Template talk:History of Iran

Starting point
Is pre-Aryan history is appropriate for the History of Iran template? Should it include, for example, the Median Empire and the Achaemenid Empire? Or should it start with the first Iranian (Aryan) rule? Is the first Aryan rule the Sassanid dynasty or is it earlier? Were the Arsacid dynasty Aryans? What is the evidence that they were or were not? When was the Aryan invasion down from the steppes? --Bejnar 19:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Jiroft
There is a wikipedia article on it Jiroft "Whether this is a lost kingdom of Aratta as Dr. Madzjizadeh believes or not, Jiroft is definitely the Lost Paradise for archaeologists and anyone who has a passion for ancient history.". But there is a question mark on the Aratta part. [] [] Dr. Majidzadeh is well known (google search) in the archaeological community and his connection with Aratta is somewhat tenuously accepted by some other scholars. That is why the Aratta is in question mark. Unfortunately the authorities did not take good care of this excavation. . Either way, it is a major civilization in the center of the Iranian plateau and part of Iranian/World history. It might be an extension of Elamite. But I think it should be in template. Here is a good article on the issue. --alidoostzadeh 19:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Jiroft is a town in the Kerman province. Konar Sandal is an important Bronze Age site. Other important Bronze Age sites include Shahr-i Sokhta, Tepe Yahya and others. This template cannot be the place to list Bronze Age archaeological sites. The 3000 BC date is highly suspect. If you must have a "pre-Elam" entry here, make it Prehistoric Iran or Bronze Age Iran, along the lines of Prehistoric Armenia, Prehistoric Georgia, Prehistoric Britain, Bronze Age Europe etc. dab (𒁳) 21:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. From what I have heared so far though, Jiroft is dated around 2800 B.C. I guess we will have to wait a decade or so before scholars can reliably assess the background and history of the site/civilization.  Perhaps though as you said, a Pre-Elam or ancient excavation sites might not be bad to add.  Another interesting one is Marlik although some have associated it with Indo-Aryans.  I would add Kassites, Mitanni (according to Britannica extended up to western Zagros), Lulubi and etc. though to the template--alidoostzadeh 22:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking of Kassites, it seems the Wikipage is completely OR. Here is a reliable link  if someone has time to edit it.  Also here is one on Gutti, Lulubi , Kaspians  , Mannea . --alidoostzadeh 22:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Jiroft" (Konar Sandal) is dated to the 5th millennium BC. There are lots of neolithic sites in Iran. Again, if you are interested in discussing them, do a Prehistoric Iran article and link that. dab (𒁳) 12:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please add vi:Tiêu bản:Lịch sử Iran. 96.229.193.68 (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Dating system
The Wikipedia Manual of Style says here that we should go with whatever dating system was used fist and not change it unless there is a substantial reason to do so and consensus for such a change. That is why I reverted it back to the original dating system. - Schrandit (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole point of that guideline is to avoid changing these stuff and edit-warring over that (or editing just for the purpose of changing the dating system). The same dating system has been used for almost 3 years in this page. Now, you are changing that, based on an edit in 3 years ago (and you haven't edited this page before). I think this is a classic example of citing the words of a guideline and doing the exact opposite of its main intention. If you insist on your version, seek the opinion of a third person, or ask another user (who has previously edited this page) to change the dating system.  Alefbe (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The dating system has flipped back an forth over those years, I figure I'm just following guidelines by returning to the original system. I could be wrong.  If you think it is necessary I'm fine trying to find a third opinion. - Schrandit (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Please find a third opinion. Alefbe (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sarbadars
Although they were local rulers, I think they should be included in the list. Also other Iranian local rulers ...--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

