Template talk:History of Greater Iran sidebar

Protocol for using this template

Hi, I'm not used to posting templates on my articles. I just put this template on a new article on the Dulafid dynasty, which governed northwestern Iran from c. 800 until 897. Since I put this template on that article, does that mean I should put them in the list in the template of dynasties that ruled After the Islamic Conquest? Or is that an optional move, left to the discretion of the editor as to whether a dynasty is important enough to warrant being included on the template list?

Ro4444 (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Template inclusion

If Armenia which was part of so called "Greater Iran" historically, in parallel with Azerbaijan, isn't included in the template, I don't see why Azerbaijan or others should be included. Atabəy (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a silly dispute coming from pan-Turkist vs Armenia conflict. "Greater Iran" is used 521 in google books , the first article by Frye. However, since Iranian templaes should be free of pan-Turkist vs Armenia conflict, I suggest user Tajik to change it to Caucasus based on Frye and leave it up to the Qajar era.Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Armenia was always a non-Iranian State, a Kingdom, Empire populated by non-Iranian people with distinct borders but close ties to Greater Iran. Prior to 1918, Azerbaijan referred to a land within Iran populated by Iranian people most of its history. This "dispute" is caused by Atabek who can't stand to see Azeribaijan associated with Iran which is why he's disrupting this template. I guess he thinks that by adding Armenia to this template he will somehow dilute the presence of Azerbaijan. -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 00:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Politically based edits are very unfortunate. One can even see web-sites (some government affiliated) looking for the most absurd etymologies for the word "Azarbaijan" and ignoring scholarly references. But even somewhat partisan historians (anti-Iran) like Swietchowski state the obvious: " From the time of ancient Media and the Achaemenid Kingdom, Azerbaijan (the country) usually shared its history with Iran.". Frye states: "'Greater Iran' in the past included much of the Caucasus, Afghanistan and Central Asia, with cultural influences extending to China, India and the Semitic...".

Overall as I can see, this template is not pointing to any modern country articles. Just several major dynasties with their center in Iran like Afsharids, Qajars, Safavids, Sassanids, Achaemenids, Parthians and etc or dynasties that had Persianate culture or etc.. From this point of view, Armenia was part of Afsharids, Qajars, Safavids, Sassanids, Achaemenids and Parthians and some more. Armenia though had a good deal of Old Persian/Parthian influence, and had a local Zoroastrianism, but it is safe to say that once Armenia became Christian, it basically was not part of the Iranian cultural orbit and developed a distinct identity. The republic of Azerbaijan on the other hand due to the same Muslim religion and also influence of Zoroastrian before Islam, had always the same religion. And prior to the 20th century, religion was the major factor of identity and Persianate culture was strong there even after linguistic Turkification till 20th century and rise of ethnic national. The people there were called Iranians in the 19th, 18th, 17th,... and so on centuries. For example the republic of Azerbaijan intellectuals like Akhunzadeh considered themselves Iranians.

My suggestion to user Tajik : I think simply putting Caucasus and ending it with Qajar is good idea. Lets not get the template involved in any modern country article since it is only linking to big dynasties. It is also based on Frye and instead of countries I would put Caucasus.

Another suggestion, which I prefer, is to possibly end it with Qajars and leave the modern countries out. Also perhaps put the comment of Frye and couple of other major historians from google books on the template which defines the region. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Nepaheshgar, claiming that Armenia ceased to be part of Iranian culture by accepting Christianity, while remaining under Persian administration and btw, having an Indo-European language, and Azerbaijan (Albania which also accepted Christianity and then Islam) remained part of it despite speaking Turkic language and having indigenous Caucasian heritage (again due to Caucasian Albania), is an unscholarly generalization driven by purely ideological bias. Mirza Fatali Akhundov contributed to the development of the first Azerbaijani alphabet, so it's laughable to even claim that he considered himself Iranian within the same meaning that neo-Nazi pan-Iranists did in 20th and and do in 21st century. I doubt you can find anything in his works even remotely resembling Arian fringe theory. Atabəy (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to respond to your hyperbole, but per your comment "ideologically driven user" (if you mean me?) , let me tell you something. I think you are aware that some people might know that outside of Wikipedia, who might be doing ideologically driven stuff and etc. I can swear by God I am not affiliated with any group and just an independent person. But you know that is not true about you. So I think "ideologically driven user" is more befitting of yourself. As per "Neo-Nazi" Pan-Iranist".. Again you might want to look up in google books "Pan-Iranism Genocide" and "Pan-Turkism Genocide". I think the results are clear. I don't think Richard Frye is a pan-Iranist neither is Swietchowski. So don't insert emotional hyperbole and if you want to discuss something , do it in respectful and professional manner, so others can learn something if they are wrong.

