Talk:Greater Iran

Important Article

The term, "Greater Iran" has always been recognized and respected by scholars and historians. Greater Iran is the area where the Persian culture to this day still dominates. This article must be kept intact and expanded on. As it is a different issue than "Iranian Langauges" this article must remain.

I suggest delete for this article. It is not a recognized term in the context of cultural background as the article claims. Google search brings up 14 sources, out of which:

• 6 are referring to geology [1], [2], [3],

[4], [5], [6] .

• These three (about Iranian languages) do not contain the exact phrase [7], [8], [9]. (they appear in the search probably because they contain the line, Continent of orgin right after Branch: Iranian)

• The only ones using the term in cultural sense are [10] (religious personal weblog), and [11](cinema) which are not academic sources.

• This one also does not contain the exact phrase[12].

• The last two sources are from Wikipedia, without evidence: [13], [14].

So out of 14 sources, 6 are geological, 4 do not contain the exact phrase, 2 from Wikipedia, and 2 are not academic (one about cinema, and one some religious stuff). Hence I strongly recommend to delete this article due to lack of evidence, or it can be re-written in the context of geology. Heja Helweda 18:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanx. But I added sources, none of which you mentioned. In fact, we should move the title of the page to "Greater Iran" as it correctly should be.--Zereshk 21:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The sources mention Greater Iran which makes more sense. I suggest changing the name of the article to Greater Iran.Heja Helweda 01:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree.--Zereshk 01:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree Diyako Talk + 02:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that the term Greater Iran' refers to Afghanistan, Iran/Persia and Tajikistan [15]. It does not cover Kurdish areas of Iraq and Turkey, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Caucasus and China. Remove those areas please.Heja Helweda 03:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont think the sources agree with you. Like I said, youre free to add opposing evidence. But you will not remove anything that is documented.--Zereshk 03:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is the evidence for China and Pakistan and Uzbekistan being categorized under Greater Iran?Heja Helweda 03:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I dont know about China but go look at a geological map of Pakistan and you'll see that half the country lies on the Iranian plateau. The country spoke Persian as recently as the 19th century before the British abolished it and encouraged the spread of non-iranian culture. The country also has an estimated population of 35 million people of Iranic origin such as Tajik, Baloch, Kurds and Pashtun. Additionally, Pakistan was part of the Achemenid empire contributed greatly in the form of tax to the royal revenues of Xerxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.45.76 (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It says it here.--Zereshk 03:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That isnot a history reference, rather an online news website. Provide neutral academic sources please.Heja Helweda 04:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You do not have the authority to judge sources. That is a violation of Wikipedia laws.

When you are talking about history, you have to bring evidence from established academic sources, not newspapers!Heja Helweda 05:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Wikipedia's stated policy says: "Editors are not expected to verify, for example, whether the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research."--Zereshk 00:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

So Heja, do you honestly expect me to believe you that you dont hate Persians? You very well know that every mosque in Samarqand and Bukhara has a Persian name and is adorned with Persian poetry. Im sure you know that Rudaki and numerous other poets were from what is today called Uzbekistan. And that where "Iran-veij" was. And the Samanids. And that there are Tajiks in China. The more you push. The more we will push back.--Zereshk 04:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I amnot disputing the fact that Rudaki was persian or he lived in Mavara-ol-nahr. But I am saying is there any evidence that those areas are/were categorized under the term Greater Iran?.Heja Helweda 05:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you think "Greater Iran" means heja? It means an "Iran" that transcends its current boundaries. Now either you agree that the Iranian lands were spread out far and wide in antiquity, or you dont. Because if you dont, you are denying history one more time, and wasting my time. Maybe Afrasyab is not a Persian city name in Uzbekistan. Maybe "Shah e zendeh", "Goor e Amir", "Madreseh ye Bibi", ...are not Persian names in Uzbekistan. Maybe theyre Martian.--Zereshk 05:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

And besides Heja, youre wasting my fuckin time, and Im pretty pissed about it, because I know youre doing this deliberately. Go read the damn book by Frye. The book's fuckin title is "Greater Iran" for crying out loud. He talks about all Central Asian territories from top to bottom.--Zereshk 05:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear all, I started this page based on encyclopedia iranica. The original title of the article was :Iranian cultural continent or Iranian continent. This is an academic term used by the encyclopedia which is by now the highest ranking Iranology project. Please contact Pejman Akbarzadeh or any other associates of the encyclopedia if you have any question. --Mensen09:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanx for the info.--Zereshk 00:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Native name

Are you sure it's In Persian Iran-e boziorg or Iran-e Bozorgtar? I think in Iran th term Iran-e Bozorg refers to the same current Iran.Diyako Talk + 20:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Iran e Bozorg is correct. Even the Farsi Wikipedia mentions this.--Zereshk 04:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If in Iranica it is referred to as "Iranian continent", then perhaps we should rename it back to that, as it is the most authorative academic source on the matter --Kash 00:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Map

We need a map, like the other articles have (e.g. Greater Israel or Greater Syria of Greater Austria).--Zereshk 04:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll be on it :) --Kash 21:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"Greater" 's

Do any of the "Greater" regions listed in the "See also" section actually have any connection to Greater Iran besides in name? If not, they need to be removed. --InShaneee 22:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There is an obvious connection. "Greater Iran" is not the only irredentist article of WP. The very presence of these links absolves the article of "Persian nationalist editing" accusations, which was used as a reason to try and delete the article.

In other words, they are just there to help with your argument with another user, and don't actually add anything to the article about Greater Iran itself. I'm going to remove them, unless that's really not the case. --InShaneee 03:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they are related. Like "Greater Iran", they are similar "Greater" nation entities. I oppose removing them unless a list or article is made for them.--Zereshk 14:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Instead, I propose we make a list of such "Greater" states, and list them all there, or make a category for them, and list them in the category, and then take off the links from this article. But not all of them. Some will have to stay as they are directly related to Iran, such as Greater Khorasan or Greater Mongolia.--Zereshk 00:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Map

Great article but I am not really in favor of the maps, especially the second one, it does not look like the Greater Iran to me but simply a map of Persian Empire. That is not what greater Iran means. Here we have countries that were never part of Iran/greater Iran; rather they were occupied by the Iranian army. I think the map gives the wrong idea. It might make some readers think that by Greater Iran we simply mean the land that were once under the rule of Iranian leaders. I suggest removing it. Gol 07:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That map is temporary of course. We'll replace it.--Zereshk 21:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Iranian nations?