RV
I have reverted Mystery.sin because he seems to misunderstand the purpose of this template. Tajik (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Only list your own history not everyone who invaded and looted your people.
 * Actually if you think about it, there is no ethnicity called iranian. The name iranian is given to the ethnic groups who form todays iran. People like Azeri, Turkmen, Qashgai, Persian, Talysh, Gullak, Mazandarani, Kurd, Arab, Lur, Balooch and etc ethnic groups form todays iran so there history is absorbed and assimilated in to this so called iranian history. THIEVES
 * Read WP:Civil and don't attack other editors. The template is meant to help readers navigate the pages of dynasties who rules Iran. The dynasties you are removing included. --Wayiran (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Mitanni
Here is what Britannica says about Mitanni. "Indo-Iranian empire centred in northern Mesopotamia that flourished from about 1500 to about 1360 bc. At its height the empire extended from Kirkūk (ancient Arrapkha) and the Zagros Mountains in the east through Assyria to the Mediterranean Sea in the west. Its heartland was the Khābūr River region, where Wassukkani, its capital, was probably located." I found some other sources in google books which mentions Zagros mountain. I agree however about removing Afrighids as they were outside of the border of modern country of Iran. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Mianni was not in the territory of modern-day Iran. Its easternmost parts correspond to the western slopes of Zagros, today in northeastern Iraq. Your Britannica quote says exactly as much, the Zagros mountains delimit Mitanni, they aren't part of Mitanni. --dab (𒁳) 11:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from, 2 November 2011
To acknowledge the short reign of Salomai Ddin, in the Ddin dynasty between 651-661.

Jessupwareham (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Individuals don't belong on this template, but rather would go in one of the articles linked in this template. — Bility (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Template size
The template is far too large to be transcluded in articles that do not have as their scope the entire history of Iran. Either the template size should be reduced dramatically, or else the template should be removed from all articles other than History of Iran and Timeline of Iranian history. --dab (𒁳) 11:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made it collapsible, that should resolve the problem.--Work permit (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * still too wide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.122.100 (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't "resolve the problem", it just turns the template from a useless bother to just useless. These templates are supposed to give a navigation aid, not to just sit there in collapsed state. If somebody wanted to see every article on the history of Iran, they would browse categories. A navbox is supposed to present an intelligent selection, not a formless heap of links. Just "collapsing" said formless heap so it's at least out of view isn't really helpful. --dab (𒁳) 09:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That resolves the problem, and people need to get a concensus. I have to agree with work-permit. The collapse is good and the template is very useful.. There are I am sure other templates now that are much longer than this one (with the collapse format). None of the links are "useless" as they go to detail articles. If dab can designa better temple than he is free, until then such a template is necessary and virtually exist for every territory in Wikipedia. --108.18.222.120 (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Work permit that the collapsible form is better. Qara xan just (12 August 2012) reintroduced a non collapsible version.  I had thought that the relative stability of the collapsible version meant that we'd pleased most folk. But I guess not Qara xan.  I have restored the previous collapsible version, pending further discussion. --Bejnar (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

New view of Template:History of Iran of quality like Template:History of China and Template:History of Egypt. Also collapsible version of poor quality has many mistakes. --Qara Khan 04:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Either fix the mistakes in the collapsible version, or make the new version collapsible. --Bejnar (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This "New view" format should not be presented until the above issues have been addressed and a consensus have been reached, as it is still waiting for further inputs.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Qajar dynasty
To eliminate a redirect, please change the following (located just above the MODERN heading):
 * Qajar Empire 1796–1925

to
 * Qajar dynasty 1796–1925

Thanks. 72.244.204.179 (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * per WP:RDR. Redirects don't have to be fixed. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 22:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * However, there is a major exception for templates at WP:RDR:
 * In many cases it is preferable to change redirected links in navigational templates, such as those found at the bottom of many articles (e.g., US Presidents at the end of George Washington). In this case, when the template is placed on an article, and contains a direct link to the same article (rather than a redirect), the direct link will display in bold (and not as a link), making it easier to navigate through a series of articles using the template.

--Bejnar (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sidebar with infoboxes version
Hello. Here's a version of the template that uses the Sidebar, Infobox and Collapsible list templates. There are some div sections within it which I imagine could be made redundant, but I haven't found or figured out how yet. As the template is quite tall, it could use "Sidebar with collapsible lists" instead. 213.246.114.240 (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * looks like a good start. I'm not sure why we need to use anything other than region history, since that template is used for most other countries in the world.  Is there something special about Iran that makes it require a non-standard template?  making it have collapsible sections is also a good idea. Frietjes (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

