Misplaced Pages

Talk:Persian Empire (dynasty): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:30, 23 August 2009 editOttava Rima (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,327 edits →Redirect to History of Iran← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:45, 27 December 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,676,332 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. (Fix Category:WikiProject banners with redundant class parameter)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(714 intermediate revisions by 46 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skiptotoctalk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talkheader}} {{Talk header}}
{{Article history
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC |action1=FAC
|action1date=23:03, 12 February 2006 |action1date=23:03, 12 February 2006
Line 8: Line 8:
|action1oldid=39402621 |action1oldid=39402621
|currentstatus=FFAC |currentstatus=FFAC
|otd1date=2005-03-21|otd1oldid=16334947
|otd2date=2006-03-21|otd2oldid=44755449
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Iran|class=C|importance=top|nested=yes}} {{WikiProject Former countries}}
}}
{{WikiProject Afghanistan|class=C |nested=yes}}
{{split article|from=Persian Empire (dynasty)|to=|diff=|date=}}
{{WikiProject Zoroastrianism|class=C|importance=mid}}
{{Good Job|"Robust, well-linked introduction" — '''Sunday Times''' (London), 4 September, 2005}}{{Archive box|search=yes|
{{WikiProject Central Asia| ... | class=C | importance=high |nested=yes}}
* ] <small>(Sept 2005–Nov 2008)</small>
{{WPFC|class=C |nested=yes}}
* ] <small>(August 2009)</small>
* ] <small>(Aug–September 2009)</small>
}} }}
{{FAOL|German|de:Persiske riket}}
{{Good Job|"Robust, well-linked introduction" &mdash; '''Sunday Times''' (London), 4 September, 2005}}
{{WPCD}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2005-03-21|oldid1=16334947|date2=2006-03-21|oldid2=44755449}}

{{Archive box|]}}

__TOC__ __TOC__
{{Clear}}


== RfC: What should this page be? ==
==Cleanup==
{{see|Talk:Persian_Empire/workpage}}
This page has just been sitting here tagged with cleanup tags for years.
Problem: Editors are warring over the content of this pagename ({{noredirect|Persian Empire}})... the most likely choices are restoration of the pre-battle 60k article, conversion to a smaller article, turn this into a disambiguation page (see ]) , or redirect it to another article. Please note, there is a related ] requested move for the ] (see ])
] should cover the period 1925 to present. This article should be renamed ] and cover the period of 600 BC to 1925, plus a "prehistory / early history" section.
] can either redirect to ] or it can be a disambiguation page. --] <small>]</small> 14:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
:I tend to disagree (not that I have the time or the inclination to do any work on this). The whole history of Iran/Persia should be under the "History of Iran", per the ''Cambridge History of Iran'' (and other works such as Michael Axworthy's recent ''Empire of the Mind: A History of Iran''). "Persia" is slightly outdated. (Only the Achaemenid and Sassanid empires were Persian in every sense of the word). --] (]) 14:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
::I agree with Folantin (the whole history of Iran should be in ] and ] should be redirected to that). About this page ''Persian Empire'', it's better to convert it to a disambiguation page. ] (]) 17:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find any useful material in this page which not already covered in ], ] or ]. ] (]) 16:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
: But this isn't a ] page -- there aren't separate and distinct things that just coincidentally happen to all be called the "Persian Empire"; rather, there is a historical succession of different states within the same (or similar) territory and culture that have a clear relationship to each other. Can't this be formatted as a ] article rather than having a misleading {{tl|disambig}} tag? --] (] Russ) 09:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::There should be more here to explain the various meanings of the phrase "Persian Empire", but the summary article already exists: ]. "Persian Empire" applies to several states, but the history wasn't continuous. I suppose what most people in the West regard as ''the'' ancient Persian Empire is the Achaemenid Empire, but that was destroyed in the 4th century BC, to be followed by the Graeco-Macedonian Seleucid Empire and then the Parthian Arsacid Empire (Iranian, not Persian - although Roman writers often referred to the Parthians as Persians). The next genuinely Persian empire, the Sassanids, only emerged in the 3rd century AD. That was destroyed by the Islamic conquests of the 7th century, then you have to wait until the 16th before you have the Safavids founding a new "Persian Empire" in Iran. After that, it's more or less much continuous (through the Afsharids, Zands, Qajars and Pahlavis) down to the Islamic Revolution of 1979. But this is best covered in summary style by the "History of Iran" article. --] (]) 10:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:::If that's the case, this should simply redirect to the ] article. I'm going to have to agree with Russ here that having a disambiguation page isn't helpful, in that it doesn't distinguish between different things individually referred to as "the Persian Empire". Most cases searches and links intend the various incarnations as a group (≈the history of Iran). ]<small>]</small> 13:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ummm i think these articles should be restored to their previous state until there is full agreement on what should happen. There seems to be well over 2000 links to this disam page now which will need sorting out. ] (]) 14:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:Not really. The previous article was a dreadful fork of the ] article. I think this page should be a short summary of the different meanings of the concept "Persian Empire" (somewhat similar to the ] page). Looking at some of the links here, it's obvious people have been confusing the whole history of Iran and the "Persian Empire", e.g. ] (there was no Persian Empire at this point of the Middle Ages). Those links need to be redirected to the specific Iranian empire they refer to or simply to the ] article. --] (]) 15:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:: The Bulgarian example looks pretty good, that would certainly be better than this current disam page. ] (]) 15:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
