Talk:Kirman (Sasanian province)

Merge Request
This should be merged with Carmania (satrapy). --Ed.capistrano (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose; Two different provinces in different eras with different history. That's like merging all the Roman/Byzantine Egypt province articles into one article. And since a month has gone since you last made this suggestion (not to mention you are very inactive), I believe the template should be removed from the article for now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support; Carmania during Sasanian rule is not referred to as Kirman in sources . Also, Carmania and Kirman refer to the same province covering the same geographical area and population during Antiquity. In regard to Egypt, the Roman and Eastern Roman/Byzantine period of Egypt is covered in the same article. Mugsalot (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment; We have already been through this before with Harev (province) and various others. Articles like this adds more diversity. And you definitely can't compare Roman/Byzantine Egypt with this, since they were the same empire, which is not the case with the Sasanian and Achaemenid Empires, that also reigned in completely different timelines. And neither the population (especially this one) nor the geographical area was the same under those empires. Not to mention that this province was also quite different administration-wise to the earlier provinces. Besides, it is actually indeed called Kirman/Kerman in many sources. Look up the books of Pourishariat, Daryaee.. etc. Btw, the Cambridge History of Iran does it actually as well . They use Kirman 21 times, while Carmania is used 11 times. These are just one of the MANY sources that uses Kerman/Kirman (just say the word and I'll come up with many more). Oh, I also found this Diocese of Egypt, should this article just be slammed into the Roman Egypt article as well? No, it shouldn't. Also, please don't make those timeline changes to the Carmania article when we haven't reached a consensus. Bests. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC) --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Diversity isn't necessary, information must be presented appropriately and cutting up the pre-Islamic history of Kerman into everything pre-Sasanian and Sasanian is nonsensical for a number of reasons. Both the Achaemenid and Sasanian Empires reigned during Antiquity. Both the populations of Achaemenid and Sasanian Carmania were predominately Iranian and its geography resembled that of modern Kerman province, the borders of both provinces are uncertain but roughly covered the same area. I think it may be more practical if Carmania be approached as a historical region as opposed to a province of any one empire, as shown by the several forms of administration endured by the region during Antiquity.


 * May I ask why should the Diocese of Egypt article not be merged with Roman Egypt? It would seem sensible that the history of Roman Egypt should be kept to a single article. Similarly, the history of pre-Islamic Kerman should be kept to a single article given the single most noticeable difference over time within the province was the owner. Mugsalot (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, imho diversity is necessary in this category. And yes, information must be presented appropriately, hence why it shouldn't all get shoved into one article about a province that was ruled by different kingdoms of different origins. Furthermore, yeah, the population was predominately Iranian, but for example it had other groups as well (yeah smaller details, but it's still something), that weren't there in the Achaemenid period. And I wouldn't really say that Achaemenid Carmania roughly covered the same area as Sasanian Kirman. Yeah, their core geography or whatever it's called was the same, but I still wouldn't say that they roughly covered the same arena. Anyways, let's not forget that the province wasn't known as Carmania under the Sasanians, and it's administration was also quite different to its predecessors. And yeah, never-mind the Diocese of Egypt article, that was a bad example.


 * "I think it may be more practical if Carmania be approached as a historical region as opposed to a province of any one empire, as shown by the several forms of administration endured by the region during Antiquity."


 * Well, we could do that, but then it shouldn't mean that this article should get merged into it. We could maybe try to make it like this article . --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree that Achaemenid Carmania did not roughly cover the same area as Sasanian Kirman stretched from modern Kerman to Hormuz on the coast, an area included within Achaemenid Carmania. Moreover, I don't believe the influx of Arabs into Sasanian Kirman would constitute such a major demographic change to suggest the population of Achaemenid Carmania and Sasanian Kirman were markedly different. Equally, Carmania was known as Karmanâ under the Achaemenids, Carmania being a translation of Karmanâ and Kirman. Also, Carmania was a vassal kingdom under both the Achaemenids and Sasanians.