RV
Qara xan! As we can see in History of Iran, periods of before Median Empire are "PREHISTORY". Why you do kind of these actions?--Mervzi (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Prehistory is the span of time before recorded history or the invention of writing systems (See Prehistory). Proto-Elamite, Elam and Mannaeans had writing systems. Also see article Elam. There is written that Elam was an ancient civilization is not prehistoric civilization. If you want to know about Prehistoric Iran then see Prehistory of Iran.--Qara khan 16:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Mervzi, I am inferring that you are not a native speaker of English, and it seems probably that this disagreement is more a matter of language barrier than it is of deep-seated disagreement. Qara Xan is correct on the meaning of prehistory, though the word "ancient" does often have a more general meaning, inclusive of periods on either side of the history/prehistory divide in most cases.  What is the specific concern about word choice that is eliciting such a strong response? siafu (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not a native speaker of English because I'm Persian, but I can understand the meaning of the "Prehistory"! In [Iran] history the meaning of Prehistory is different with the usage of Prehistory in other Topics.--Mervzi (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it really isn't-- the term in English has an unambiguous and accepted meaning, which is not different when discussing different civilizations (though the history/prehistory divide occurs at different absolute times in different contexts, it's meaning is unchanged). Can you explain what the benefit of using the more ambiguous term "ancient" is in this scenario? siafu (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Ancient" insn't more ambiguous term. In Iran we study Iran history in school and university and I have complete information about history of Iran. Iran history has different sections and the periods of before "Aryan migration" and "Median Empire" are "prehistory" and the term "Ancient Persia/Iran" means periods of after Median Empire.--Mervzi (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Since this is the English wikipedia, what is taught in Iran is not really relevant. As I explained earlier, in English the word "ancient" is in fact ambiguous as to actual extent, whereas the term "prehistory" is specifically referenced to the time before the extant historical record. siafu (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Very ugly template, and also confusing for the viewer and learners, the old was actually good, because you can see and visualize multiple dyansties in the same period and compare the beginning state and the ending state, so can someone bring back the older template? RussianDewey (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

New version of the template
The current version of the template is very disordered and ugly. New version is ordered and with this version, the readers who are interested in history of Iran can learn/understand its history easily. Actually i had added this version 3 years ago but last year it was deleted without discussing. Yes it feels much space than current version but we know that WP has no space problem. Quality is more important than space. Furthermore in new version, there are local dynasties such as the dynasties in Tabaristan (Dabuyid dynasty, Bavand dynasty, Paduspanid dynasty, Qarinvand dynasty etc.) in an orderly at the bottom of the template. --Ulugh Arslan Bilge Khan 18:09, 05 June 2015 (UTC)

This is better, the other one created by HistoryofIran is a headache because it acts like a list, that's it, but this one is good, espeically periods like Iranian Intermezzo where you can get a headache. Keep the good work man RussianDewey (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for all your support. --Ulugh Arslan Bilge Khan 18:51, 05 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think get you get it, it literally fills to much space, it moves the pictures to places where it makes no sense, that isn't very ordered now is it? Plus may I ask why your "very good" own version does not even include many (and I mean really many) dynasties/kingdoms, including the Scythian one, which you recently removed :)? Your template doesn't even have all the dynasties/kingdoms, and if it had, it would be even more chaos when it comes to space. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Look at the bottom of the template (local dynasties) then you will see the rest of the dynasties/kingdoms in an orderly. After restoring new version the Scythian might be added to the template. It is not problem. --Ulugh Arslan Bilge Khan 19:55, 05 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This new version is more in line with other templates about the history of countries. Unity in style, something this version provides, makes using Wikipedia easier. Therefore I support this version. The Banner talk 20:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The Banner: The thing is that this version you support, doesn't even include all the kingdoms/dynasties, therefor it is simply inaccurate. But if we added all these kingdoms/dynasties, imagine how much chaos it would leave in a article since it would fill so much (which it already does). I said exactly the same thing above, but I doubt that you read all of that, which you and everyone who wants to participate should. Qara xan: I don't like repeating myself very often, so I will only say it once: Your template does not even include half of the Iranian dynasties, while this one does, and if your template also did, we both know it would simply fill to much in a article, moving the pictures to a completely new place. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Would it not be a better idea to make a list of all what is missing and politely request the maker of the present version to add it? Due to the collapsible options used, it will not make the template explode... The Banner talk 20:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_Iran&oldid=665626344 The collapsed version] is definitely better. uses less space on the screen, and the format is one of the standard formats used by most other sidebar templates. Frietjes (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Banner: God dammit, I'm so sorry mate! I don't how, but when I clicked on the link you wrote I somehow saw the old version, not the new one (this one used right now), silly me! I guess I confused you a bit, anyway, looks we agree with each other then :-). I apologize once again for my sillyness. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Your template does not even include half of the Iranian dynasties... User:HistoryofIran, where have you learnt to speak such lie? Can you not read? The rest of the dynasties/kingdoms is at the bottom of the template (local dynasties). --Ulugh Arslan Bilge Khan 21:36, 05 June 2015 (UTC)