There isn't anything such as "first Persian empire" and "second Persian empire" (you won't find it in academic papers or books related to the history of Iran, and Misplaced Pages is not the right place to introduce such terms). "Persian empire" is a term that mostly refers to "Achaemenid empire" and to a lesser extent to the "Sassanid empire" and also occasionally is used by some authors to refer to '''Persia''' (in the sense of ''Historic Iran''). So, this page should be a disambiguation page. I'm totally against making this page like ]. ] (]) 16:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Yes, I know that, which is why I wrote "somewhat similar" rather than "identical". In the strictest sense, "Persian Empire" only applies to the Achaemenids and the Sassanids but it is often applied to the Arsacids as well as every dynasty from the Safavids to the Pahlavis. This page should explain that. --] (]) 16:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::::I attempted to write a stub, since no one replied to my suggestion that a simple redirect to ] would be the best solution. I am not trying to imply that this is the best possible writeup. Please feel free to take a red pen to it; but it is still better than a disambiguation page, since there is no particular empire to disambiguate to in most cases. ]<small>]</small> 16:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::I think that in this case, a disambiguation page (ordered by the frequency of relevant usage in English texts) is much better than a summary which is based on original research. If you want to have a summary page on this subject, it should be directly based on reliable sources, not personal interpretations. About your statement that "''there is no particular empire to disambiguate to in most cases''", there is indeed. "Persian empire" is primarily used to refer to Achaemenid and Sassanid empires (for referring to history of Persia in general, this term is only occasionally used, and is not common). We should look at the common usage in English books and academic articles, not the current usage in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 17:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::The disambiguation page as it stands is not ordered by the frequency of relevant usage in English texts as far as I can tell (is that your personal interpretation?). What's most clear is that this disambiguation page is nearly useless to the end user, and for for the purposes of navigation that disambiguation pages are meant to address. How does this page help the reader choose an article? (a) the previous article, despite its faults, (b) a redirect to ], and (c) a summary page all serve that purpose better. ]<small>]</small> 17:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:As you've so far insisted on reverting to the disambiguation page and you say that the links can be disambiguated, I suggest you take a look at ]: "A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links." It is also suggested that this be done before creating the disambiguation page. Anyway, there are about 1800 links to go. Three users who work on disambiguation have commented here thus far, and all of them have objected to this dab on the grounds that it doesn't assist navigation. Can you prove us wrong? ]<small>]</small> 17:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:: For those 1800 pages, the disambiguation page that I created works better than and is also at least as good as in disambiguating the term and guiding those who click on this link to the relevant page. Avoiding a disambiguation page is not a good reason for "original research". ] (]) 17:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:::The disambiguation page does not do anything for those 1800 pages–they are meant to be linked to applicable articles, and a disambiguation page is not an article. If this is a disambiguation page, the links all need to be altered. And there is nothing on the current disambiguation page to help the reader know which article is intended by the link he or she clicked on. That is a significant failing. Please note that I did not request my version remain intact. I only requested that the disambiguation page not return. ]<small>]</small> 17:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::::I think Dekimasu's stub was on the right lines. It can be modified if necessary. The disambiguation page was far too short and dry to be of any benefit to the general reader who wants to know what "Persian Empire" means. --] (]) 18:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::PS: A lot of those links are going to need fixing anyway. Too many people have assumed "Persian Empire" is a synonym for Iran (plus we have really crazy stuff like the ] selling arms to the Allies in World War One!). --] (]) 18:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

*] and ]. Italy is a territory. Rome is an Empire. The Persian Empire was made up of many, many dynasties with some being Afghani. Afghanistan is -not- Iran. It is its own territory. I find it amusing that Folantin decries that "Persian Empire" is seen as a "synonym for Iran", when she has been edit warring to push such a claim. However, that is what happens when you have such people that are here only to cause disruptions. A block should probably allow for people who actually care about Misplaced Pages to put a page in place. ] (]) 20:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:"Persian Empire" is not a synonym of Iran in an article on ]. You have shown no prior interest in this topic so please leave it alone. Otherwise people will simply assume you have some kind of vendetta against me. --] (]) 20:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::Vendetta? No, you are edit warring on two articles to promote your ignorance of the situation. Iran is a territory. It is also a country that was established in the modern period. When the Mongols attacked the Persian Empire, they did not limit themselves to Iran. And no prior knowledge? Look at the edits at the 18th century page. I -built- that page and I built every Persian related aspect of it. You are a troll and you should have been banned long ago. If you revert the Persian Empire to the stub again I will put you up for Edit Warring. ] (]) 20:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::And it is completely ridiculous and