However to respond to your historical stuff. The Caucausian Albanians you talk about are geographical term, as all the dynasties of Caucasian Albania after Christianity were Parthian/Persians. Like Mihranids and Javanshir and etc. were all Iranians. So was the Caucasian Albanian kingdom in the area. The actual Caucasian speaking groups (ethnic Caucasian Albanians) had a Christian culture and merged with Armenians with a strong overlayer of Iranian Persian/Parthian culture. There is no evidence of any Islamicate Caucasian Albanian culture. So from a cultural heritage point of view, Armenians have a better claim to Caucasian Albanians and from a linguistic viewpoint, it is Lezgins. Note Armenian language unlike that of Azerbaijani-Turkic has a Caucasian language substrate. Caucasian Albanian ceased to exist long before a formation of an Azerbaijani ethnic group, so its connection with the Azerbaijani ethnic group in the republic of Azerbaijan are not linguistic or cultural, but geographical.

However Eastern Transcaucasia also had its own Zoroastrianism. And during the Sassanid era major cities and toponyms such as Sherwan, Darband, Barda', Ganja and etc were founded. Infact the name of "Azerbaijan" and "Baku" are both Iranian. However going further with your Caucasian Albanian comparison, there is not a single line/verse of any Muslim Caucasian Albanian literature. However, one can find 114 Persian poets and writers just from one century from the general area of Sherwan and Arran (and most of them everyday people with every day profession having nothing to do with court). The Sherwanshahs the longest dynasty of the area also were Persianized and Persians. The Eldiguzids were Persianate as again we see many Persian cultural elements but again nothing in Caucasian Albanian Islamicate culture. Furthermore, the urban centers of Eastern Caucasian per Diakonov, Gumilev, De Blois and primary sources like Istakhari and etc. did not speak "Caucasian Albanian" but Iranian languages. See Gumilev here: .

By the time of the formation of Azerbaijani ethnic group, with a heavy layer of Iranian presence , there was no Caucasian Albanians. Because the formation of this group is from 14th-16th century long after Caucasian Albanians. Note Gumilev: "Говоря о возникновении азербайджанской культуры именно в XIV-XV вв., следует иметь в виду прежде всего литературу и другие части культуры, органически связанные с языком. Что касается материальной культуры, то она оставалась традиционной и после тюркизации местного населения. Впрочем, наличие мощного пласта иранцев, принявших участие в формировании азербайджанского этноса, наложило свой отпечаток прежде всего на лексику азербайджанского языка, в котором огромное число иранских и арабских слов. Последние вошли и в азербайджанский, и в турецкий язык главным образом через иранское посредство. Став самостоятельной, азербайджанская культура сохранила тесные связи с иранской и арабской. Они скреплялись и общей религией, и общими культурно-историческими традициями.". If there was a Caucasian Albanian presence, then there should be at least 1-2% substrate of Caucasian Albanian words in the Turkic speaking regions of the area. However, we can see this is not the case. By the time the Seljuqs arrived, there is hardly any evidence of Caucasian Albanians as they were mostly merged with Armenians. Armenian for example does contain a Caucasian substrate. But Azerbaijani Turkic does not, because by the time of the 14th-16th century, there was not really a Caucasian Albanian culture. The Caucasian Albanian issue is used by the ideologically minded groups in order to minimize the Armenian heritage and influence of the region and in reality Caucasian Albanians were rediscovered in the 20th century and still there is too much doubt about the very existence of such a continuous group and the best hypothesis is simply people that spoke languages that are forerunners of modern Lezgins. But there is not even a single existing line of Caucasian Albanian Islamic texts and basically virtually near to nothing in Christianity. So one cannot really speak of a culture unless there is a literature and texts to go with it. Of course you will disagree, but your disagreement has no weight when you cannot provide a single line of "Caucasian Albanian" language from Islamicate culture and virtually near-zero in terms of Christianity.