An article, Iranian nations was nominated for deletion. The article was not deleted, but it has been suggested that it be merged here. The AFD discussion for that article has been archived here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Greater Iran

National Geographic talks about this concept as do a lot of European institutions. Can anyone find any sources? 69.196.139.250 05:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This article should be deleted, it promotes an ultranationalistic new term.

The idea of “Greater Iran”, was first promoted by the Pan-Iranist ultra-nationalist party of Pahlavi (mid 1940s). This was natural extension of Nazi ideology that caused abdication of the Reza Shah, following his support for Nazi Germany. Non of authoritative sources would entertain this idea as a serious subject. Till 14th century there was no real country or region called Iran. The name Iran was mentioned in Persian epic of Shahnameh as a mythical country along with anther mythical country called Turan. Safavids dynasty, in trying to build an empire used these and other elements such as Shiat religious sects to make a unify nation made of Persians, Turks, Kurds, Arabs, Turkmen, Baluch, Armenians to name few.

It is sad to see that few ultra right nationalist, in trying to promote their political view, soil the good character of all Iranians as some Arian loving racists.

As an Iranian, I support deletion of this article, or at least changing the content to a brief presentation of the short history for this term. md 12:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the first part of your argument, I'm afraid you are wrong, my friend. Pan-Iranist ideology came about before Reza Shah came to power (early 1920s), and he was not supportive of it, nor did he have anything to do with the development of the ideology. If you want the story behind the early years of Pan-Iranism and how it came to be, you should read the book Hezbe Pan Iranist by Ali Kabar Razmjoo. Pan-Iranism is a nationalist ideology, but it is not "ultra-nationalist" nor is it racist.

I believe you are thinking of a different group, the Kabud Party, which was actually modeled after the National Socialist (Nazi) German Workers Party of Germany and dissolved after the fall of the Third Reich. This party had literally no connection to Pan-Iranism or any Pan-Iranist groups (which weren't formed until after WW2). And aside from a number of Iranian military officers in the Kabud Party (no intellectuals or academics or politicians were members), there was no tacit government approval of the party's ideology. It was very much an unpopular group with a small membership.

There is a book which you might be interested in, entitled [16], entitled Blood & Oil, which explains clearly why Reza Shah's government became close with Nazi Germany (trade-wise, Iran remained neutral when WW2 broke out). It also has some interesting accounts of how Reza Shah's government, along with the Persian Jewish community in Paris, helped save French Jews from being sent to the gas chambers. SouthernComfort 02:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really

File:Zora says Iran did not exist--The Persians.jpg

From the book: "The Persians", by Gene R. Garthwaite, 2005

• Mehrdad says: "There was no region called Iran before the 14th century."

I dont think so. See this scan I made.--Zereshk 22:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What you say is true, but the source is only taling about Persians. I don't think Kurds, Afghans, or people in Pakistan have ever called their land Iran. The article might have to be re-written to make sure this is a historical term, not a political one. But I have to get a copy of your source first. Aucaman^Talk 02:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Those ethnicities called their land Iran when they were part of Iran, unless you can prove otherwise. --ManiF 08:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No you're saying they called their land Iran so you have to prove it. I'm not claiming anything here. Aucaman^Talk 11:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Your are making claims that "the source is only taling about Persians" and the other ethnicities may not have called the land Iran. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you. We have already provided evidence that the land was called Iran. --ManiF 12:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't put things I haven't said in quotes and make it sound like I've said them. This is extremely inappropriate. Aucaman^Talk/e 12:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I quoted your EXACT words [17]: ...the source is only taling about Persians. --ManiF 13:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay there's nothing to prove here. The source is talking about Persians of course. It says the Sassanids used the term Iranshahr. It doesn't even talk about Afghans or Kurds or anyone else. Aucaman^Talk/e 13:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, those are merly your assumptions, the source says the land was called Iran by several ruling dynasties of Iran. Any other conclusion would have to be supported by direct quotes from authoritative sources. --ManiF 13:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It's my assumption that the source is talking about the Sassanids and the Achaemenids? Just read it yourself. This is the end of out discussion here. I'm going to get a copy of the source provided in the article and see how it defines the term "Greater Iran". We can then discuss the differences (if any). Right now I'm not challenging anything. Aucaman^Talk/e 13:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I made some slight changes from "persian" into "Iranian" in the text to accomodate Aucaman's objection.--Zereshk 23:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Please pay attention that due to historical reasons, what we (within the country) call Iran, has been in the west referred to as Persia for a very long time, and likewise the people were mistakenly called Persian, where in fact Iranian was meant. In reading books by western authors one has to be very careful as to what meaning of Persia/Persian is meant. Sometimes it specifically talks about Persians (as opposed to Mededs, for example, or Azaris, in modern times), and sometimes it is just a sloppy substitution for the term Iran/Iranian which includes all of these people. In that sense, many times you see the word Persian in a situation where actually Kurds and Lurs and the others are included. It might be considered a misnoming, but it is still common practice. Unfortunately things are usually not very standardized. Shervink 15:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

I would like to attract your attentions to the scanned page of the book "The Persians", by Gene R. Garthwaite who Zereshk loaded to this discussion page. Just beneath the bright red outline and a line before that it mentions "Interestingly Achaemenians appear not to have had a general designation for the whole ... empire" (can't read the doted word or two. Part of the text cleverly covered by the bright colour as it was not helping Zereshk's argument. This text proves that the name Iran was not used to designate a real country or empire before at the time Achaemenians. Now regarding the Sasanians this text is an evidence that the term Iran , same as Persian, is a Greek (3rd century BC) term "The designation Iran was used by the Greek historian, Erastothens " and not a name given by natives of the land. "Sasanians however called core of their empire Iranshahr" then the writer translates the "shahr" to "empire", where as this is more like the extension of the same Greek word designating a city as "city of Iran". The word shahr ("city" in modern Farsi) has no affinity with the word "Emperaturiامپراطوری " a word derived from Latin. md 17:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the Iranian Cultural Continent, not Iran. We have an article for your polemic. It is: Iran naming dispute. We can discuss this matter there. Khosh Keisin.--Zereshk 21:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well Iranian Cultural Continent souds like a proper name for this article then, why not call it so. Zereshk, I would like to know your openion on Garthwaite caliming that Achaemenians did not have a designation for all their empire and consider it collection of regions. md 08:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Garthwaite's claim is valid. But I dont think it's relevant here. You claimed: "There was no region called Iran before the 14th century". And that's not right.--Zereshk 00:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Iranica

