I'm just not sure which user should be considered the 'main account', though at first glance I'd guess   The Behnam 19:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't follow who you are addressing here. If it's me, then I want to point out that I haven't edited anything and I don't have a user account. And I came here to ask for the nuclear section to be removed in line with other country profiles. 217.42.82.12 19:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think I'm addressing you. The part about "some other IPs" was simply to keep open the possibility of there being IP edits of the same nature that I didn't notice when I looked through the article history to spot these users.  Sorry if it seemed that way.  The Behnam 20:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up in Sports section
Does anyone disagree that the information in the Sport section needs to be reduced to a smaller paragraph? What is currently there is a word by word repetition of the main article on sports in Iran so it seems quite redundant to have those details here as well. In fact, anyone who gets to this point in the article can click on the link for the main article on sports and see those details. I don't think it serves much purpose to a general audience other than it makes the article too lengthy.

Shervin moloudi 10:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I very much agree. This page needs to be much better aligned with summary style.  Currently I think the good sections are the Economics, Geography and Demographics sections. -- Jeff3000 13:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, please restore the cleanup. The Behnam 18:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree, that section must be reduced and also rewritten.--Pejman47 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: The Sports section needs to be rewritten, but not reduced. The Sports section brings a healthy balance to the article, which is needed.69.116.234.208 22:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But does that healthy balance require being fat? Too small and too large are both negative. I see no reason that a reduction should not be made if that is what improves the section.  The Behnam 22:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: It's not just about sports, the pictures in the section reflect the diversity of Iran's nature. Most westerners don't even know that there is snow in Iran, let alone skiing. Football and ski sections should stay IMO. --Mardavich 23:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Shervin moloudi 06:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC): 1) The purpose of a 'sports' section is not to tell westerners that there is snow in Iran. 2) This should be an unbiased info page not a travel agency's advertisement for Iran and its nature. One can take a hint of what a sports section should look like by looking up USA in wiki. This section here looks very unprofessional and too "patriotic" to a "westerner" as it is. It looks like an Iranian is trying to say, in a hurry; "oh, look, by the way, we are so cool, we have all these snow and ski and things. We are not just about camels..." Doesn't look good.

Please add your voice to the following section
Manual of Style (Persian).

← ← Parthian Shot (Talk)  08:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup update
OK people,


 * 1) I cleaned up the sports section. It's shorter now, but more informative. I hope everyone agrees with the edit.
 * 2) I merged the two poetry sections, replaced their translations, ordered them, and edited some sentences there. Nothing was really lost there.
 * 3) I trimmed out some sentences from the scientific section, and added others. (Having NMR equipment isnt exactly that noteworthy for an article and country such as Iran, as I mentioned above earlier).
 * 4) I did a slight trim on the etymology section, cutting out some minor details. I dont think there was any loss of essential information there.
 * 5) I erased the Persian verses of Avicenna, because the first line of them was missing, and because the English version there is an excellent translation by itself. It was translated by Edward Fitzgerald.
 * 6) I think though that the entire Military section should be deleted, and transferred to its own page Military of Iran. Iran has not invaded any country in the past 300 years, and it spends only 1/10th the budget of its neighbors on its military. Putting a military section in the article gives Iran an inaccurate representation, injecting POV into the article.
 * 7) With the trims done tonight by me and SSZ, the article is now down to 91kb. I didnt touch the history, politics, geography, economy, or demography sections, and I wont, until people reach an agreement on them.--Zereshk 05:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw the page for USA and it has a military section. Basically, because every country on earth has a military. I see what you mean, but I think we should maintain this section, like for other smaller countries like France or Turkey. (my 2 cents) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.116.234.208 (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC).