 * How would you suggest we make the Carmania article similar to the Macedonia article without merging Carmania and Kirman? Mugsalot (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This is how Achaemenid Carmania looked - Sasanian Kirman was much smaller. The Arabs weren't the only ones that made the demographic difference btw, take a look at the Kirman article. Still, Sasanian Kirman is simply not called Carmania in most sources (which is quite important to take note of). Again, the adminstration-system of Kirman cannot be compared to the Carmania one. Besides, let's not forget that Alexander and the Seleucids also controlled Carmania, thus making this into an even bigger and uglier mess if we merged the article. Imo Achaemenid Carmania should have a article of it's own, since there is quite a lot to write about. Take a look at this beautiful article for example . Oh yeah btw, should that article be merged with all the other Assyria/Asuristan province articles as well? Know that I am not trying to be rude, but I am trying to prove a point.


 * Well, by making it akin to how the Macedonia article is. We don't have to merge every province article into each other . I'm sorry, but I honestly don't get why you're so eager to merge so many articles, why don't we merge the Ottoman and Byzantine/Roman provinces into one article while we're at it? See what I am trying to say? Again, Carmania was simply not a thing under the Sasanians, Kerman/Kirman was. We have already been through this with other articles, and we both know how the outcome was. We're just wasting our own time. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * show Sasanian Kirman covering the same rough area as Achaemenid Carmania. The fact that Sasanian Kirman continued to be mostly Iranian, as attested by the article, shows the population did not significantly change as the majority remained Iranian. As Carmania and Kirman is used interchangeably by reputable scholars to refer to Sasanian Kirman there really is no need for there to be a separate article. The administration of Kirman can be compared to Carmania as shown by the fact they were both vassal kingdoms at times. I've already found as much as I can on Carmania prior to the Sasanians, whilst, like most of your articles, Sasanian Kirman article remains heavily sourced with little actual content. Achaemenid Assyria can't be compared with Sasanian Asuristan as Asuristan covered Babylonia and Arbayistan and Adiabene covered Assyria whilst Achaemend Carmania and Sasanian Kirman cover the same geographical area.


 * Again, Byzantine and Ottoman provinces being a poor example given they did not share the same names, the populations were very different, provinces existed in two separate eras (Medieval and Modern) and the states were of a very different character (Greek-speaking Christian compared with Turkish-speaking Muslims). Compare this with Achaemenid Carmania and Sasanian Kirman, who share the same name, roughly same geographical area, largely identical population, same era (Antiquity) and the states were both Iranian. Carmania evidently was a "thing" under the Sasanians as proven by the sources I've provided and your own admission. Wikipedia should follow Encyclopaedia Iranica in grouping the entirety of the history of pre-Islamic Kerman province in a single article. I'm well aware of your stubbornness and preference for short articles of your own making, which is why to save time I've invited other editors to comment. Mugsalot (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Woah, what a great way to keep a discussion civil :). Nice one mate.


 * 'Again, Byzantine and Ottoman provinces being a poor example given they did not share the same names'


 * Funny, because Carmania was not a thing under the Sasanians. Kirman was. Thus they don't the same names either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 'and the states were of a very different character (Greek-speaking Christian compared with Turkish-speaking Muslims).'