Somebody here said that they had seen Encyclopedia Iranica talk about the "Iranian cultural continent". Could that person please provide me reference so I can also see that source? Thanx again.--Zereshk 00:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Western Persian Gulf Coast

Was this area also a part of Iran Zamin (Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, North Oman, Bahrain, Saudi coast, etc...)? Even today, many can trace their roots back to Iranians and specifically Persians (Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, northern Oman, and even in Yemen).Khosrow II 00:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Map is not accurate

According to the present article, the term Greater Iran applies to the entire region where Iranian languages are today spoken as a first language, or as a second language by a significant minority. Obviously based on the above definition, Armenia and Georgia are NOT parts of this region. So the question is why they have been included in the map?Heja Helweda 22:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats incorrect, Greater Iran, on top of including regions where people speak Iranic langauges as a first or second language, also includes territories that are historically an integral part of the Iranic Empire. By the definition, we should also include the rest of Eastern Iraq.Khosrow II 22:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Then your guys have to change the definition to something like this, ...regions where majority of people speak Iranian languages, and territories that traditionally belonged to the Persian Empire.Heja Helweda 04:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well actually, the above definition I mentioned is was I thought was the meaning of Greater Iran, it may not be correct.Khosrow II 14:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Heja, youre misquoting. The article says: "Iran means all lands and peoples where Iranian languages were and are spoken, and where in the past, multi-faceted Iranian cultures existed.".--Zereshk 14:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Name change

I think that the article's name should be changed to Iranian Cultural Continent. Any comments? Tājik 00:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Current title seems more sensible to me. —Nightstallion (?) 21:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Since Iran is the name of an existing country today, the term greater Iran might be taken in a negative light, as its obvious from the discussions here. Iranian Cultural Continent or History of Iranian Plateau would remove the negative stigma associated with the word greater.--Gerash77 17:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think both Iranian Cultural Continent and Greater Iran are ok, as far as the text clearly enough makes the distinction between the country and the subject of this article. I personally wouldn't mind the change, though, as Iranian Cultural Continent is also well established. Shervink 17:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

I also think the article is OK as it is, provided that the distinction be made between the "Islamic Republic of Iran" and "Greater Iran". Pretty similar to the difference between America and The United States of America.--Zereshk 16:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"Greater Iran" is more common. There is absolutely no room for confusion, as far as I can tell. Sangak ^Talk 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Greater Iran not Persia

Although too many Iranians in the USA live with the idea that Iran and Persia are the same, they are not. In fact there is no country called Persia. There are no evidences that there has been once an independent Persia either. Persia was a tributary/ or part of Median empire. Before that time it is generally believed to be part of the Elamian kingdom. The mis-usage of persia instead of iran stems from the fact that the capital of Iran during Achamenid was in Perisa (Ostan-e Fars), and according to the Greek historical tradition of city -states the name of a capital was given to the surrounding areas. So the fact that the capital was called Parse-kade (persepolis) (Takhte Jamshid is only the popular belives), then the whole empire was called as such. Then the Arabs and Westneres adpated the same reason. TRhe Old testament of Bible has used Median/Persian interchangeably and the Iranians themselves have always used Iran (and not persia or any other names) for this country. Babakexorramdin 10:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats why the article is called Greater Iran.--Zereshk 21:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

yes but someone has added Greater Persia this Persia that in some parts. Usually Iranian Amercians (of divrese ethnic backgrounds) doing this, but their motives stem from other than facts. (they simply do not want to be called Iranians). Babakexorramdin 06:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, what you say about the reason for the Greek originally saying Persia when they meant Iran is correct, but anyway Iran as a country was called Persia (in common English use) until 1935, and the official position of the Iranian government was that both names could be used interchangably until 1979. So it is not exactly right to condemn people for still using an old name which was in use until recently, nor is it correct to say that a country called Persia never existed. When an Iranian says he is Persian he means it the sense that the name was used in the west till recently, not as the name of a province of Iran. Shervink 15:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Iran was called Iran and not Persia. It is very simple. Early medieval poets such as Ferdowsi and Nizami Ganjavi used consciously Iran. Mongol invaders called it Ulus Iran. Safavi, Afshari, Zand and Qajar Kings also used the name Iran in all official documents, long before Reza Shah. The name Iran has its roots in Avesta. It is simply not only wrong but also harmful to call Iran as Persia --Babakexorramdin 09:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Look these things are all correct. The point is, however, that in common english use, the word Persia has been used for centuries as a substitute for Iran. So when you're speaking english, such as on the english wikipedia, there's nothing wrong with using the terms interchangably, since it is how the country was called until recently. Similarly, there's nothing wrong with saying Japan or Finland or Greece or Germany or China, even though none of these names are in fact used by the inhabitants of those countries. Shervink (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Some other facts

Yes according to a popular theory Croats belive that they stem from ancient Iranian tribes (Sramathians most probably), the same theory says more or less that also Serbs and Bosnians are from this tribe. see this http://www.magma.ca/~rendic/chapter1.htm there dozens of srticles and books about this. A Romanian friend also once told me that there is a theory that the ancient Dacians of Romania were Iranians. I have not read it anywere but it makes sense, because as Ukraine (Scythia) was an Iranian land and they were also found in the Balkans so Romania most probably has been too. Also remember when Darius went to fight with the Scythians (Iranians) he crossed Danube (the border between the contemporary Bulgaria and Romania), while if there were no Scythians (Iranians) in Romania, then he could attack the scythians Via Central Asia or the Caucasus! He also pointed to some artifacts of Dacians which resembled those of Scythians. Anyway. Another people who you should not forget are the Jaszy of Hungary. As the name suggests they are releated to the Ossetians. In fact they are Alans who entered this region (Central Hungary). They have already forgotten their language but are still or (were for a long time) aware of their ethnicity. It is debated whether or not Armenians are Iranians. The Armenian language is very close to the Iranian languages. Things are similar which could not be said that they are taken over from (other) Iranian languages. Most probably Armenian is a separate branch of the Iranian languages (next to the west eg. persian, Kurdish etc... and East eg. Ossetian, Pamir etc...). Addinf to that the Armenian aristocracy and kings have been of parthian origins. So You can consider them as Iranian peoples or not. Most Armenians however do not like to be related to Iranians and a lot I have encountered are very hostile to Iranians. The main reason is the religiosu difference, not knowing that Ossetians (who do not deny their Iranianness)are also Orthodox Christians. Having said this Georgians who are a Kartvelian people have assimilated many ossetians (Alans) in them. Moreover the georgian ancient kings and aristocracy have been of Parthian origins too. So maybe you can only mention this without listing it. Babakexorramdin 12:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Iranian World