I said that I wouldn't repeat myself, and please act politely or I will have to report you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

As for civility, I don't think that I have been uncivil. I have said the truth. --Ulugh Arslan Bilge Khan 21:57, 05 June 2015 (UTC)

So calling me a lair and asking me that I'm not being able to read is not uncivil? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You have written uncivil messages many times to me and other users and have been blocked because of it. Sorry, it is strange for me your speaking about Civility. --Ulugh Arslan Bilge Khan 22:18, 05 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Isn't this getting a little bit childish? I won't respond to these kind of things. Let's get back to the subject. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Historyofiran use this template please, I don't care what dynasties you think is not included, just put it here if you think any is missed, this template is equivalent to the Chinese template bith have the same system in wich the template is made and makes sense. RussianDewey (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

RussianDewey, you can't simply you say "i don't care", that's not a thing here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * HistoryofIran, RussianDewey says in fact the same as I did before: make a list of what is missing and we/the author can fix that. Unless we know what you want, nothing can happen. The Banner talk 23:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The Banner: Wait.. what? didn't you see what I wrote to you above my friend? (I wrote a new message to you yesterday). You said yourself that you support the current version (which I misunderstood in the start, err.. just read what I wrote up above, I think that would be easier). --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe there was a small miscommunication between the Banner and HistoryofIran. It appears you were both on the same line from the start. The newer version per the revision the Banner showed us, is much more complete, and much more in line with other history templates. I also strongly believe therefore that it should be showing that precise revision. Qara Khan hopped in and started to engage an edit war in order to push the idea that the template should show a 3-year old revision, for whatever reason he holds. I don't get it, why not just opening a section on the talk page? Or on HistoryofIrans page? Why edit warring? - LouisAragon (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The Banner don't believe them. User:HistoryofIran and User:LouisAragon are working toghether to support each other when there is a problem with other users. This is one of their tactics. When i argued with User:HistoryofIran about versions of the template, he called User:LouisAragon and after some time he suddenly came and reverted my edit. Similar scenario also happened at Talk:Malik-Shah I, he had called User:LouisAragon then he came and supported him. They probably think that it is a clever tactics to beat other users who do not agree with them. It is not fair but dishonesty. I am looking for a WP rule that against it. If i don't find such rule in Wikipedia, i will request certain users/admins to create the rule. --Ulugh Arslan Bilge Khan 00:41, 07 June 2015 (UTC)

Historyofiran I love your sarcastic tone is very good, as you know sometimes you need to fix your eyes in order to see my words were relative to what I was saying and not just saying "i don't care" for no reason. You want more reasons to misrepresent my words the same way you are pushing some form of illicit activities in the Malik-Shah article, wherever you are you bring trouble and edit-warring and let me paraphrase what I mean, I don't care what the dynasties you are fighting for, simply fix the dynasties you deem missing or wrong but use this template because it has the same outline as the Chinese template. The one you created was just a list. RussianDewey (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"The Banner, User:HistoryofIran and User:LouisAragon are working together." Hold up, The Banner, LouisAragon and I are working together now xD? This is getting silly, just because some don't agree with you they are working together? It isn't even worth answering the rest. Let me just say this though: So far no one except your aggressive toned friend RussianDewey has agreed with you, can you guess why? and no, not because everyone is "working together", it is because this template is simply better, and that's it, take your nonsense about me working together with someone somewhere else, this isn't a kind of place for that, and RussianDewey, I will have to soon report if you continue being aggressive towards me, since you have done that since we two made contact. For what reason? I have no idea. I guess you two must be working "working together". So far, it doesn't like Qara xan is here to Here to build an encyclopedia, but make meaningless accusations, speak rudely, and suddenly revert edits without even wanting to properly discuss about it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you kiddies please stop fooling around. What we are doing is serious, so please act serious. Especially you, HistoryofIran! I am old enough to understand when somebody makes a blunder with the punctuation, not need to assume bad faith or attack the other over it. And I repeat to you: if you want something added to the present template, write down exactly what you want added to the template. If you don't do that, I assume that you have no additions. The Banner talk 14:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"Sigh", really The Banner? me the one who is especially fooling around? calling me a kiddie? I excepted more from you, and as I said a numerous times now: we both agree with each other, I just misunderstood you in the beginning. This is the 3rd time I have said that, I hope I won't have to do it for a fourth time. With all due respect, instead of calling me a kiddie and those kind of stuff, you should really pay attention to what people say to you. If you look up above, you can see that LouisAragon also tried to tell you the same. We just misunderstood each other, that's all. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"aggressive toned friend RussianDewey"