intellectually bankrupt for you to dare use an example against consensus. You have just become a POV pusher along with an edit warrer. You have a chance to revert all of your mass changes or I will put it up at ANI for such mass edit warring and POV pushing. ] (]) 20:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Go right ahead. Everybody else on this page has discussed this like an adult, whatever our intellectual and procedural disagreements. Now you appear out of the blue with threats of ANI and blocks. Obviously, it's nothing personal. You think there was an entity called the "Persian Empire" in the 13th century, do you? I'd be interested to know what it was called. Now you have restored a version of this page in which the Medes are apparently Persians. Genius. --] (]) 20:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::::Appear out of the blue? You are the one mass edit warring and changing pages inappropriately because you have some mistaken understanding of what an empire is versus what a territory is. Misplaced Pages is based on MoS structures and consensus precedent. It was already pointed out that the model is ] and ]. That was the model that this page followed already. You started edit warring and claiming that the Persian Empire didn't exist. ] (]) 20:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::No, you don't get it. I repeat, please tell me the name of the entity known as the "Persian Empire" in the time of Saint Louis. --] (]) 20:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::You do realize that an empire does not have to be continuous, yes? China did not have a continuous series of Empires. However, during that time the Mongols destroyed the Persian Empire. ]. However, the ] is a historian acknowledged dynasty of the Persian Empire. ] (]) 21:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I still prefer a disambiguation page. Nonetheless, Folantin's edition is still much better than the old crappy version of this page. ] (]) 20:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
: Good changes yes ] (]) 21:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:The old crappy version was the consensus version, and we have rules against page blanking, especially when there are citations of the text. ] (]) 21:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::I agree with Ottava Rima. The "old crappy version" was a featured article candidate, now it's not even close. Perhaps this page should be moved to Persian Empires, and then speak about the ], ], and ] Empires. ]] 21:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:::The right place to speak about the ] is in the page ] and the right place to speak about the ] is in the page ]. For other dynasties, the term "Persian empire" is not very common and for them, just briefly mentioning the occasional usage of the term is enough. ] (]) 21:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::(edit conflict) Um, its being a Featured Article candidate is completely meaningless. It's whether it passes FA that counts (or should count in an ideal world). Any page can be nominated, however bad. This one didn't get too many "Support" votes (unsurprisingly). The "old crappy version" was a pointless fork of the ] page, containing all kinds of howlers. The Medes were Persians? That's news to me. The Safavid dynasty began in 1500 and ended in 1722? I don't think so. It also managed to confuse the adjective "Iranian/Iranic" with "Persian", so every Islamic dynasty which had Iranic ethnic origins or a Persianate culture was magically transformed into a "Persian Empire". --] (]) 21:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:::History of Iran, like ], is about a territory, not an empire. Iran is not the Persian Empire. The Persian empire was one form of government that ruled over Iran at some point in time, just like Alexander's Empire and the Khan's Empire. Folantin, your membership in WikiProject Georgia and your history of user page proclamations of blatant POV makes it obvious that you are here pushing an agenda. You have already violated edit warring policies. ] (]) 21:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::::"My membership in WikiProject Georgia" makes me biased? LOL I'd forgotten I was even a member of that. That'd be why I argued that Shah Abbas' mother was Iranian not Georgian in the face of some persistent POV-pushing to the contrary. You're way out of your depth here. Take it to ANI if you want some drama. This really isn't the place per ]. You might want to refresh your acquaintance with our policies on ] before you do so. Or perhaps your own self-proclaimed ], especially this bit: "Instead of judging others, I should focus on issues...I should seek to be a peacemaker, and not an instigator. I should keep my mouth shut and open up my ears more often. - Ottava Rima". --] (]) 22:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::Labeling someone as a POV warrior is within Misplaced Pages standards, especially when you have made that apparently in some rather strong POV statements on your user page. Your edit warring, pushing for a one sided view, and inability to deal with scholarly standards is evident of the actions of people who are banned by Arbcom. WikiProject Georgia has a history of POV against both Russia and Persia, as both groups dominated the region over their history. This is the appropriate place to discuss your blanking of a encyclopedic page. ] (]) 22:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::Yet more baseless slander. This is the talk page for discussing "Persian Empire". Last time I looked I wasn't a Persian Empire. If you want to discuss me, the archived version of the jokes on my user page or my reasons for joining Project Georgia, then take it to ANI. --] (]) 07:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::You are involved in blanking the page. Saying that pointing it out is baseless slander is ridiculous. ] (]) 13:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

:(outdent)
:<nowiki>#</nowiki>1. Although I recognize the problem with the 1800 links, rephrasing a list as prose does not solve anything. Those 1800 ambiguous uses will continue to be ambiguous, regardless of how this page is phrased.
:<nowiki>#</nowiki>2. But the short-article has its advantages: it would ''inform'', and that is of course what an encyclopedia should do. The fact that there are 1800 ambiguous uses demonstrates how uninformed many editors are, and we obviously need to address that in the long run.