Iranian World for the name of this article is a legitimate one. There are a lot of Worlds which are less legitimate: 1- The Western world= It is too diverse and to vast with a very fragmented culture and political sphere 2- The Arab world: it is only based on the Arabic language. imposed pon so many non-Arab peoples who do not understand each other properly and moreover they are in value cultural terms very different. A lebanse or Egyptian is culturally too different from a Qatari or Saudi. 3- Turkish/ic world. This term is promoted by Anti-Iranianist agents. However it is true that there are a variety of Turkicspeaking people in the region, they nevertheless try to bring all these under the influence of turkey (whcih should be ruled by extremist elements). These Turkic peoples have not been part of the Ottoman empire however. Moreover Turkey and Iran are not antagonistic countries. They share a similar culture and are in friendly terms. Another fact is that the Turkic peoples who share cultural similarities, they do it also with non-Turkicspeaking Iranic people. Those Turkic peoples who did not come close to the Iranic people are distinct (Yakut, Chuvash etc...).

All and all if there are other worlds, the Iranian world sounds only more legitimate than the other ones. --Babakexorramdin 12:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"Afghanistani Tajiks"

"Afghanistani Tajiks" -wikipedia finds 84 hits. "Afghan Tajiks" -wikipedia finds 632 hits.

This is an English language encyclopedia, and we need to use what is most commonly used. Kingturtle (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It is oxymoronic to say Afghan Tajiks. Afghan means Pashtun. Tajiks cannot be Tajik ethnically and Afghan ethnically at the same time. The solution of this would be to use Afghanistani which literally means "from/of Afghanistan" and is analogous to Pakistani, Uzbekistani, etc. HuaijinYang (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The Online Etymology Dictionary says Oxymoron:

1657, from Gk. oxymoron, noun use of neut. of oxymoros (adj.) "pointedly foolish," from oxys "sharp" (see acrid) + moros "stupid." Rhetorical figure by which contradictory terms are conjoined so as to give point to the statement or expression; the word itself is an illustration of the thing. Now often used loosely to mean "contradiction in terms." Yes the use of the term Afghan Tajiks is pointed, it refers to Tajiks from Afghanistan as opposed to those who may dwell or come from other places. To see it as contradictory is to miss the point. --Bejnar (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Afghanistani literally means "from Afghanistan". The suffix "i" at the end of a country name means from that country. This is analogous to Pakistani, Uzbekistani, Tajikistani... etc.

Afghanistani is an English word according to Princeton University. HuaijinYang (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Again you miss the point. --Bejnar (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you solve the problem by saying "Tajiks in/from Afghanistan"?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.129.175 (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Afghan Tajiks is how we Tajiks from Afghanistan refer to ourselves. Man shuma ro meshnasam. --RomainSnd (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

RomainSnd, you are not a Tajik, but just another banned sockpuppet of the Pashtun-nationalist User:NisarKand. Your sockpuppetry is getting hillarious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.152.85 (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

state versus nation (administration versus culture)

In the lead, the article said Greater Iran "[corresponded to] the two Persian Empires (Achaemenid and Sassanid)".
This is not correct. Greater Iran is a cultural concept, not a political one. Greater Iran does not include Northeast Africa (Egypt) or the Near East (Western Mediterranean, the Pontus, the Levant, the Arabian peninsula, Babylonia). And yet these were all at one time or another part of one or both empires, and Babylonia is even where both the Achaemenids and Sassanids had their capitals.

On further examination, I found sections on Iraq/Armenia (and to an extent also other Caucasus stuff) coatracked onto this article. This may be a remnant of the confusion of state and nation, and/or the projection of "Persian Empire" yadda yadda onto this article. While cultural influence on these territories did exist, these were brief, and those regions are not traditionally included in Greater Iran (e.g. one will not find studies on them in the Cambridge History of Iran beyond issues of government). To include Iraq and Armenia in Greater Iran just because those regions were briefly ruled by Iranians is like including Iran in the Magna Graecia just because it was briefly ruled by Greeks. Its simply not appropriate. The Caucasus subsection needs to be generally more circumspect; the Iranian peoples (or speakers of an Iranian language) do not represent a majority there, and the supposed Iranian cultural influence is not so significant as is being suggested. (The title of the cited Iranica article is also [incidentally?] false. It is not "Caucasus Iran", but "Caucasus and Iran").

Aside from the state-vs-nation confusion, it seems that there have also been a couple of mindless chipmunks at work here. In the caption of an image lower down on the page, Iranian plateau has been designated "Persian plateau". I don't think "One pill to make them bigger, and one pill to make them small" works for topography, and unless someone in official capacity has since decided to confuse matters, the Persian plateau remains the upper arch of the Iranian plateau that stretches from Luristan to Golestan (particularly clear in this image). This confusion appears to stem from an edit to 'Iranian plateau' (30 Nov 2007) in which someone screwed up what should have otherwise been clear. Will fix.

I will try to make the distinction between nation and state even clearer by an addition of a second lead paragraph. But I'll leave the fixing of the Caucasus/Iraq bits to someone else. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Far too much pride

It seems as if Iran's historical significance has gone to people's heads. A few statements to set everything straight: Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq formed the core of Persia. None of them are superior in any way to each other. Persia was great. Iran is not, nor will it ever be if the people don't learn to live in the present and not the past. "Greater Iran" should be changed to "Greater Persia". Afghanistan and Iran have the same language, there is only a few minor differences between the dialects. I'd wager most people who are fluent in farsi can understand the afghani dialects. Fighting over who won wars and who is the older nation is pointless and childish. A civilization thats 100,000 years old is not necessarily superior to one who is 50,000 years old and debating superiority is also counter-productive - Wikipedia is not a place to rant about how great your ancestors are. Thefifthlord (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, article talk pages are not discussion forums for your personal views and feelings. Thanks! The Scythian 20:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

@ Thefifthlord you have told the correct things in a harsh manner.greater Iran in a no way suit the title rather it is confusing. I initially thought someone is suggesting redrawing the borders of South and Central Asia. I further see it a early Muslim Empire disintegrating into three parts; Ottomans, Mughals and Persian empires and the struggles between their rulers. I sincerely suggest removal of this article . it is adding more confusion and misleading Malik Atta -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by MalikAttaRasool (talk • contribs)

I suggest you start a new thread, instead of extending a three-year old thread. So, you thought some was suggesting "redrawing borders of South and Central Asia". Why? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Greater Persia again

