Talk:Iran (word)

European cognate words
It would be useful to add in a section about European cognate words, such as Aryan and Éire. Fig (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Though once (eons ago) thought to be cognates of 'Iran', 'Éire' (and 'iron') have a different origin.
 * 2) English-language 'Aryan' is not a cognate either; its a loan from Sanskrit, which is a cognate, but semasiologically unrelated to the word 'Iran' (and would muddle the issue with all the -- Indian caste-system derived -- "noble" cruft). The derivation from the Iranian word for 'Aryan' is noted in the article. The 'Aryan' article can't be linked to until its detoxified. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think your understanding of the word 'cognate' may be overly restrictive. Generally, any two words can be considered cognates if they both derive from a common origin - no matter how remote, how many degrees of separation they're removed, and no matter how far their meanings have diverged. Firejuggler86 (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Strabo
Strabo states: "The name also of Ariana is extended so as to include some part of Persia, Media, and the north of Bactria and Sogdiana; for these nations speak nearly the same language."

Strictly speaking, this would be the earliest evidence of the name Iran. I have also collected some sources here: which shows the name has been used continuously for the geographical area since Sassani/Strabo.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

very likely stuff
The sentence A: "..and it seems "very likely" that in Ardashir's time "ērān still retained this meaning, denoting the people rather than the state." is wrong and not supported by the cited source. So I changed "Ardashir's time" to "ardashir inscription". Though changing to "in common royal titles šāhān šāh ērān from Ardashir I onward" would be even better. --Xashaiar (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 1. The cited source states [the sentence of Shapur I+title (like Ardashir I)]: "I am lord of the kingdom (Gk. nation) of the Aryans”...This formulation, following his title “king of kings of the Aryans,” makes it seem very likely that ērānšahr properly denoted the empire, while ērān was still understood, in agreement with its etymology" I can not conclude from this that "eran" in Ardashir I time had the etymological meaning and "was not used to refer to state." Here the source talks about Shapur and not Ardashir I. The source talks about the formulation (a common title "king of kings of Eran"+ the mentioning of eranshahr).
 * 2) 2 The same source makes it clear that: Despite the usage of the royal titles, the empire was already referred to by the abbreviated form “ērān,” and the Roman west correspondingly “anērān,” very early. Both terms occur in a calendrical text from the pen of the prophet Mānī, probably first written during the reign of Ardašīr, and in no other Manichaean Persian or Parthian has the term /ērānšahr/ been met.

That you " can not conclude from this that "eran" in Ardashir I time had the etymological meaning and was not used to refer to state " is very strange. I note this because its important is that the reader understands the distinction between ērānšahr (state, a political concept) and ērān (nation, a cultural concept). This difference is a leitmotif in the source, and a leitmotif in the article. Understanding the difference is crucial to understanding the concept, and if you don't understand it, then possibly others won't either.
 * 1. The article (" very likely that ērān still retained this [i.e. etymological] meaning, denoting the people rather than the state ") and source (" very likely that ērānšahr denoted empire while ērān was still understood in agreement with its etymology ") are in perfect agreement.
 * 2. The article (" Nothwithstanding ... early ") and source (" Despite ... early ") are also in perfect agreement. I don't understand what you are trying to express by the underlining, and your "So" does not follow a premise.
 * 2.5: The phrase occurs on A's coinage, its not limited to his investiture inscription. But if you like "A's inscription", then that's fine too. It does not change the meaning. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You see my point is that, Eran was used as an abbreviation of Eranshahr. (that is, eran did mean the empire/state/country/whatever). I somewhat thought we put a sentence like the term eran was used as a reference both to "empire" and to "people". Since both have been now mentioned, I thought saying "it seems "very likely" that in Ardashir's time "ērān still retained this meaning, denoting the people rather than the state" may seem excluding the usage as an abbreviation of eranshahr which as noted was (likely) from Ardashir's time too. (BTW: underlying was because I wanted to quote.. wrong way I agree).--Xashaiar (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC) One more thing, on the coinage, did eran mean "empire" or "people"?--Xashaiar (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * > Eran was used as an abbreviation of Eranshahr.
 * "Eranshahr" has no influence on whether "Eran" was initially a national name. "Eran" "of Iranians" is a grammatical issue, not a political one. Thus, Ardashir's "shahan shah eran" can be either "king of kings of Iranians" or "king of kings of Iranians". If the source says the former seems "likely", then that's what it is "likely" to be.
 * > on the coinage, did eran mean "empire" or "people"?
 * The phrase "shahan shah eran" (+ "... ud aneran" after about 244/Shapur) is the same everywhere, on both inscriptions and coins, and for all Sassanid monarchs. So what applies to any one monarch's inscriptions then applies to his coins as well, and vice-versa. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