:I propose the following both-ways solution:
{{hidden|style=padding-left:4em;|headerstyle=font-weight:normal;text-align:left;indent-left:1em;width:45em;|contentstyle=font-size:90%;background-color:#eef|1='''**''' A) use a setindex instead of a disambig. B) provide an RS-based description for the entries. |2=
'''*** disclaimer: this is an example ***'''
----
'''Persian empire''' may refer to:
* The ] (''ca.'' 550 BCE&ndash;330 BCE) was ''the'' Persian empire, so named because its monarchs were from ], a region of southwestern Iran. It is also from this usage that the term "Persia" came to be a ''pars pro toto'' term for the western half of the Iranian plateau (and so also roughly corresponding to the present-day Republic of Iran).
* The ] (''ca.'' 224 CE&ndash;651 CE) was also a "Persian empire" in every sense of the word since the Sassanid monarchs were (like the Achaemenids) from Persia proper. Because the Sassanids allied themselves very closely to the Parthians, the Sassanid state was also described as "the empire of Persians and Parthians".
Less commonly, "Persian empire" may also refer to:
* The ] (''ca.'' 248 BCE&ndash;224 CE), whose monarchs &ndash; though not Persians in any ethnic sense &ndash; claimed to descend from <!-- one of the -->the Achaemenid Artaxerxes (the term "Arsacid" is itself a variation of "Artaxerxes").
* The five modern-era Islamic kingdoms that ruled from 1501 to 1979: the ]s (1501–1722), ]s (1736–1750), ]s (1750–1794), ]s (1781–1925) and ]s (1925-1979). These five states are sometimes referred to as "Persian" kingdoms because their centers of power lay in the western half of the Iranian plateau.
{{tl|SIA}}
}}
:Together, these would address the usability issues pointed out by Dekimasu (17:17, 21 August 2009) and simultaneously address the accuracy issues noted by Folantin and Alefbe. How about it? -- ] (]) 22:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::Good job. I could live with that with just a few changes in the tone of the language (it's a bit too colloquial as is). --] (]) 22:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::What Fullstop was exactly what I meant, a link to the empire with a little description. ]] 22:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:Fullstop, the above is not appropriate. The Persian Empire does not refer to Sassanids or Arsacids or anyone else. The Persian Empire refers to a series of dynasties. Please see: , , , , , etc. There are over 30 of these dynasties. ] (]) 22:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::No, you're mistaken. Such concoctions (either on WP per the examples, or on the web in general) are expressions of the post-1979 exile Iranian desire to distance themselves from the name "Iran" because of the stigmatic associations with fundamentalism etc, and because those uninformed children get a romanticized version of a remote past drilled into them. Although their use of "Persian" is condonable when it serves as a less threatening political identity for them ''personally'', their heartache is not something we need (or ought) to take into account here. What we need to do is stick to the precise scientific terms employed in academic discourse. -- ] (]) 23:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Where did you pull that bs from? Seriously. Historians and mainstream individuals have declared the above dynasties as part of the Persian Empire for hundreds of years. Even Gibbon refers to them as such. Post 79 exiles? ] was not a post 79 exile. Fullstop, you have revealed yourself to a POV warrior who lacks any academic integrity. I suggest you back away from this article immediately. The "Persian Empire" refers to a series of dynasties between 600 AD until the Ottoman Conquest. No more, no less. ] (]) 23:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::::Given comments like that, it seems highly unlikely that you are in a position to ascertain my academic integrity. But you are free to bang your head on the wall all you like. But please do that at a blog or newsgroup or whatever. Thanks. -- ] (]) 00:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Fullstop, please explain how a word used post 1930 to describe a territory can accurately label something that ended 100 years before? ] (]) 00:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::::You'r speaking in riddles. What word was used post 1930, and what ended 100 years before? -- ] (]) 00:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::There are no riddles. This page claims that the "Persian Empire" are two different empires that existed before the "Persian Empire" existed. The Persian Empire was the series of dynasties following 600 AD. I already linked many of those dynasties above. Please look at the previous page and you will see that each of the dynasties was given a section. The removal of those dynasties is a serious case of blanking, which is a type of vandalism. To say that those pages are not part of the Persian Empire is not only going again 99.99% of historians and academics, but completely illogical and a violation of NPOV, V, and Fringe. I suggest this nonsense end immediately. Restore the page and improve the language. Anything less than having every single one of those dynasties listed with summaries of their pages is completely unacceptable. ] (]) 02:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::::Ottava's right, I think, after reading over this. There were many dynasties in the Persian Empire, to lump it as Iranian history would be like lumping the Roman Empire into Italy's history. ] 00:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::I don't get it. The appropriate analogy would be "Roman empire is named after Rome, as Persian empire is named after Persis". -- ] (]) 00:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::Persia was the name of the territory before 1935. The term "Iran" was created then in the same way the term "Italy" was created with its unification. Before then, it was a loosely defined region. The "Persian Empire" was about 1300 years worth of on and off dynasties that ruled over a government that was centered in the region. The land included Persia, Afghanistan, parts of Iraq, and other countries in the same way the Roman Empire included France, Spain, parts of Germany, etc. The term was used by histories long before the 1900s and is the official term for the series of dynasties. ] (]) 02:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Actually, the