The term "Greater Persia" redirects to this article. Because this is true, the article must introduce or explain the term. If there is a difference between "Greater Iran" and "Greater Persia", the difference should be described. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

One editor removed the explanation of "Greater Persia", which leaves the reader who typed in "Greater Persia" wondering why they were redirected to an article that has no mention of Greater Persia. That reader will then assume the two terms are identical. If they are not identical, as User:Xashaiar insists, then the difference must be explained. Binksternet (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid OR and adding unrelated source to support your claim. These mean: 1. Greater Persia is a different concept and if you like it you can create the article by clicking on here. 2. Greater Iran is a concept ingenious to Iranians and has existed for quite a long time under the term Iranzamin. This article takes the English naming by the scholars like Frye and the Cambridge history series. This concept being purely cultural can not be changed to Greater Persia just because Persia=Iran. This is OR and SYNTH. 3. If you read the article you will see that Greater Persia is not only inequivalent to Greater Iran, also wrong. I hope you do not push the POV. Xashaiar (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You completely fail to understand me. I am not pushing any point of view, I am simply trying to help the reader who types in "Greater Persia" and gets "Greater Iran". You have offered nothing to that reader. You have repeatedly said that the two concepts are not identical but you have not explained why. I have read the article and it utterly fails to explain why some sources use the term "Greater Persia". You are wrong in thinking that I want to change "to Greater Persia just because Persia=Iran"... I do not wish to change anything. I wish instead to add some information to the article to help the reader. Binksternet (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course I fail to understand you: because what you say and revert does not make any sense. Where in your sources it is stated that "Greater Iran=Greater Persia"? where? It seems you have to read wp:nor and wp:rs and wp:synth. Xashaiar (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I see sources that discuss an ancient geographic region, naming regions, and calling it Greater Persia. Furthermore, I see one of these sources telling his readers he chooses to use the word 'Persia' just because he likes it. Where do you see that Greater Persia ≠ Greater Iran? When you find that bit, add it to the article.

Also, the various different names for a topic are typically put in the lead section on Wikipedia. At WP:LEAD, the guideline recommends putting alternate names in the first sentence, in boldface: "Most commonly, the article's subject is stated as early as possible in the first sentence, and placed in boldface ... If the subject of the page has ... more than one name, the ... additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance." Rather than just having "Greater Persia" down in the Definition section, it should be added to the first sentence, in boldface. The second appearance of the term does not need to be in bold. Binksternet (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article should appear like this:

Greater Iran (in Persian: ایران بزرگ Irān-e Bozorg, or ایران‌زمین Irānzamīn "Iranian soil"; also known as Greater Persia or Iranian Cultural Continent) refers to the regions that have significant Iranian cultural influence.

After their first appearance, the terms in bold can be explained in the article body. The "Iranian Cultural Continent" can be described as coming from its source encyclopedia, and "Greater Persia" can be described as a term sometimes used in English to mean the same thing as Greater Iran. Binksternet (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:lead does not support addition of Greater Persia in the lead. Because you must present me wp:RS supporting your addition (that Greater Persia is the same as Greater Iran) because so far you are violating what wikipedia says no to:Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. You have given sources that use the term Greater Persia. So what? Greater Iran includes most of central asia while Greater Persia excludes some. We can not include Greater Persia in the lead because Greater Persia is not Greater Iran. If you find sources like OED making such claims then we can add that. Xashaiar (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Xashaiar.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

And yet, you are willing to take these supposedly SYNTHETIC and UNRELIABLE sources and put them in the article? Very odd. Why would the article and the lead section be held to different standards? More to the point, why have you not found a source that defines "Greater Persia" in a way that satisfies the reader who was searching for that term? I believe I know the reason: that there are no sources which discuss the term except the ones I have provided. None say "Greater Persia" ≠ "Greater Iran", and the ones I supplied use the terms interchangeably. So, in the absence of a good, solid definition from any source, we are left with the sources I brought here, even though they are not ideal. Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You answered yourself. Th wrong and POV concept Greater persia is found only in a few (weak) sources.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorrrrrrrrrry ?! "weak" sources?! publications of Cambridge University Press' publications are among the weak sources in your opinion?! --Shayan7 (talk) --Shayan7 14:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

New info without source

This information has been added to the entry without adding any source. It seems more a "personal view" on the subject.

["greater Persia" is common in English] Because the concept is a cultural one, representing regions settled by Iranian tribes, it does not correspond to any particular political entity, and—because it represents a late Bronze Age dispersion—predates such political entities by many centuries. For the Sassanids, in whose 3rd century inscriptions the term 'Iran' first appears as a political concept, the multinational Iranian state included Asia Minor but excluded territories east of the two Iranian salt desert basins. This situation is however reversed in the cultural context, i.e. that of the Iranian nation.

As far as it has been mentioned in all encyclopedias and historical/geographical documents, in Western languages, Iran was called "Persia" since 6th century BC until 1935. This article also is an "English" article. Yes in Sassanian period, the name "Iran" was appeared in the texts, but in the Persian texts, not Western texts. So using this example in not right here.

It's much more better that we (as a neutral source) present what is a "fact" and leave our personal ideas for our own articles. I mean, not adding descriptions to the entries which there is no source for that. --Shayan7 16:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Not new! That paragraph has been in the article since User:Fullstop added it here on 5 September 2008. In the discussion topic Talk:Greater Iran#state versus nation (administration versus culture), Fullstop says "I will try to make the distinction between nation and state even clearer by an addition of a second lead paragraph." I gather that he was trying to summarize the article in this paragraph, trying to tie together the definitions of Patrick Clawson and Richard Nelson Frye. Would you reconsider the deletion of that paragraph, or would you consider rewriting it? Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet, thanks for your note. I think it should be removed. There is no sound document for that claim and also it's more close to a personal view to the metter, not a fact. No clear source source has been mentioned either. Meanwhile as I mentioned in the previous note, based on various documents, maps, etc. in Western languages Persia = Iran. As a short and general but clear information about the title "Greater Persia" or "Great Iran" the current info is fine. Thanks again for your attention. Shayan7 (talk) --Shayan7 08:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

stop it!