My tone was calm.

"it is because this template is simply better, and that's it"

That is not a good reason, you gave no reason that is like saying Apples are better than Oranges because Apples aee better? What kind of sick and twisted illogical reasoning is this.

"I will have to soon report if you continue being aggressive towards me"

This isn't the 4th grade, I will not take petty threats from you, if you want to report me report me now ASAP and be done with it.

"since you have done that since we two made contact."

It is not my problem that you have issues.

"For what reason? I have no idea."

I gave you the reasons, you chose to ignore it.

"I guess you two must be working "working together"."

I work with nobody in Wikipedia.

RussianDewey (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And that is why I reverted your change. The Banner talk 18:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You gave no reason, can you try and be more specific. RussianDewey (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Soprry, but I notice that you gave no reason at all for the first revert and only criticism but no explanation the second time round. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I gave the reasons, I don't have to repeat myself twice, you chose to ignore it, it is not my fault, also hypnotically speaking two wrongs don't do right,. If you go up you will find it RussianDewey (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't really call that a proper reason, plus the majority (including an admin) here agrees that the current is the best one, and that's it. Not to forget that they have all given a proper reason. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"I wouldn't really call that a proper reason, plus the majority"

You have to give a reason why is not a proper reason, just saying it won't make it improper

"(including an admin) here agrees that the current is the best one"

Argument from false authority.

" and that's it"

No, that's not it

"Not to forget that they have all given a proper reason"

Yes, because you decide what is proper and improper. Typical illogical attitude from you as usual. Never disappoint me.

RussianDewey (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I've said my bit, and I won't really continue this discussion with you when it is already decided, especially when you deny everything someone says. I see a clear WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

If you are not gonna continue discussion then don't tell me you are not going to continue discussing, it seems you are back-paddling and looking or excuse to get down of your high horse that you have been riding lately. My reasons where more than "I just don't like it", if you tried to open your eyes a bit more and stick your face into the screen you would see my reasons above, you can contaxt your eye doctor for a better prescription glasses, they are good for the eye instead of seeing blurry stuff and come back with petty rebuttals. RussianDewey (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

RussianDewey, I have warned you several times to refrain yourself for being uncivil and constantly making personal attacks. It seems like the only way to make you understand is by reporting you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I have also warned you of not using irratiaonl response and petty threats to oush your agenda on me, if you wanna do something just do it, how many times are you gonna repeat like a Middle School child with your petty threats, just do it man, do it now as we speak and be done with it. Not my problem that you close your eyes and fail to see the points I have raised because you have eye or brain problems, I have warned you many times to show some respect and decorum. You failed to do so RussianDewey (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Restart
Not a lot has been accomplished since the article was fully protected. Edit warring after protection expires will not be acceptable. Start a WP:RFC, go to WP:DRN, or clearly state which version of the template you prefer and your rationale below this post (the above discussion is a bit of a mess). --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring
I have fully protected the template for 48 hours. Please see if you can make headway in resolving this dispute during this time, possibly using WP:DRN. Further edit warring may result in blocks. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Mythical history?
I can’t see why this should be included it has two items in it: Pishdadian dynasty and Kayanian dynasty neither of which has any historical basis. Myth and history are two different things and mixing them like that is highly misleading. I propose removing it from this tempplate. DeCausa (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve removed it. DeCausa (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)