term Iran was used in the ] and the empire's name according to Sassanian records is '''Iran'''shah or Eranshah. Nothing about Persia. Persia and Persians was a term given by the hellenistic states. I don't think the then unified hellenistic states of Greece considered the Arabs Persian, but rather Arabs. However, concering what Reza Shah did, he simply asked to remove the name of Persia and ''only'' use the term Iran. That does ''not'' mean it was not used before 1930's. ]] 03:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Where did you get that from? Seriously, where? Not only did the Sassanids use a completely different character system than English, it was different from the modern Farsi that Iran comes from. Linguistically, there is no chance for you to even make that claim. Furthermore, as I stated above, the Persian Empire was the 30 or so dynasties between 600 AD and 1800 AD. Mentioning the Sassanids at all shows that you don't understand what you are talking about. ] (]) 13:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::What in the world is the basis for this nonsense you keep spouting? The Achaemenid and Sassanian empires are both very commonly called the "Persian Empire." Your buddy Gibbon calls the Sassanids that. The dynasties from the Safavids through the Pahlavis might occasionally be called the Persian empire, but not very frequently - the state they ruled is usually just called "Persia." The Islamic dynasties between the fall of the Sassanids and the rise of the Safavids, virtually none of which were of Iranian or Persian origin, are virtually never called the "Persian Empire." You have provided no evidence that they are, much less that it is incorrect to call the Achaemenids or Sassanid states the "Persian Empire." Furthermore, the term Italy was no more created in 1861 than the term "Iran" was created in 1935 - both are much older terms. And I don't see how the fact that the Sassanids used a different character system than English or modern Farsi has any relevance whatever - how does that disprove that they called their state "Iranshah" or "Eranshah"? ] (]) 02:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::Are you done making things up? Gibbon goes into great detail about Persia and their imperial state well into the fall of the Byzatine Empire. Also, the idea that "Iran" is an older term has already been destroyed as a lie propagated on this page - the language that it is supposed to come from has different phonetic alphabet than the modern Farsi the word "Iran" came out of. The two are very different. Furthermore, your argument complete ignores the 30 dynasties that were blanked from the page. Funny how that happens. You divert, make stuff up, and ignore the actual dispute. ] (]) 02:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Firstly, Gibbon is outdated and should not be seen as a reliable source on anything other than what eighteenth century people knew about. He's a great read, but not a useful source. Secondly, I have absolutely no idea what you're saying. Not that I disagree with you, but I don't understand this comment at all. How does having a different phonetic alphabet mean that the Sassanids cannot have called the state "Iran"? And I'm not ignoring any 30 dynasties. I said above that the states in Iran ruled by the dynasties between the fall of the Sassanids and the rise of the Safavids are virtually never referred to as "the Persian Empire." You seem to have no argument against this, except that Gibbon may have called them that 250 years ago. ] (]) 03:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::Outdent - John K, if you bothered to read the discussion before posting, you would have seen that Gibbon was used after someone declared that "Persian Empire" was a post 1979 term pushed by Iranian's with a "romanticized view of the past". The fact that you admit that you have no idea what I am saying is just proof that you shouldn't even be here. You couldn't bother to read the discussion, you have no clue what is being talked about, and you aren't contributing. What compelled you to post? "are virtually never referred" That right there is pure bollocks. Hell, most of those dynasties have references right at the tops of their pages saying that they are Persian imperial governments. The whole use of "dynasty" should have tipped you off. But yes, the previous Persian Empire page made it clear that historians, not you, not Folantin, or anyone else who has made it abundantly clear that you don't know the subject, primarily refer to the dynasties as Persian Empire because, surprise, that is the Persian Empire in its truest cultural self. ] (]) 03:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks!
:#<span style="color:green">You have shown no prior interest in this topic so please leave it alone. Otherwise people will simply assume you have some kind of vendetta against me.
:#I suggest you back away from this article immediately. </span>

All users have the right to speak and discuss. You cannot ask people to ''stop'' discussing or leave. (See ], ] ] for more information). ]] 03:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:The personal attacks started when Ottava Rima made the following comments: "I find it amusing that Folantin decries that 'Persian Empire' is seen as a 'synonym for Iran', when she has been edit warring to push such a claim. However, that is what happens when you have such people that are here only to cause disruptions." So I expect you to denounce that. --] (]) 07:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

::@Folantin/Warrior4321: be class acts please. DFTT. -- ] (]) 09:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:A personal attack deals with the aspects of the individual and not their editing style. Blanking the page and then making arguments that reveal a complete ignorance of the fact that the Persian Empire refers to a series of 30 dynasties falls under the term "trolling". Such individuals are blocked, instead of listened to. ] (]) 13:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::Perhaps Folantin isn't ignorant of the "fact" that the Persian Empire refers to a series of 30 dynasties. Perhaps, instead, that is not a fact at all, but merely a repeated and unsupported argument that you keep making? ] (]) 02:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
@Alefbe/@Dekimasu: what are your thoughts on the hybrid pseudo-disambig model?