I advise Shayan 7 (Pejmen Akbarzadeh) and other associates with radio Zamaneh stop vandalizing all Iranian-related articles. Iran has been Iran since the Sasanid time. Take it or leave it. I know you get discriminated in the Netherlands if you say you are from Iran, but this has nothing to do with wikipedia.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Babakexorramdin, You stop it and please be polite. My name is not Pejman Akbarzadeh but I know RZ team. As far as I know none of us has been discriminated in the Netherlands. It's a quite safe and nice country for foreigner. Please stop accusing and insulting people and countries. I did not Vandaliza Iran-related articles. It seems you have a personal problem with the name "Persia". yes, "Iran" has been the name of this country since Sassian era in "certain" historical periods. I really advise you to study the history of the name in Mohammad Ajam's book which has been recently published in Tehran. Meanwhile we are now in Wikipedia ENGLISH section. In Western languages it has been Persia since 6th century BC until 1935 officially and still is popular in some contexts. Please accept the historical facts instead of writing such notes for active users. --Shayan7 (talk)--Shayan7 12:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It is Iran. Ok? That is the name used by the United Nation. That is the name used from the Sasanid Times. And not only in certain sources. Go read a few history books. And good for you that you do not get discriminated in the Netherlands. Of course you are happy that the netherlands has offered unqualified people a job in Radio Zamaneh.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

GP should not be mentioned

Some editors are adding certain sources in support of the claim "Greater Iran is also referred to as Greater Persia". None of these source state that. It is Original Research to use these sources which do use the term Greater Persia to support a completely different claim that Greater Persia = Greater Iran in these sources. I would like to see English language reliable sources which states explicitly that "Greater Iran is also referred to as Greater Persia". My revert is because of do not add or claim whatever that is not explicitly stated by the sources you use. Xashaiar (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually read the sources you are deleting and rejecting?! They are pretty clear about what "Greater Persia" means. Although I support your view that "Greater Iran" is the correct term, your stubborn opposition to even mentioning the expression "Greater Persia" in the article (despite its doubtless use in Western literature) is totally contra-productive. Your reference to WP:OR only proves that you have neither read or understood the sources nor the point of why the expression should be mentioned in the lead. "Persia" in Western languages is used as a synonym for "Iran". This may be right or wrong, but it is irrelevant because it is as it is (the same way Iranians and Persian-speakers call Greeks "Yūnānī" and the same way English-speakers call Germans "German" and not "Deutsch") Tajik (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I want a source that supports your claim that Greater Persia is the same as Greater Iran, so that the sentence "Greater Iran is also referred to as Greater Persia" can be put in the lead per wp:lead. The sources use Greater Persia in their discussions. So what? Xashaiar (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, your argument is irrelevant. Secondly, if you want to be consequent, then please also remove the reference to Iranica, because it is just an article that uses the term "Iranian Cultural Continent" and nowhere does it state that it is the same as "Greater Iran". Secondly, in of the sources that you have deleted, it uses the expression "Greater Persia/Iran", making clear that it is used as a synonym. That should not be any surprise, because in Western languages, "Persia" is used synonymously for "Iran". And I just want to remind you that maybe 90% of this article is WP:OR because old poems etc. are used to make this article look encyclopedic. Tajik (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) FWIW: "Greater Persia" and "Greater Iran" are not synonyms. 'Greater Persia' is a geo-political concept, approximately equivalent to present-day Iran (= the Caliphate province of 'Iraq-e Ajami'), and stands in contradistinction to 'Persia proper'. 'Greater Iran', on the other hand, is a cultural concept for regions traditionally inhabited by Iranian-language speaking peoples. Greater Persia represents only the western portion of Greater Iran (but also not including the Kurdish bits of Mesopotamia).

Of course, in modern times Iranian emmigrants living overseas insist on being called "Persians" to distinguish themselves from the Mullahs and all that. But that is not what the field of Iranian studies does, and Wikipedia shouldn't be doing it either.

As for the claim that "in Western languages, 'Persia' is used synonymously for 'Iran'", well, that only holds true for those who don't know any better. But even if it were true generally, the pseudo-synonymy does not also transfer to 'Greater Persia' and 'Greater Iran'.

Its probably a good thing that the "significant Iranian cultural influence" silliness identifies this article as being written by naive/uninformed children who obviously haven't even read the sources they "cite". :) That way, readers are less likely to take the other childishness seriously. Almost funny if it weren't also so darn sad. -- 77.183.176.231 (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Why all the Discussions?

The problem we have here is because of three different phenomena: 1) Iranian nationals who think of this article as something which only serves their racial dominance. I think that's why we have not distinctively defined the difference between the "Greater Iran" and "Iranian Cultural Continent". This article is not about a race or a country, it's about a culture, which still exists among central Asians, Iraqis and Turkish people. So I suggest for it title to be changed to "Iranian Cultural Continent" as some have already suggested. 2) Many people here are not aware of the distinction between "Persian People" and "Iranian People". And many many others are not aware of the difference between being among the "Iranian People" and practicing "Iranian Culture"-al elements. As an example, kurds are an Iranian People, so anything identified with them, is directly an aspect of the Iranian culture. On the other hand, the very many concepts in the Turkish or central asian music are originally Iranian, although those who use them today are not. That's the definition of the Iranian Cultural Continent. 3) Intellectuals in arab, turkish and afghan societies tend to downplay the influence of Iranian culture and completely dismiss it's importance. I think that it's best exhibited among Turks, which are champions in forgetting their past and overstating their turkish heritage. They deny their mostly anatolian ancestry, they deny the great number of Iranian people living within their territory, the influence of Persian on their language, and anybody who knows how they take care of monuments and archeological sites knows that Greek, Byzantines, Phrygian, Persian and Armenian sites receive less care than their Ottoman counterparts (regardless of how ancient they are). This goes to the extremes, one account being the recent dam constructions in Turkey which virtually made great sites inaccessible forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazratemahmood (talk • contribs) 10:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Georgia

It is such nonsense to say that Georgia is part of Greater Iran just because it was under its control for a period of time. Georgia has nothing in common with Iran, language, ethnic origin, or culture. If being conquered counts then it is also part of "Greater Byzantium/Greece" which one must admit had a more profound effect on its culture than anything. And Eastern Georgia was not "historically attached to the south for support." In fact, eastern Georgia was so fed up with fighting off the invading Persians that they voluntarily signed the Treaty of Georgievsk which was used by Russia as a pretext for annexing the lands. King Erekle (Heraclius) II of Eastern Georgia did this because he thought that although losing sovereignty was bad, being part of the Christian world would save the Georgian culture from imminent destruction.--141.161.58.224 (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• That maybe be thee case, but you should seek some consensus on the discussion page, before going on a deletion binge. Also, registering an account on Wikipedia is not required, but considered good form. The Scythian 04:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess Georgia is mentioned because it has had influence on Iranian culture and vise versa. there are Some Iranian Georgians.Pouyakhani (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Choresmia was part of Greater Khorasan

Choresmia was part of Greater Khorasan, also some sources claim Choresmia outside of Chorasan. But the fact that they are known as Iranians and not as Turanians and beeing follower of Zarathustra is one proof, Al-Biruni self claimed Choresmians as a branch of Persian and part of Greater Iran in Greater Khorasan. Interestingly, Sogdia, which is undoubtly part of historical Khorasan and a centre of Iranian identity, specially after the islamic conquest, was known for many centuries as Land of Turanians. Please, correct some of your claims. --84.59.184.224 (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Consider Deleting

So any areas conquered through military force by Persia at one point in time or another become part of greater Iran? This article seems to be flawed on many levels. Let's take for example Iraq. It was ruled by the Ottomans for much longer than the Persians, so does it become part of greater Turkey? The Greeks through Alexander the Great ruled the entire area including Persia, so should the entire Near East become part of greater Greece?