recent edit
"The name Iran was introduced for modern use in 1925 by the Pahlavi dynasty. " This has been added without discussion. This statement is wrong. Because If you want to add this pahlavi things, no problem. But the article does mention that (1935 is correct). On this note, there are problems: 1. "Shah of Iran" was a title long long before Pahlavis. (so in Iran the country name was indeed Iran before Pahlavis.) 2. As I wrote above, in English speaking land Iran and Persia were used interchangeably (see above link to online books). 3. If there is strong WP:CONS to include Pahlavi naming decision it must be in a correct form like "Pahlavi dynasty officially asked the international community to call its country by it indigenous name Iran". Better suggestion? We should discuss this along with merging proposal (which is in my opinion a bad idea). --Xashaiar (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) "pahlavi dynasty" did not introduce "the name Iran" no matter for what. They just asked the international community not to use Persia for the country that was otherwise called "Iran". (see the definition of the word).
 * 2) The name Iran (along with Persia) was indeed in use by English speaker writers for the country of Iran before Pahlavis (please use limited online resource of pre-1925 publication).
 * 3) The article on Iran naming convention is an article on "Persia vs Iran" naming in (geo-)political context and as "the official name for the country in non-Iranian world" and has hardly anything to do with this article on the origin, usage, etymology .. of the word "Iran".
 * So what? Why did you revert my edits ? Alefbe (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on the edits (primary school type headlining, move based on not understanding of what "Name of X" should be and confusing encyclopaedia with dictionary) of yours, I have to say thank you for destroying one of the most encyclopaedic article of wikipedia.--Xashaiar (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

We do not need two "names of Iran" articles. if there is a dispute over the official name, fine, discuss it. But why is the etymology of "Persia" discussed in the "naming convention" article? We need one article, "names of Iran", where we can discuss the etymologies of "Persia", of "Iran", and document such controversies as there are. --dab (𒁳) 17:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute there is a change in official names used by non-Iranians. That's all. but you have a point, and the solution is not destroying a good article for the sake of sourced but otherwise unimportant materials in other bad articles. Do you see my point? "Persia" does not need more than one line in the section Iran namely "Persia, derived from the name of Persis province since Achaemenids and designating "Persian speaker" ruling family, was used to call the country and its people by Greeks who came to contacts with Iranians since ca 600 BC. The tradition was passed to Romans and then to Europe." Note that no serious encyclopaedia ever has a section on "etymology of Persia" because it is almost obvious, whereas "Iran" in all encyclopaedia (Iranica, of Islam, Britannica,..) as well as all top scholars of Iranian history (authors of The Cambridge History of Iran, ...) mention in detail the etymology of Iran and its usage as "state" and "people" since achaemenid/Sassanid time. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and should follow this kind of treatments. Why are you confused? Iran is what the article used to say and Persia is just the line I wrote above. The naming convention article is an article with wrong title. It is sourced but can be either deleted or be re named as "Pahlavi request to international community regarding the official naming of their country.." or something similar.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This page is not about "Names of Iran". This page is about "Iran" as a word (it's etymology and historical usage). You can move Iran naming convention to Names of Iran. Alefbe (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Difficult to understand what you may mean as I look at the WP:NOTDICTIONARY, and the not-for-deletion-or-move template Name of and for example Name of Greece, Name of India, Name of "any country you want". Sometime a comment of a user to make a point better be logical and consistent. And one more thing "wikipedia is probably not a counting machine", that is "Mr Al-X-Al-Din Al-XXX used the word "Iran" in a poem in the year YYYY is not what we want, otherwise wikipedia would have some few million more lines!--Xashaiar (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What you want is not much important. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and this page has encyclopedic content and it's sourced. Alefbe (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why your Al-ification of wikipedia is important? This primary school reasoning that "sourced information should not be removed" has no value even in wikipedia namely: WP:POV and what most specialised sources say. You have added Al-XXX-al-din-Al-YYYY to any article you can, just because you can source it? --Xashaiar (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, now I understand what you mean (and it's quite nonsense). By "Al-ification", you mean referring to someone whose name has "al" (like "Rashid-al-Din Fazl-Allah"). There is nothing wrong with referring to a prominent medieval historian (for the usage of a word in that time). If you don't like his name, it's not my fault. Alefbe (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you do not understand, because otherwise you knew why in an article on Addition one does not add "Al-XXX-al-Din-al-something wrote 2+155=157 in the year YYYY". Your fault is destroying one of the most encyclopaedic article just because it was hard for you to understand.--Xashaiar (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You may think that having detailed sections on "The usage of the term “Iran” in the early Persian literature" and "THE IDEA OF “IRAN” UNDER THE MONGOLS AND TIMURIDS" is not encyclopedic, but that's what is done in this Iranica's article. No matter if you like it or not, Iranica is the most reputable encyclopedia for Iran-related subjects, and a good example for other encyclopedias on those subjects. Alefbe (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Primary school course maybe needed here: The relevant and encyclopaedic materials in the article X does not make those materials relevant for the article Y. I do not need the comment of an editor whose most advanced contribution is to change/move article "xyz" to "al-xýëź" to tell me what is reputable what is not. You often violate WP:3rr and disregard others' concerns and not even warned (I know why), and you do not even make sense in explaining your disagreements. You should learn to move articles by proposing it in the talk page and you do not do that...You addition to this article is so far 1. poorly written, 2. WP:SYNTH (and maybe disruptive) 3. to prove its relevancy needs OR. 4. In using sources you pick things either with Al-KKK or anything that is irrelevant but simple like the first two letters of alphabets.--Xashaiar (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What Alefbe did was not wrong, Xashaiar is just reverting sourced information without proper discussion. Mr.TrustWorthy Got Something to Tell Me?  17:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you please read the article encyclopaedia, WP:POV, irrelevant, as we had hard time telling you in other articles that "not every member of Iranian language family is Persian language"? With those kind of edits of yours, it is hard for me to accept that you know what this article talks about.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How is the information put by Alefbe not relevant? You seem to be removing all sort of information, that is sourced and acceptable. Mr.TrustWorthy Got Something to Tell Me?  21:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In general "primary school materials" are sourced information by not relevant in wikipedia. for example, someone in the year YYYY used the word Iran in a poem. This is what that editor is adding and is irrelevant.--Xashaiar (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where exactly in the article does it say that? Are you talking about this section ? Mr.TrustWorthy Got Something to Tell Me?  21:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to your comment in my talk page: I am talking about this diff file. Everything added is
 * sourced information from WP:RS but not about the name of Iran as "the title says all". This title is like most other similar articles (see the template Asia topic at the end of the article).
 * But those sourced materials that I keep removing is related to different not-yet-created articles. Some of such articles can be "Idea of Iran", "idea of Iranshahr", "Iran in Persian literature"... All these articles can be created and creating them can be justified by noting that "Idea of Iran" is an academic term used in English speaking scholarly works (Please see this link). Also "Iranian identity" is an article that can be created or added as a section to "Iranian people". This term is also academic but quite different from what the "name of the country".
 * This is my concern and that the earlier version of this article was one of most encyclopaedic article of wikipedia and should not be destryed by putting more materials which, despite being interesting, should be in other articles.--Xashaiar (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that an WP:edit war has started to, or will form soon, I have listed this discussion at WP:Third opinion. Mr.TrustWorthy Got Something to Tell Me?  18:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