<div>@Folantin: would you do the honors and write it in less coloquial language?</div> -- ] (]) 09:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::Actually, in the cold light of day I can't see much wrong with the language. It's just " was ''the'' Persian empire" that might need rephrasing. --] (]) 10:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:Fullstop, as Wizardman has agreed, the disambiguation model cannot be acceptable. Not only are the two pages that are linked -not- the Persian Empire, you are completely ignoring the 30 dynasties that are. ] (]) 13:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:As far as it goes, a set index page would be preferable to a disambiguation page in that the relevance of several of the constituent terms is being questioned, and it is acceptable to use citations on a set index, whereas that is generally discouraged as inappropriate content on a disambiguation page. In general, I am not opposed to any page except one that doesn't on some level deal with the term as something describing a unified set. ]<small>]</small> 15:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Potential rewrite: "The ] (''ca.'' 550 BCE&ndash;330 BCE) is the state most commonly referred to as the "Persian Empire" in the West. It was so named because its monarchs were from ], a region of southwestern Iran." It's not brilliant and I'm sure someone else can do better. --] (]) 14:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:Where did you get any of that from? Do you even have a source? And are you ignoring that these are what scholars call the Persian Empire - Tahirid dynasty 821–873, Alavid dynasty 864–928, Samanid dynasty 819–999, Saffarid dynasty 861–1003, Ziyarid dynasty 928–1043, Buyid dynasty 934–1055, Ghaznavid Empire 975–1187, Seljuk Empire 1037–1194, Ghori dynasty 1149–1212, Khwarezmid dynasty 1077–1231, Kartids dynasty 1231-1389, Ilkhanate 1256–1353, Muzaffarid dynasty 1314–1393, Chupanid dynasty 1337–1357, Jalayerid dynasty 1339–1432, Timurid Empire 1370–1506, Qara Qoyunlu Turcomans 1407–1468, Aq Qoyunlu Turcomans 1378–1508, Safavid Empire 1501–1722, Mughal Empire 1526–1857, Hotaki dynasty 1722–1729, and Afsharid dynasty 1736–1750. ] (]) 15:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Do you even have a source? It is incredibly rich that you keep on calling others ignorant without sources, while you keep on proclaiming nonsense as the revealed truth without having once given a source for any of it. And why are the Zand and Qajar dynasties excluded? The Zands were even, unlike the vast majority of your dynasties, actually of Iranian (Luri) origin. And the Safavids continued to rule until 1736. At any rate, it is up to ''you'' to provide sourcing that these various dynasties are ever referred to as the "Persian Empire." ] (]) 02:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::The Mughal Empire was a Persian Empire? LOL Perhaps it sacked itself in 1739. If every empire where Persian was spoken by the court and/or civil service is now going to be designated a Persian Empire why don't you add the British Empire while you're at it? IIRC Persian was the official language of the British Raj in India until the 1830s. --] (]) 21:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::You do know that the Roman Empire sacked cities of the Byzantine Empire, right? And that the Byzantine Empire was still part of the Roman Empire, right? Since when did one Empire have to be in control, or since when did Empires not have splits, political strife, or the rest? Have you even read a history book? Gibbon spends 8,000 pages on internal struggles and fights for power, separations of empires and divisions among dynasties. Yet here you are, acting as if you have a clue but don't.
:::Hell, read the first line of the damn page: "The Mughal Empire (Persian: شاهان مغول Shāhān-e Moġul; self-designation: گوركانى - Gūrkānī) was an Islamic and Persianate imperial power of the Indian subcontinent which began in 1526, ruled most of Hindustan (South Asia) by the late 17th and early 18th centuries, and ended in the mid-19th century." You disgust me with your academic dishonesty. ] (]) 23:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::::Again, what in the world are you talking about? the Roman Empire sacked cities of the Byzantine Empire? When? How? What on earth does this mean? The Roman Empire, at any rate, was a state which had institutional continuity from Augustus (or even, arguably, from the early Republic) down to the fall of Constantinople in 1453. There were civil wars, but they were, you know, civil wars, and recognized as such. By no reasonable standard is this comparable to Nadir Shah's invasion of India. Being "Persianate" does not qualify a dynasty to be referred to as the "Persian Empire." You are ridiculous and tendentious. ] (]) 02:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

== Blanked page ==

Following the consensus pattern for Empires, this page followed the pattern of ]. As such, it covered the 30 or so dynasties that were labelled the "Persian Empire" for hundreds of years. These dynasties spanned from 600 AD to 1800 AD. This cannot be covered in an disambiguation page. The "bold" was also done inappropriately. There are only a handful of people that are arguing for the disambiguation page and none have acknowledged the dynasties at all. Furthermore, no one bothered to notify the WikiProjects before making a major change. This is completely against consensus process and I believe that the page should be restored immediately and the shenanigans stopped. ] (]) 13:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::Partial list of dynasties that were considered part of the "Persian Empire" can be found . There are others, and some are not "Iranian". ] (]) 14:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


This article was previously noted for its quality by a newspaper, and was placed on a CD version of Misplaced Pages, so I believe that an RfC for wider participation is necessary, especially since this warring has been going on for more than a month. ] (]) 00:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