 * Oh right, because the Greeks that controlled Carmania were Zoroastrian Iranians. --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * That would suggest the discussion was civil to begin with. You are consistently rude and hostile to other editors of a different opinion to you and you have no room to claim any civility whatsoever. Your pathetic and nonsensical reasons to keep your little articles, "Carmania was not a thing under the Sasanians", evidently it was a "thing", and your ridiculous comparisons shows you have failed to engage in this discussion properly. Mugsalot (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * How exactly am I being rude and hostile towards you? Is it because I don't agree with you and actually come up with sources that supports my argument? I suggest you to read the rules (No personal attacks). Technically I could report you right now for being quite hostile towards me. I am sorry if my English is not as advanced as yours, but I have never been rude nor shown hostility towards you as you are doing right now. If you can't discuss with a person without showing unnecessary aggressitivity, then Wikipedia is not a place for you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Clearly your English is not advanced to the point where you can detect when you are rude and hostile. You are consistently patronising and dismissive through use of capitalisation, italics and bold text, as well as other forms. You're more than welcome to actually add to Wikipedia, as opposed to creating articles with little to nothing on them and becoming aggravated at the sign of someone wanting to reduce your article count . Mugsalot (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Aha, so that's the problem.. Dunno why you find it provoking when I use different text forms, feel free to use them when you write to me, I don't mind. Honestly, I don't give a funch about my article count, I am more or less retired here. Contribution is what matters, but since I can't add that I had to add the number of articles I created. Dunno why I am explaining this to you, is it really that important for you to mention? Nice try though. See that btw? No bold text or whatever, cheers! --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Neutral. Further arguments are given down below (aka at the RfC section). Britannica Online is not a WP:RS BTW. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note; I think comments that include sentences such as "Clearly your English is not (...)" and "and becoming aggravated at the sign of someone wanting to reduce your article count." and "Your pathetic and nonsensical reasons to keep your little articles" as well as "I'm well aware of your stubbornness" to be aggravating, unnecessary, and walking very thinly on the WP:CIVIL and WP:POV RAILROAD lines. Especially considering this is essentially a content dispute, or rather a result of evaluating the available information in different ways. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging and  for their opinion about this requested move. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 27 December 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved, as this discussion did not result in a consensus. This is closed without prejudice against reopening this discussion later if more conclusive sources are found or better arguments can be presented for this move. Brad v  02:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Kirman (Sasanian province) → Carmania (region) – Sasanian Kirman is referred to as Carmania in sources. The Carmania (region) article covers the entirety of pre-Islamic history of modern Kerman province, excluding the Sasanian period, despite covering a roughly similar geographical area, largely similar population , and both occupy the same historical era of Antiquity. The argument that Kirman (Sasanian province) should remain a separate article on the basis of its administrative status as a province is illogical in that the article admits it was a vassal kingdom rather than a province for almost all of its history under the Sasanians, similar to its status under the Achaemenids and Parthians. Other ancient Iranian regions, such as Margiana, Sogdiana, Parthia and Hyrcania, have the entirety of their pre-Islamic history in a single article, for a number of reasons, their geography remained the same, their populations remained the same, and the name of the regions remained the same, for the entirety of Antiquity. I believe Carmania is in a identical position to the aforementioned regions and the entirety of its pre-Islamic history should be held in a single article. Mugsalot (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Brad  v  01:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose; The Cambridge source you used actually refers it as Kirman . And Britannica isn't a reliable source. The reason many other of these regions/provinces are one article is because we sadly don't have the editors who are interested in creating and expanding Iranian-related articles. If we had that, Achaemenid Carmania would be a article of its own, like this one . By using the OP's logic, we should merge Achaemenid Assyria with Greek, Parthian, and Sasanians Assyria as well. The same can be said for some Byzantine and Ottoman provinces that remained largely identical both population and geography wise. Heck, it can even be said for a few Sasanian and Caliphate provinces as well (looking at you Armenia).


 * Once again I am gonna repeat myself, Carmania was not a thing under the Sasanians, Kirman/Kerman was

 


 * Furthermore, neither the geography nor the population was that similar as the OP states. Do you want me to fetch sources for that as well? Also, let's not that forget that the Greeks (Alexander and the Seleucids) ruled Carmania as well. Sasanian administration is not that identical with Achaemenid administration at all btw. The OP is for some reason interested in merging every province article into each other and using a incorrect name for it - not to mention the mess and confusion it would create. Because variety and information being presented appropriately is apparently not a thing in Wikipedia.