look, the current article is so bad that it's really pointless to be so protective about it. It can only go uphill from here, but this will need some quality editing. I do not have any specific revision I want to defend, because the article still needs to be written, but it is already clear that Xashaiar's attitude is not helping here. --dab (𒁳) 14:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nepaheshgar's edits
I reverted Nepaheshgar's edits, because I think we should summarize the historical usage of the word and its context. Listing some random examples of the usage is not much useful. Also, for the usage of the word and its context, it's better to rely on secondary and tertiary sources, rather than our own interpretation of primary sources. For example, it's better to rely on Iranica's articles or the related academic papers (or for example, Gnoli's book for the pre-Islamic usage of the word and its contexts). Alefbe (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"History of the debate"
I have removed the last paragraph in this sectionbecause it was both redundant and out of point. Al-Iskandar Tzaraath (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

ref #1 dose not exist
Ref. #1 dose not exist. I didn't remove it because if I did, I would have to remove the first paragraph. I think both of them should be removed. Amir.azeri (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Works fine. It is fully referenced and you cannot remove sources if their link is broken. Rather in order to show a source does not exist, you need to prove it. However, the source does exist and you can click here:  --Pahlavannariman (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC) "Despite the usage of the royal titles, the empire was already referred to by the abbreviated form “ērān,” and the Roman west correspondingly “anērān,” very early. .." and Eran/Eranshahr are terms used since the Sassanid era as the article has xplained. And David Mackenzie is well cited and well known linguist and orientalist. --Pahlavannariman (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Article does not discuss change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_naming_dispute does not explain why Reza Shah chose to request foreign correspondence say "Iran." In particular, foreign influence, re: Hjalmar Schacht. 208.127.21.94 (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hamza Isfahani quote: more grammatically correct translation borrowed from another WP page
The Isfahani quote as originally included was in very bad English: "Arian which is also Persia is situation in the middle of these six countries and these six countries form its borders. Its SE is China, its North is bordered by the lands of Turk, Its Southern Middle borders India, Its Northern Middle borders Byzantium, its SW borders Africa and its NW is is in the hand of Berbers." The only place I could find this version of the quote was at Full text of "On the necessity of the unity of Iranian people" at Archive.org, which is not actually cited in this article. However, both the Aryan and the Iranian peoples page have a more grammatically correct version of the quote, although I cannot find the original source to verify the accuracy for that version. However, since that version was more correct, I copied and pasted it into this article. I hope that is acceptable, given the unavailability of the original translated source at this time; if this change is not acceptable, please feel free to revert. Thanks, Aristophanes 68   (talk)  16:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)