As per Akhundza, he had complex personality, but I quote Hamid Algar:"In all his literary activity, Āḵūndzāda showed a special interest in Iran, and he corresponded with several prominent Iranians by means of whom he hoped to influence the cultural and intellectual life of the country. Indeed, despite his loyalty to Russia and the fact that he wrote all his major works first in Azeri Turkish, not in Persian, he claimed on occasion to regard himself as an Iranian, for his father’s ancestors had been Persian, not Turkish, the family’s connection with Azerbaijan beginning only with his grandfather’s migration there from Rašt (autobiography, Alefbā, p. 349). This sense of Iranian identity along with his hostility to Islam produced in him a hatred for the Arabs and a nostalgia for pre-Islamic Iran that led him to exclude Zoroastrianism from his general strictures on religion. Among his correspondents in Tehran was Manak Limji Antaria, emissary to Iran of the Persian Zoroastrian Amelioration Fund of Bombay. In his letters to him, Āḵūndzāda enquired about various points of Zoroastrian teaching, urged the Zoroastrians to stand firm in the face of pressures for conversion, and expressed the hope that “our homeland will be purged of the followers of the alien faith [= Islam] and again become a rosegarden, with the justice of yore prevailing anew” "

And I will quote Swietchowski as well: "In his glorification of the pre-Islamic greatness of Iran, before it was destroyed at the hands of the "hungry, naked and savage Arabs, "Akhundzada was one of the forerunners of modern Iranian nationalism, and of its militant manifestations at that. Nor was he devoid of anti-Ottoman sentiments, and in his spirit of the age-long Iranian Ottoman confrontation he ventured into his writing on the victory of Shah Abbas I over the Turks at Baghdad. Akhundzadeh is counted as one of the founders of modern Iranian literature, and his formative influence is visible in such major Persian-language writers as Malkum Khan, Mirza Agha Khan and Mirza Abd ul-Rahim Talibof. All of them were advocates of reforms in Iran. If Akhundzadeh had no doubt that his spiritual homeland was Iran, Azerbaijan was the land he grew up and whose language was his native tongue. His lyrical poetry was written in Persian, but his work that carry messages of social importance as written in the language of the people of his native land, Turki. With no indication of split-personality, he combined larger Iranian identity with Azerbaijani - he used the term vatan (fatherland) in reference to both" Also linguistic bonds are discovered in the 19th/20th century too. So just because Armenian is indo-European and so is German, it does not make them have any cultural relationships. Same with concepts such as pan-Turkism. There is virtually no shared heritage or culture between a Yakut and a Kazakh and Azerbaijani. So it is a purely ideologically driven concept.

I am not here to have discussions with biased users and this was written for other users to show that I use references and logic to back up my claim, and not ideology with the above user has alleged. Simply follow Wikipedia guidelines with regards to this and other templates. I have made my suggestion to Tajik, but however the term greater Iran gets 520 hits in google books and that is more than sufficient to establish its weight and Caucasus is mentioned by Frye. Tajik can include Caucasus and be done with the conflict. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the issue is simple. If Armenia is not to be present in the template, so will not be Azerbaijan (linking to republic) in so called "Greater Iran". The whole template is nonsense anyway. Let's now establish greater Turan or Turkistan, or Greater Arabia templates too, why not? Why does "Greater Iran" get special treatment? And wasn't Arsacid dynasty Parthian, wasn't Armenia under various medieval "Persian" (read Turkic) kingdoms? So why all of a sudden the one "getting the honor" of being deceived by neo-Nazi Aryanism and pan-Iranist irrendenta in this template is Azerbaijan?
And why is pan-Turkism an issue in the debate? Did I advocate it in this discussion at all? It seems to me that you're engaged in some form of ideological debate against something irrelevant to the subject matter discussion. Atabəy (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Turan is a mythical place. But yes it should have a template as a mythical place with the lands that are mentioned in the Avesta/Shahnameh. As per Turkistan, there is no reason not for it to have a template or an article. It is widely used term in scholarship. As per greater Iran, again widely used in scholarship. Example Harvard Professor Frye whom you liked in other topic :). As per your political comment, it is tiring, but keep it up and it will be reported. So anymore neo-Nazi Aryanism and pan-Iranist and etc. will be reported to Moreschi and other admins as such comments are meant to simply inflame discussions rather than being constructive. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"Greater Iran" is a mystical concept as well, as opposed to Turan, it's not even mentioned in any book as a geographic entity including countries indicated in the template. It's a WP:POV invention and an irredentist doctrine. In response to threatening me with admins and more WP:POV, I would refer to a good source:

I guess it speaks for itself about the nature of claims in this template as well. Atabəy (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You can guess as much as you want, but that is not how an Encyclopedia works. For example you guessed the name Iran wasn't used during the Safavid era, but your guess was wrong.. "Greater Iran" meaning designation of the term Iran is a cultural-historical-geographical concept (which is greater than modern Iran). There have been empires named Iran or Iranshahr with these territories. Like the Safavids, Ilkhanids, Sassanids, Qajars and etc. Turan is a concept from the Shahnameh and has been used geographically for Central Asia at times as well. It doesn't apply to the Caucasus at all. As per books here are two among the many. Turan has an article as well, and as shown it has been also a term for parts of Central Asia. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Education is a good thing. who told you to relate Greater Iran to Pan-Iranism and that one to fascism? Everybody agrees that in your first step of WP:SYNTH you failed. Because assuming that you are "right" will result in "R. Frye is a fascist" (who wrote a book with title "greater Iran"). There is a journal called Iran from 40-50 years ago and considered highly respected. They speak very freely of the concept "Greater Iran". Also scholarly works. Should I refer to the J. M. Cook for using Greater Iran and actually defining it? Calling these scholars fascist is quite a phenomena.--Xashaiar (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I had to revert. I have restored the last stable version by Eupator (talk · contribs). There is no reason why the "modern era" section should be removed. Tajik (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
See the discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Template:History_of_Greater_Iran. I temporarily removed the "modern era" section, so that we can replace the political entities/modern states with geographical designations like Central Asia etc. --Kurdo777 (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. But before changing the template, we should discuss everything in detail. Thank you anyway. Tajik (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Kurdo, I asked you NOT to change the template without a discussion first. First of all, what does "after Islam" mean?! There is only a pre-Islamic era and an Islamic era - Islam is still very much alive in the region, and claiming the the modern era is that of "after Islam" is totally false an unencyclopedic. Your edit also negates the existence of modern countries and their histories in the geo-cultural region of "Iran". Tajik (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The template should not be restored to prior version as it directly links to present-day nations, which have nothing to do with Iran. Follow discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Template:History_of_Greater_Iran. Atabəy (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No they don't. But we are talking about Greater Iran. See the relevant article Iran which according CHI is "areas of Iran, parts of Afghanistan, and Chinese and Soviet Central Asia".--Xashaiar (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Why was my edit reverted? We agreed to replace the modern countries section on this template with geographical regions like Southern Caucasus, Central Asia, etc. You guys had one week to do that, and instead you restore the old format. Richard Nelson Frye defines Greater Iran as including "much of the Caucasus, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia..." So the modern countries section should be replaced with 4 regions fitting that definition. I am going to remove/disable the modern countries section again, until somebody who knows this code better than me, can rebuild the regions defined by Frye.--Kurdo777 (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Kurdo, we can't build a template just because one scholar, Richard Frye, made a definition. Much like we don't Safavid dynasty as Turkish, when Frye, among the multitude of other references, claims that Azeri Turks were its founders. There is no encyclopedic meaning for this template anyway, as the intention to add states or regions to it is not based on scholarship but on political irredentism. I understand if someone wants to emphasize the influence of Iranian culture on neighboring nations, there is a template for that known as History of Iran. But addition of word "Greater" with making another template, including clearly states and regions than anyone else can righteously claim too, is nothing more than political and non-encyclopedic. I can find you a handful of references claiming greater Turkey, greater Russia, greater Armenia and even greater Azerbaijan. There are traces of multitude of cultures on these lands. What if someone creates a Greater Arabia template and includes Iran and the whole Islamic world in it? Is this right no, can we find references for it - absolutely. Does not mean that creating a template with such name makes people appreciate the culture, and even with political intention this isn't the best way of building sympathy either. Atabəy (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"not based on scholarship but on political irredentism" That is your opinion however, not just Frye but many authors are not in the business of political irredentism. There is no contention from scholars of ancient history on this term. Mallory, Adams, Frye, Mair, The Cambridge History of Iran and etc. use it . The comparison with Safavid is invalid because Safavid historians are clear Safavids were Kurdish and there is no doubt that Safavid ancestry goes back to Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili who was a Shafi'ite Kurd and not a descendant of one of the Oghuz Turk by all accounts and his ancestry going back to Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah, leaving the matter closed for any Safavid historian about the 'origin' (not necessarily the culture at various stages) of the dynasty. Because every single Safavid geneology both post-Safavid and pre-Safavid traces the geneology back to Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah and not any Oghuz tribe. If the Shaykh was Turkish in origin, then a geneology would have to trace him back to one of the Oghuz tribes that came to the region after