How about the Arabs. They ruled Persia for hundreds of years. It is Arab culture that is today dominant in Iran from peoples names, to influence on language, script, etc. Does Iran become part of greater Arabia?

This article is ultranationilistic and racist in nature.

Please consider deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.67.184 (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

>>>This article is about a culture and a language.I am sure It is not about the race.DNA test may prove much of Middle_east population are indo-iranians but who cares? let's care about the culture which Iranian-people made in over 4000 years in this area. that is "greater Iran" --171.99.96.54 (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Quality of the edit made on 2014-02-09?

I've limited my editing to fixing a couple obvious errors introduced by this edit, but I have doubts about it's overall value. I'm far from an expert on the region (hence the limited edit of obvious problems), but the edit seems heavily biased toward placing Iraq as the center of Greater Iran. I also have doubts about the multiple large scale deletions of referenced information. Lastly, some of the additions made could use editing to make them flow better. Jelloman (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan

Why are Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan included in Greater Iran? They speak Turkic languages. --Vitzque (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

If you had read the article you would understand why they are included. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Retain this article but identify it for what it is

This article should be retained as an example of the ultranationalism/ethnocentristic egoism that pervades some national and/or ethnic groups. The concept of a "Greater Iran" is in line with the concept under Hitler and the Nazis and other German ultranationalists going back to the 19th century that any land touched by German feet or influenced in any way by German culture was a part of "Greater Germany", to be reclaimed and ruled by Germans for Germans. Other examples that have created wars and political/economic/social unrest are "Greater Russia", "Greater Serbia", I also find it interesting that an article on the distribution of Iranian culture uses the later Persian language with Arabic text as the visual representation of a langauage imported into the area now called Iran by the Sassanid Persians and heavily impacted over time by Turkish and Arabic influences. Of course, Iran should really be part of a "Greater Arabia" given that the surge of Arab tribes in the "Great Jihad" destroyed the Sassanid Empire and converted the area to a non-Iranian religion, Islam, which uses Arabic langauge and text as its ecumenical device for communicating the word of God (Allah). The idea that there is a single continuous cultural, political and social heritage between the Persia of Darius and Xerxes and the Parthians and the Sassanid Persians and the Islamic caliphates ruled from Quom and Teheran is as ridiculous as the parade of the "Persian Army" put on by the Shah back in the 1970s.Exltcmts (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Persia adopting Iran as its new name

Khajidha removed the reference to Persia adopting Iran as its new name in 1935 creating a missing link and misinformation in the article. At this point, the article lists all the countries which were part of Greater Iran but Iran. The information is clear enough but he/she thinks that the text implies that Reza Shah named the region of "Greater Iran" to "Iran" which even a layman can understand that that is not the case. I tried my best to adjust the text to clarify it further from the original text but it seemed unsatisfactory to him/her. So, i am opening this thread as i disagree with current state of the article with that information removed. Sheriff | report | 19:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the cultural region of Greater Iran, it even mentions that "The term Iran is not limited to the modern state of Iran", so any mention of Iran without previous disambiguation will be understood as referring to the region. The country of Iran could be linked in the second occurrence of the word in the previously mentioned sentence. However, I fail to see how the official name of the modern state is relevant enough for the change to be mentioned in this article. --Khajidha (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Please make the proposed change the way you are suggesting it instead of completely removing it. The mention of present day country is relevant as it derives the same name and was an important part of the "Greater Iran" region. It is definitely encyclopedic to mention that. Sheriff | report | 20:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Khajidha: I will suggest that you stop edit-warring and revert yourself since you just reverted another editor LouisAragon over same content. That was a majority point of view and you should accept it. I also invited you to make the change in the text the way you want it but it seems that you are unwilling to do that and instead want to continue with your edit-warring by removing the text altogether and that also at the same time when a discussion is already open. Sheriff | report | 21:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, let's start with this sentence: "The Turkmanchey Treaty of 1828, after the Russo-Persian War (1826-1828) permanently severed the Caucasian provinces from Iran, which had made part of its concept for centuries,[16] and forced Iran to cede modern-day Armenia, Azerbaijan and minor parts of Eastern Turkey, and settled the modern boundary along the Aras River.[17]" Can someone explain to me why it is necessary to mention the "Caucasian provinces" collectively AND "Armenia, Azerbaijan and minor parts of Eastern Turkey" individually? Aren't those last three included in the Caucasus? The phrase "which had made part of its concept for centuries" is rather poorly worded, I am not sure what point is trying to be made here. --Khajidha (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The text adds encyclopedic value as it describes that modern-day Armenia, Azerbaijan and minor parts of Eastern Turkey were those Caucasian provinces which Iran had to cede in result of the treaty and that they were part of its concept for centuries and now permanently severed from it. The additional text does add encyclopedic value. Sheriff | report | 18:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Then the English of the sentence is poor, it should be rephrased and condensed. Something like "After the Russo-Persion War (1826-1828), the Turkmanchey Treaty of 1828 ended centuries of Iranian control of the Caucasian provinces (including modern-day Armenia, Azerbaijan and parts of eastern Turkey) and set the modern boundary along the Aras River." --Khajidha (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed and thank you for your suggestion. Sheriff | report | 18:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Georgia and Armenia

Different parts of Georgia have been under the influence and/or rule of various empires for centuries and Georgia cannot be considered part of "Greater Iran" any more than it is a part of Greater Russia, "Greater Turkey", "Greater Mongolia", or any other type of neo-imperialistic construct one may think of. Georgia shares no language, no religion and no ethnic ties with Iran. The only reason there are even Georgians living in Iran is because they were moved there by brutal Iranian rulers as part of an effort to weaken and subjugate Georgia.