:I agree: This is a highly viable scholarly topic, and we shouldn't kill it off. It may well be that it should link at the top to a disambiguation page, but it should ''not'' be replaced ''by'' a disambiguation page. ] <sup>'''''Over ]''' FCs served''</sup> 13:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::It's not being replaced by a disambiguation page. It's being replaced by a short article explaining the meaning of the umbrella term "Persian Empire". Britannica calls this an "historical empire from about 550 BC-640 AD", i.e. from the ] to the ]. We already have articles on those states, as well as the intervening ] (Graeco-Macedonian/Hellenistic) and ] (Parthian - Iranian but not strictly speaking Persian). The summary version of all this history is at ]. --] (]) 14:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::The Persian Empire is not anything pre 600 AD. How can you not understand that? Gibbon sure as hell didn't use the term for those Empires. He used the term for Dynasties, just like every other historian for the past 400 years! ] (]) 14:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::::Not because I think these are reliable sources, but just because that wasn't my impression, I present for your consideration. In common usage, I don't think that's the case. ]<small>]</small> 15:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::Common usage? What are you talking about? A designation for a series of Dynasties over the past 400 years is the use. If there is any other term, then disambiguate it at the top with a hat not, not erase 60k worth of encyclopedic information devoted to it simply because you lack any clue on the subject. ] (]) 23:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::If you had looked at the history, you'd see the only thing I erased was the disambiguation page (the setup which implies that each era called "Persian Empire" is being treated as a separate entity). However, you're being inconsistent here with your other comments on this page. There are clearly things called the Persian Empire prior to 600 AD, in practice. That was my objection to your comment. You appear to have recognized this below, so there's no need to attack me. ]<small>]</small> 03:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::A response is not an attack. Furthermore, your comments still are justifying the blanking of 60k worth of information that was consensus agreed and part of multiple wikiprojects without any prior discussion or notification. At the very least, a major RfC would be needed to make such dramatic changes. You fail to recognize this point, which is disturbing. ] (]) 03:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


] for the page that is the topic of this RfC. ] 03:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
::(ec) Folantin's summary of the issues under consideration is correct. And yes, the Britannica example is a good summary of how the RSs deal with "Persian empire". Thankfully Misplaced Pages has V/OR/RS policies to keep the recently-seen novel hypotheses at bay. -- ] (]) 14:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Britannica is not a reliable source. It is a tertiary source. We use secondary sources. Furthermore, Folantin was referring to pre-Persian Empire empires, not the dynasties that made up the Persian Empire. Please get your terms correct. ] (]) 15:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC) : Don't unilaterally revert the page without participating in the discussion. Several users have discussed this issue in details and this page has been a redirect for a month. You cannot unilaterally change it just because of a request of an IP user. ] (]) 03:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
::The page was not a redirect for a month. It was an actual page. You kept edit warring it into one. Please don't fabricate history. ] (]) 03:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
::::All else aside, ] says that tertiary sources "may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." That would seem to make using them appropriate for the stubbed version. ]<small>]</small> 15:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::I'm aware of that; done my page-history research. In order to avoid an edit-war, the full page has been temporarily moved to a subpage. ] 03:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::Seeing as how people are stubbing a 60k article about over 30 dynasties and ignoring the fact that the Persian Empire specifically refers to those 30 dynasties, a tertiary source is not enough evidence for such an action. The "Persian Empire" is a term that was used for historians for 400 years discussing post Islam Iranian empires that was broken down into a series of dynasties. The term "dynasty" also refers to the imperial state. ] (]) 15:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::The Persian Empire should not be changed to a redirect; there is clearly no consensus over this issue. Furthermore it looks like a decent article. ] (]) 04:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
::::: - as you can see, it is all +600 AD Muslim governments. ] (]) 15:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::::We've been through all this before. The ] (old version) was merely a poor duplicate of much of the ]. It was full of errors and had been marked as such since March/April. There is no useful content that is not in ]. The old page was also misleading because it gave the impression that the "Persian Empire" was some kind of continuous state from the Medes to 1935. This is completely false. The vast majority of sources in English use the term "Persian Empire" to refer to the ], which is why this page now redirects there. A ] lists the alternative uses. --] (]) 10:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::This is ridiculous - none of the extracts provided in that search use the term "Persian Empire" at all. ] (]) 02:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::A side by side comparison makes it clear that there was no duplication. Furthermore, two proposed alterations of the page definitely established that the corrections could be made to ensure that there would be no ability to claim that there is duplication. This page was accepted into Wiki 1.0 for a reason. ] (]) 15:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::So you're saying that the ], the ]s, the ]s and ]s were not part of the Persian Empire? Only the ''Islamic'' ones were? So then, the above stated empires were ''pre-Persian''. Where did you get that from? ]] 16:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::That book appears to start at 1000 AD anyway. ]<small>]</small> 16:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Plus the "Saljuq Empire" it refers to is the ]. The Seljuqs were Turkic. --] (]) 16:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::::And the Byzantine Empire was referred to as the Byzantine Empire, but it was still part of the Roman Empire. Stop with the nonsense. ] (]) 23:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::And we can find plenty of sources that state