 * "and the states were of a very different character (Greek-speaking Christian compared with Turkish-speaking Muslims)."


 * That was what you said recently just above this section when I brought the Byzantine and Ottoman provinces up. I am quite sure that the Greeks (Alexander, his generals, and the Seleucids) that controlled Carmania weren't exactly Zoroastrian Iranians either, agreed? --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The Cambridge History of Ancient Iran uses Carmania and Kirman interchangeably. Britannica is a reliable source and you have given no explanation nor source for your opinion on Britannica. You demonstrate again you fail to understand the reasoning behind the proposed merger. As proven by the Cambridge History of Ancient Iran and Encyclopedia Britannica, Carmania was was a "thing" whilst others attest to Carmania by use of its Middle Persian translation as opposed to its English equivalent.


 * You obviously don't understand how a discussion works. You provide evidence to support your point, you do not simply state your opinion and expect me to give any weight to it. The geography and population of Achaemenid, Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian geography of Carmania was very similar with minor differences, as supported by Encyclopedia Iranica which holds the entirety of its pre-Islamic history in a single article, that can be explained within a single article without confusion to all but the simple-minded. Carmania is a historical region and it should be treated as such and have its pre-Islamic history in a single article. Mugsalot (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It doesn't, Kirman is simply a winner in that source. Look up how many times it is mentioned and when it is mentioned. Britannica is not a reliable source, several editors including myself have been told that by several admins such as Dougweller. I'll delete my Wikipedia account right away if he tells you that I am lying. Besides, let's not ignore all the sources I've put up, right?


 * Yes, pardon me - because the person who just attacked me with loads of hostility above this section sure does know how a discussion works. Minor differences? Kirman was quite smaller than Carmania, which you can clearly tell if you actually read the Cambridge source you have linked here few times. Not to mention that the population and administration wasn't quite the same either, which is a quite simple fact and can be easily seen by reading either the Kirman article or the Cambridge source.


 * And again, let's not forget that the Greeks ruled Carmania as well, which you are simply ignoring. And according to what you just said earlier about the Byzantine and Ottoman provinces, "you can't merge a province when the states are of very different character". But then again, let me ask you; weren't the Hellenistic Greeks (Alexander, his generals, the Seleucids) and the Zoroastrian/Iranian cult worshipping Iranians (Achaemenids, Parthians, Sasanians) of very different character? With all respect, many of your arguments backfire against you and are quite illogical. Should we just begin to merge most province articles into each other? Why not merge Achaemenid Assyria with Greek, Parthian, and Sasanians Assyria as well? If you're gonna say because the geographical area wasn't exactly the same, then indeed the same thing can be said to Kirman and Carmania. If you want a Carmania region, then why not make it like Macedonia (region)? Take note that there is a Macedonia (theme) and Macedonia (Roman province) as well. You don't have to merge every article into each other just because you like it better that way. You could have made a nice and smooth Carmania region article by now if you didn't use all your time here ignoring half of the stuff I write whilst calling me pathetic and stuborn. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm going to ignore all but the last few sentences as most of what you have written is unconstructive and repetitive. Take note of how irritating bold font is.


 * If we were to follow the model of the Macedonia (region) and Macedonia (Roman province) articles, what would actually remain in the Kirman (Sasanian province) article? If we were to mimic those articles, Carmania (region) would hold all of its history, demographics and boundaries. On the other hand, Kirman (Sasanian province) would only hold the economy of Carmania during the Sasanian period, as of now this is not mentioned in the article, and notable individuals, of which I don't think there are many we know of. Then what is left of Kirman (Sasanian province)? As of now, that article would contain no information whatsoever, and even if you succeeded in adding a section on its economy I highly doubt it would be enough to merit an entire article and would be merged with Carmania (region).