the Seljuqs. However, only from Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah the geneology is traced back to the Prophet Muhammad in the Post Safavid era, while in pre-Safavid era, Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah is called directly the Kurd of Sanjar/Sanjan. And what counts is pre-Safavid manuscripts. So Safavids after 1501 thought themselves (their origin) as Arabs in origin while during the time of Shaykh Safi al-din Ardabili they were Kurds in origin. In the same article Frye mentions Old Azari language and mentions most Azeri Turks are descendants of Iranian speakers. So by Azeri Turk he does not mean necessarily origin since he saying the origin of most Azeri Turks are in Iranian speakers, but the language of the Safavid household. I don't have a problem calling someone today who speaks Turkish as their first language or is culturally Turkish (Safavids household culture was a composite of Irano-Turkic-Islamic) or etc. as a Turk but not in the origin. The Safavids traced their geneology to Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah, so hence the origin of the dynasty is Kurdish. Frye also says "Azeri Turks founded the Safavid dynasty" which could even be a reference to their Turkomen followers who were the main supporters of the dynasties. Note the use of plurals "Azeri Turks" and not "An Azeri Turk founded". The main Safavid historian Savory also states Safavids were originally an Iranic family and those not of Turkish ancestry as it is sometimes claimed. However as far as I know, there is not a notable Safavid scholar who claims "Safavids were of Oghuz Turkic origin and those that claim they were Iranic (Kurdic) are wrong". And Shafi'i Islam was not widely followed by Oghuz Turks (who were uniformly Hanafi), neither one can say Oghuz Turks ancestors goes back to Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah, nor can Oghuz Turks necessarily know at least three Iranic dialects (that of Tabriz at that time, Ardabil and the poetry of Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili). So the theory that Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili whose ancestor was Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah was an Oghuz Turk is untainable and unprovable. The evidence for Kurdish origin are clearer and much stronger. Specially, if we do a geneology study, Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah is pre-Seljuq and Oghuz migration era to the area. So "origin" and "culture" (which can change) are not the same thing. As far as Safavid geneology allows and is traceable (and the Safavids were consciously aware of their geneology and kept track and did not forget Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah), the origin is determined by Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah, the culture however was not Kurdish say in 1501 or 1600. So that is why Safavids are not an easy dynasty to describe. However all of these Safavid discussions is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion due to many differences just noted.
Your comparison with "Greater Turkey" is invalid. In this case, one has to find a scholar of ancient history like Mair, Frye, Adams, Mallory and etc. (that is highest rank scholars in the fields of history) who use the term Greater Turkey as a historical term. If someone like Mair or Mallory uses the term, then that is valid historical term. One can attest the usage of the name of Iran from Caucasus (many poets) to Central Asia and etc. One does not see that with Turkey. I looked in google books and every single book comes up with irredentist concept and I did not find say a Frye,Mallory, Mair, or etc. that claimed otherwise. "Greater Armenia" is also a valid term used by historians. But it is also used by irredentists. However just because it is used by irredentist it does not make it invalid in Wikipedia as a historical term. Turkistan (meaning regions of Central Asia) is not irredentist (as long as it does not cover modern countries). Also Turkistan does not cover Caucasus or modern Turkey, but purely parts of Central Asia. Turan as a mythical land (but also used geographical) again does not cover Caucasus and Turkey, but Turan is used for Central Asia and so again it does not make it invalid for a template as long as scholars have used it as well. And in the Safavid era and historiography (written by people living under Safavids), Central Asia was generally called Turan, while Safavid domain was called Iran. And a template on the Shahnameh and Avestan Turan (which is an Iranian concept) is valid. However Turan as a 19th/20th century concept for a homeland of "Turanian" languages is irredentist.
As per: "if someone creates a Greater Arabia template and includes Iran and the whole Islamic world in it?" Again invalid comparison since one needs scholars that use these terms in a historical setting. However Greater Arabia is a valid term for Saudia Arabia, Yemen, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain and Oman. It has been used and these regions share the same history.
However, it should be noted, "Greater Turkey" is a purely irredentist term as Turkey is a modern name. Greater Iran is well used in historical texts and one cannot disuse it because of its possible political misue or some people might not like it. Just like one cannot disuse a knife because someone might use a knife for bad purposes. The Sassanids called their domain Iranshahr. The oldest reference to the name Iran by Strabo in Parthian times already mentions Media, Persia, Bactria (NW Afghanistan) and Soghdia (Central Asia) as well as Ariana. " 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.". So already we have a reference to Iran (Strabo quoting another historian Erosthenesis (sp?) from 330 B.C.. Seljuqs, Ilkhanids, Eldiguzids, Ahmadilis, Shirwanshah, Safavids, Saffarids, Samanids, Sassanids, and etc. have called their domain that geographical name and so have scholars. And scholars have used "Greater Iran" for these dynasties (even for Timurids). What people with political intent might do or not do is irrelevant. For example: "In the Islamic world - principally in Greater Iran and Turkey - angular harps lasted until the seventeenth century (mostly in the form of lever har.." (Authors: Lawergren, Neubauer and Kadyrov) and nothing political. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Date#Year numbering systems

"Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors."

This article used BC starting in 2006 and was changed arbitrarily. Every other template used BC/AD. There is no good reason that we shouldn't revert back to the original dating system.

This isn't a crusade, it is merely policy and there is no good reason we should deviate from it. - Schrandit (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop this meaningless BC/AD crusade. The dating system was like this for years and you changed it in your first edit in this page, just for the sake of changing the dating system. This is not acceptable at all and it's against the guideline that you cite. Alefbe (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
How is reverting back to the original system against WP:date? - Schrandit (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Seeing no response...-Schrandit (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The response is given above. Read it and read the guideline again. Alefbe (talk) 07:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, well if you won't take my word for it would you take a third opinion? - Schrandit (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well? - Schrandit (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
You can always ask the opinion of others who have been previously contributed to this template. Alefbe (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
If I ask for a third opinion will you abide by it? - Schrandit (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Let me jump in as the third opinion to settle this: we should leave it as CE/BCE. I say this because this pair of terms is both neutral and preferred. In contrast, AD/BC is archaic and/or religious, hence obsolete. (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This template is ridiculous

This is clearly the work of Mr. Tajik here. Trying to push his POV here and looks like he got away with it because many Iranian editors voted for greater iran template for some reason.

First of all this template or should i say the Pashto/Tajik editor named Tajik is trying to say that Iran is just a modern state created after the Persian empire fell, just like his home land afghanistan. Meaning Persia was not iran but both afghanistan and iran. This template and the "persian people" article have both been hijacked by people like these. They are trying to say that there is no such thing as persian people or persia anymore. Not being a wikipedia editor i cannot do anything about this but if anyone with a sense is editing here change this template to history of iran and make a new template for history of greater iran if needed. History of afghanistan/pakistan etc have nothing to do with iran, iran is and was persia, its history belongs to itself, don't let some afghan nationalist with agenda push his POV here.

And tajik, regarding your comments about nadir shahs life guards. Almost every king in history have had mercenaries. Many times because they didn't trust their own people for many reasons, a mercenary cares only about the money and nothing else. Even so nadir used people from all over iran in his army including some afghans, not as mercenaries but because he had defeated them, they belonged to him. Destroying the home town of the ghilzais and building a town called Nadir Abad should be enough proof for you, please go ahead and read some books about the matter to find out the truth other than afghan books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to show proof about Pashtun women doing this and that in Dubai, you know this world is full of people lying. I can show you 100% convincing evidence about Iranian prositutes, not a single person can doubt it. This means I'm powerful and you're weak in presenting class. I don't hate Iranians but you Iranians hate Afghans. We ruled Iran from Afghanistan for over 1,000 years, starting with the Ghaznavids from Ghazni (Afghanistan) until Mir Mahmud Hotaki and Ahmad Shah Durrani in 18th century. Don't go into saying they were this ethnic or they spoke Persian, and etc. The bottom line is all the Kings were living in what is now Afghanistan and all their subjects were living in what is now Iran. Your ancestors were subjects and mines were Kings. Nader Shah was a Sunni Turk from Khorasan and so were the Ghilzai Hotaki dynasty, so what if one Turk ruled over the another Turk? Nader Shah didn't represent Pesian Shia culture and he was killed by the Shia Persians.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It is you that go around spreading crap about iranian women, so if anyone need to show proof it is you little one. I dont need to show any proof, just go read the news and see thousands of videos about it in youtube. If you dont want to hear the truth dont go around spreading your hatred and lies. Now deal with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


What definition of Iranian is being applied in this template? If it is Iranic language then the inclusion of pre-Iranic polities is obviously incorrect. I propose that those entries should be removed. If it is geographic, as in covering the generally understood territory of Greater Iran, then there are many items missing.

I can't see that any consistent definition has been used in the template. Irānshahr (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)