Besides Iran, for centuries Georgians were under the influence and/or rule of Arabs, and Romans , and Khazars, and Ottomans, and Mongols, and Russians ...So how does Iranian influence give it ownership of Georgia as part of the Iranian world, particularly when they are so many other powers that had comparable influence? Why "Greater Iran" and not "Greater Turkey" or "Greater Greece"? After all, cities on the entire coast of Western Georgia were founded as Greek colonies.

Worst of all, this nebulous neo-imperialistic article is not adequately sourced. In fact, the Georgian section is not sourced at all and it is just bla bla bla that someone concocted off the top of his head to make Georgia seem little more than an Iranian province. Such content should be challenged and removed.--Damianmx (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC) <-- CU blocked sock of User:Satt 2

Same concerns Armenia, they have been changing hands for millenia, they nevertheless remain a distinct ethno-linguistic, religious and cultural entity. No nation can claim them as their own, and certainly not Iran.--Damianmx (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC) <-- CU blocked sock of User:Satt 2

Equating Iran's millenia old ties (historical/cultural/ethnical) with Georgia with that of the Mongols' (or Khazars', etc) mass destruction and 0.0% cultural heritage left-over in Georgia simply proves again that you have either absolutely no sense regarding Georgian history, or you're simply posing a feigned ignorance to push your WP:JDL concerns. Please stop with your highly disruptive editorial pattern. Numerous people have pointed you out on it. Everytime you're baffled on talk pages by numerous uers you simply stop responding to the people in question, making them have to go through the same nuisansical cycle again with you. (Note that this user almost always targets ties with Georgia and Iran only, for how much his actual "concerns" regarding unsourced material and actual article quality go). - LouisAragon (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at this talk page, it is riddled with similar problems that have been raised over the course of years and yet the article is still a poorly sourced Pan-Iranian imperialistic propaganda. This material had to be sourced before it was inserted, not after. Unsourced material should be challenged and removed.

Your insistence that Persia is somehow more special than Turks or Mongols is just another confirmation of your narrow Iranian worldview. The notion that Persia exported culture but others merely caused destruction is an arrogant and factually unfounded opinion. Persians did a great amount of pillaging, massacring and destruction and nothing makes it "better" or more related to Georgia than any other conqueror that has crossed their path.

Lastly, since you love to use Wikipedia jargon and legalese, how about you read WP:Original Research. Even if you were to somehow source individual leap-of-faith assertions made about Georgia or Armenia on this page, this selective synthesis would still remain nothing more than Pan-Iranian original research. Anyone could concoct a page like this for any country if they put together enough scraps of disparate information. --Damianmx (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC) <-- CU blocked sock of User:Satt 2

So, what's your point here? Are you saying that Georgia and Armenia were never part of Greater Iran? Or you are saying that since they remain under similar influence by Greater Russia, Greater Turkey and Greater Mongolia thus it doesn't warrant to mention them here? As for sources I think we should cn tag that content and give folks an opportunity to source it instead of removing whole sections after whole sections of information. I see that content was never cn tagged before. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

What I am saying is that "Greater Iran", as this article is written, has a connotation of the type of ethno-cultural, linguistic and historical ownership that in this case simply does not exist. Whatever influence Iran exerted over Georgia in the times of its vassalage does not make the country part of the Iranian world. It is arrogant and presumptuous to think that somehow Iran's influence in Georgia was definitive, more so than everyone else's, which is what is being suggested here.

As for cn notations, I see in the article history that they were periodically placed but somehow always ended up disappearing. In any case, does one need to draw a red arrow for someone to notice that entire paragraphs and sections are unsourced or mostly unsourced? Is it not clear from this talk page alone that the mere existence of this article has been fraught with serious problems, such as Pan-Iranian original research, allegations of ultra-nationalism and lack of sources? I think you all know well the type of controversial information you have included in this article, you were just ducking your heads to see how long this was going to stick. --Damianmx (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC) <-- CU blocked sock of User:Satt 2

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greater Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101024033230/http://www.iran-heritage.org/interestgroups/language-article5.htm to http://www.iran-heritage.org/interestgroups/language-article5.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Maps of older empires

It might be worth noting in the captions that the maps are of the empires at their greatest extent, rather than there typical extent. In some cases the difference is minor, but in others the difference is significant. In the case of the Sassanid Empire, for example, the maximum extent is substantially larger than the territory the empire usually held and the maximum was only obtained for about 20 years in the middle of a war. So it's a poor indication of where Iranian cultural influence is strong. I'm not saying it is necessarily inappropriate to show the empires at their peak, just that it should be clearly indicated that that is what is being done. This might offset some of the other criticisms of the page in the talk section that the page is an Iranian nationalistic project. That said, I'm reluctant to make the changes myself for fear of setting off an edit war (28 Nov 2017). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.96.28.47 (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Greater Iran

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Greater Iran's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Gignoux_Aneran":

• From Name of Iran: Gignoux, Phillipe (1987). "Anērān". Encyclopedia Iranica. Vol. 2. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul. pp. 30–31.
• From Iran (word): Gignoux, Phillipe (1987), "Anērān", Encyclopedia Iranica, vol. 2, New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 30–31.
• From Aniran: "Anērān" at Encyclopædia Iranica

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Greater Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130311105340/http://tehrantimes.com/economy-and-business/104757-iraq-plans-to-send-200-member-trade-delegation-to-iran to http://www.tehrantimes.com/economy-and-business/104757-iraq-plans-to-send-200-member-trade-delegation-to-iran
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229191502/http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=543750 to http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=543750
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.iranicaonline.org/newsite/index.isc?Article=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iranica.com%2Fnewsite%2Farticles%2Funicode%2Fv9f5%2Fv9f553c.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.iranicaonline.org/newsite/articles/ot_grp8/ot_kulab_20050727.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Maps

Western Georgia was never part of the Afsharid or Qajar empire. 149.3.83.160 (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Article name

The article should be changed from Greater Iran to Greater Persia. Arianam or Ariana is not refered to Persis. The region in Avesta is modern day Afghanistan, easter Iran and southern Transoxiana. The article is not neutral and hangs around history of Persia. Aceditor00 (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC) https://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/airyanavaeja.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceditor00 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what is trying to be argued here. The link seems to be a blog, i.e. not WP:RS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion !

The Iranian world should be mentioned , it sound more fitting describe and in conjunction with Arab world . 188.70.10.192 (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)