 * My main issue with basing the Kirman (Sasanian province) article on the Macedonia (theme) article is the basis on how we divide the history of the region between Carmania (region) and Kirman (Sasanian province). Both Macedonia (region) and Macedonia (theme) hold overlapping history and I don't see how we would divide the history of Carmania. Mugsalot (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll be back a day or two after New Year's Eve, where I'll give you a proper response. PS dividing the story of Carmania (region) and all that shouldn't be hard at all, it just takes time and effort. In reality maybe we should call it Kerman (region) like Sistan? Dunno. What do you think? Happy New Year! --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Back - The reason many of the things I say are repetitive, is because you are either ignoring them, and/or because they are a key factor in why this article should not get merged. I don't find bold font irritating, feel free to use it. Btw, a bit off-topic, but Hyrcania was like the size of the Golestan province under the Sasanians, not to mention it was known as Gorgan/Gurgan, but that's another story we can take up later. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Neutral Further arguments are given down below. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think there are several overlapping issues here, and this is why the discussion has become a tangle. First, can the two articles be merged into one? Yes they can. The region covered is pretty much the same in both cases, unlike, to take as an example since it has been mentioned above, Macedonia (Roman province) and Macedonia (theme). Should they be merged? In principle, there is nothing that forces us to do so. IMO, it depends on whether there is enough content to justify separate articles, and/or something to differentiate the Sasanian province from the broader history of the region. In this case, with the current content, I would support a merge, since the Sasanian province appears to be simply the latest incarnation in a continuum from the earlier Parthian, Seleucid, and Achaemenid provinces, unless there is some characteristic to really set the Sasanian (or the Achamenid/Hellenistic) province/region apart which I am missing (I admit my knowledge on Persian regions and history is very sketchy). Furthermore, the question arises about the scope of the article. Is it the pre-Islamic history of the region of Kirman/Carmania or the region as such, in which case it should be extended to the present day? Then there is the question of the name, Carmania or Kirman/Kerman? Classical geography influences predominant English usage here, or at least Britannica's use (let's not forget that Britannica has been around for quite some time), but I would strongly support a move to "Kerman" in line with modern tendencies in research, and because the scope of the article, if merged, is wider than simply the Greco-Roman geographical entity or the Hellenistic province, meaning that the actual Persian name is more suitable. Constantine   ✍  22:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , per the current state of the Kirman article, I'd support a merge as well. However, there is really quite a lot of additional information to be written about it, and there were indeed noticeable/significant differences as compared to the same province under the rule of the preceding empires. Hence I just changed my vote to "neutral". A solution, as kinda hinted on by you, could be to merge it for the time being. It can obviously always be detached when a more elaborate text is written that would make the differences abundantly clear. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree and am of the conclusion, based on the similarity in rough area covered by Sasanian Kirman, the evolution of the name of the region, and the largely similar population, that Sasanian Kirman was simply the last non-Muslim incarnation of the same province. I have only seen the term Carmania used to refer to the pre-Islamic history of modern Kerman region and would suggest that the article be limited to the pre-Islamic history of the region and the Kerman province article can hold its Islamic history. I disagree with a move to Kerman and believe it would be best to follow the example of Encyclopedia Iranica, which I hope is considered a reliable source given how extensively I've made use of it, in which the pre-Islamic history of Kerman is held in an article titled Carmania. Kirman would be less suitable as a title than Kerman as that was the Middle Persian equivalent and thus would only apply to the last three centuries whilst the scope would cover far more than that. Mugsalot (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no literally mention of the Sasanians in the Iranica article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * If you would care to read the article you will note Ardeshir I is mentioned. I also notice you have failed to add to the Kirman (Sasanian province) article as promised, but do have time to request disciplinary action against myself. I would suggest you adjust your priorities, be less argumentative and more attentive. It is also worth noting that Iranica refers to Carmania for the pre-Islamic history of Kerman region and organises the historical geography of the region as pre-Islamic and Islamic, and does not consider Sasanian Kirman significantly different to separate and have its own section, let alone article . Mugsalot (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Not that related to the Sasanians at all mate, it's more referring to the origins of the Kerman city. Also, allow me to quote myself; "and I'll have this article changed by the end of the month." Today is January 10th. I'll keep my "promise", don't you worry. Also, there is quite a big difference in getting sources and expanding an article compared to reporting someone because they can't have a simple discussion without getting heavily hostile. I'm not gonna get into the sources discussion again, since I have already linked quite a good bunch myself. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I would suggest you follow the advice given to you and try to be less argumentative. As I have demonstrated, Encyclopedia Iranica, a reliable source, groups Sasanian rule of Kerman alongside the Arsacids, Seleucids and Achaemenids without need for another article. You have demonstrated that scholars refer to Sasanian Kerman by its Middle Persian transliteration, that does not demonstrate that Sasanian Kerman was drastically different to its predecessors in regard to population (scholars do not state the addition of several Arab tribes changed the demographics of Kerman significantly), size or name, whereas other provinces such as Drangiana and Sakastan I agree should be separate on the basis of their name, however, that is not the case here. You can also see Iranica considers Sasanian Kerman largely indistinguishable from its predecessors here, where the author refers to Carmania in regard to Bahram IV. Mugsalot (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No, not gonna follow your 'advice', simple as that. I think I'll do fine as long I don't start getting heavily hostile and don't change the subject.