 * The clean-up looked good to me, why did you revert yourself? --Mardavich 09:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, why did you revert?SSZ 09:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A bug. Seems it's fixed now.--Zereshk 09:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The improvements look so good so far. But SSZ, can you please re-review all the paragraphs you removed from the history section, to restore any significant information that maybe worth noting, and to make sure that those paragraphs already available in the main articles Parthians, Sassanids etc. ? --Mardavich 10:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Mardavich. I did not touch the history section. I haven't edited this section for a month or more may be, in the main article (not my area of expertise.) You must be confusing with someone else. SSZ 10:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are referring to my revert because of Zereshk: I just did a quick check to see that no essential information was lost but please feel free to double check.SSZ 10:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My bad, it wasn't you. Apparently, large chunks of the history section were unilaterally removed by User:Manu_kian_maheri without any comments here and despite the fact that there was no consensus to cut down the section on history. Can one of you please review that user's contributions and restore all the lost paragraphs from the history section? --Mardavich 10:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Image
SSZ, the image was actually removed by some anon:. I simply replaced it back. Ive only touched stuff where there is no dispute, at least as far as I know. All the trouble is in the history section.--Zereshk 10:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Zereshk, I am not accusing you of anything (and I know one of the 3 (new) pic was there before, more than a month ago, as you mention). Nevertheless, you should know that the consensus vote on the other pictures happened some time after this specific picture you refer to was removed. Again, I have intentionally left your new calligraphy pic in place. I call this a compromise.SSZ 11:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Mardavich, I wouldn't worry about the history section much since there is a main article with ALL the original content. I think he meant to be constructive in his edits and I see what he did as a +. Others can share they opinion also.SSZ 11:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The votes were not on the art and architecture sections. So I take it that it is your dispute. In that case, we have to put this up for a vote then. Your Farshchian image wont last anyway because it's Fairuse. Admins are quick to delete those.--Zereshk 11:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll
Seems two sections were left out of the vote. Please vote for only one image (we dont have room for more than one image in each section). And if there is no consensus or no votes, then we will just keep the pictures that originally were, or add completely new ones. Closing date set for March 25th:

For the architecture section

Architecture Votes:


 * #2 or #5: because of better resolution, and better craftsmanship.--Zereshk 11:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * #10 or better version of bridge picture. The Behnam 16:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * #1, Or #7. --Pejman47 20:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * #1 (or 5 - if there is a tie only).SSZ 15:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * #7 Shervink 15:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

IMAGE #1 has the majority of votes (*2*)
 * No it doesnt. #5 and #7 also have 2 votes. That's called a no consensus.--Zereshk 01:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I counted the FIRST VOTE (and the second vote if there was a tie only). Pic #1 according to rules wins.
 * You are the only one who has specified a "first" and "second" vote, and you even changed specified this after the vote was closed:. "Or" does not carry any hierarchy or rank in meaning.--Zereshk 03:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you are wrong again. I had to clarify my position WHILE the vote was still OPEN on March 25th Eastern Time because you decided, all by yourself, to go and precipitously change both pictures, also there was NO agreement from anyone on WP to do so. I and the rest of us already gave you a "free pass" for your calligraphy pic. (I maintain it is a beautiful picture though). For the rest, please only blame yourself to ask people to vote "ONLY for 1 image" and go yourself immediately vote for 2 pics.

Art votes:


 * #2 or #6: because they have more color, better resolution, depicts art and love and not war and kings and royalty, and unlike the Farshchian pic (#1), is not "fairuse", which we all know ends up getting deleted by the Image Police.--Zereshk 11:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * #2 - 3 is good too, but kind of violent. #2 is pleasant and the people don't look like Mongols.  The Behnam 16:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * #1, Or #2. --Pejman47 20:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * #1 (or 3).SSZ 15:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * #3 Shervink 15:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

'''IMAGE #3 has a majority of votes. (*3*). (#1 & 2 are in a tie.)'''
 * Not really. #2 has 3 votes.--Zereshk 01:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hamegee...
HAVE A HA P P Y N O R O U Z --Zereshk 22:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Happy nowruz to all of u! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.217.115.92 (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

BBC Documentary
There is a BBC documentary about Iran here: [Rageh Inside Iran]. Maybe it should be added to link about Iran? 86.131.40.23 09:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Great documentary. thanks a lot. There is another one on History Channel Engineering an Empire: The Persians. Make a search for it, it's easy to find. (I'm not allowed to show the link, as it will be a link spam). --Arad 20:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it good enough/suitable for the links section? I can't add it myself as the page is locked. 86.131.40.23 04:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)