 * The Arabs weren't the only newest addition to the province, which can be read in the Cambridge History of Iran that you linked earlier. Besides, that 'population not being drastically different' (no, that's not meant to sound provocative, I don't how to phrase it properly, kinda silly that I actually have to explain that cough) argument is not gonna hold. Also, great to see that you're starting finally acknowledge Kirman/Kerman > Carmania in the Sasanian period. The same applies to Gorgan > Hyrcania. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Support. I believe HistoryofIran had made some valid points. I can see what he is saying about Kirman being used by the Sasanids as opposed to Carmania. The Cambridge link by Mugsalot shows Carmania(pages 729, 730, 731), granted, yet by page 742 Lukonin is using Kirman. The distinction may have something to do with the "Kingdom of Carmania" being ruled by Shapur I's son Bahram after 262. There is clearly more here that is not being revealed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, I can change the lack-of-information-on-a-article-with-nice-potential issue if it's that vital to the existence of this article. Lemme me find my old sources on my harddisk, download Photoshop (fml) and get access to some certain ones I don't have access to atm, and I'll have this article changed by the end of the month. Btw thank you guys for your constructive input, it was greatly needed. Even better if you have more to say on this matter! --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. I find it odd that Ed.capistrano has given no reason(s) for this merge. As the instigator of this merge(18 October 2016), Ed.capistrano appears virtually out of thin air to tack on a merge article tag(25th edit) on an article and in an area he has never edited before. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I really didn't anticipate that my suggestion would amount to this. And as Kansas Bear asked, I think I owe an explanation. I was translating "Alastor" by Percy Shelley, and in line 140/141 it reads, "The Poet, wandering on, through Arabie,|And Persia, and the wild Carmanian waste,". I am more of a user of Wikipedia than a contributor, but try to help as I can, even if it's a little, because I feel the need for giving back, but I do it carefully and timidly. So, I read the articles and, to me, they seem as a historic evolution of a region, but in separate articles, and it felt more logical if they followed one after another in unified form, for a record of a region that kept so many similarities throughout history -- even the name. I left the suggestion and returned to it only now. Even if I don't have the academic background to support my opinion in depth, I find that I agree with Mugsalot, but I understand the opinion of HistoryofIran. I even dare to say that the discussion is more about tastes in methods of information presentation. It can be solved, as it is, with the linking and referencing of all the articles between them, because if it's preferred that they remain separated, they really should be clearly linked, as this would be valuable for students of the history of the region. --Ed.capistrano (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.