that explicitly. I suspect we can find no sources that call the Mughals "the Persian Empire. ] (]) 02:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::After seeing Ottavo's previous comments, I had found it useless to argue with Ottavo. Nonetheless, it's hard to ignore that his newest comment and referring to the usage of "''Seljuq empire''" and "''Persian''" in one chapter of a book (to claim that it was called "''Persian empire''") just set a new record in absurdity. ] (]) 18:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::You got that absurdity because the search was effectively for "Persian" OR "empire", and not "Persian empire". A returns results that will probably bring on another tantrum. Perhaps this time on the evils of the ''Cambridge History of Iran''. If the past "comments" (or whatever the polemics might be called) are a measure to go by, it will be an entertaining show. Baghdad Bob Redux. -- ] (]) 19:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Tantrum? Listen, you are all very close to being banned from the topic as a whole because you have already proven that you are a bunch of POV pushers who would rather blank the page then deal with the history. Not one of you has provided any proof nor have shown the ability to actually be constructive participants at Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 23:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Yet once again, watch your language. ] states :
:::::::::::<span style="color:green"> Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor. </span>
::::::::::No one here is going to get banned "from this topic", as we are building consensus. ] states:
:::::::::::<span style="color:green"> Consensus is one of a range of policies regarding how editors work with each other. Editors typically reach consensus as a natural and inherent product of wiki-editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. When two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on the article talk pages. </span>
:::::::::: That is exactly what we are doing. ]] 02:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::1. Your understanding of NPA or what a "personal attack" is is far from what the Misplaced Pages definition is. 2. I would go see the Macedonian naming ArbCom and see how ArbCom treats POV vandals. Wizardman already reverted the blanking of the page and said that the above claims were wrong. How do you think the rest of ArbCom will feel if this is put up because you feel that you know better than all of the secondary sources that built the 60k page along with all of the people that built it here? The blanking of the page was vandalism. Defending the blanking with such illogical statements that fly in the face of reality is defined as trolling. ] (]) 02:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::My "understanding" is from ]. Secondly, this is not a "blanking" of a page. It would come under removal of content, as the page was not "blanked" but was made into a disambig page and then into a short article. Since you want to defend the older version of the page, can you tell me what is the purpose of the older revision? What is wrong with having a disambig page with links to appropriate empire with a ''brief'' summary of the dynasty/empire? ]] 04:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Warrior, it would be in your best interest to stop responding. You claim that it is not blanking yet you show no understanding of its use as per ]. "Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason". There is no legitimate reason to remove well cited information that deals with a very long span of history and is also of high importance in multiple projects. An Arbitrator already reverted it once for this very reason. ] (]) 13:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


::::::I agree that there's no duplication of text between "The greatest of the Safavid monarchs, Shah Abbas I the Great (1587–1629) came to power in 1587 aged 16. Abbas I first fought the Uzbeks, recapturing Herat and Mashhad in 1598. Then he turned against the Ottomans recapturing Baghdad, eastern Iraq and the Caucasian provinces by 1622." (History of Iran) and "Safavid Persia was a violent and chaotic state for the next seventy years, but in 1588 Shah Abbas I of Persia ascended to the throne and instituted a cultural and political renaissance. He moved his capital to Isfahan, which quickly became one of the most important cultural centers in the Islamic world. He made peace with the Ottomans. He reformed the army, drove the Uzbeks out of Iran and into modern-day Uzbekistan, and (with English help) recaptured the island of Hormuz from the Portuguese." (old "Persian Empire"). But these are still content forks. Two inconsistent descriptions of the same history does *not* make Misplaced Pages better. --] (]) 19:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
:FWIW, I agree with Ottava Rima and Shoemaker's Holiday. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 15:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Are you suggesting that an article cannot be improved and must simply be destroyed? Also, you continue to use the word "content fork" differently. You also use it as if articles cannot be split on a topic or have different foci. After all, there is ] and ] along with their being pages on the ] and ]. There is also ]. According to you, such pages have no place on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 19:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
A few titles of scholarly works:
::::::::I'm not sure what you mean when you say "use the word content fork differently" - I'm using it one way, which I think is consistent with ] - what's the other way? Articles that split focus is fine - but in that case, one needs not only to add a new article that delves deeper into the focus, one needs to REMOVE the corresponding content from the split-from article and replace it with a summary + a pointer. As far as I can see, there's not even the hint of a consensus that we should take pieces out of ] and move them to ], while it seems reasonably clear that the stuff pointed to in ] (itself basically a navigation article by now) will not be repeated in ]. --] (]) 06:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
*Pierre Bryant: ''From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire'' (i.e. Achaemenid Empire)
:::::::::By definition, a content fork cannot be an item that is independently notable. A content fork is created after another page on a subject that is not independently notable. This article was -never- split from the History of Iran. And take "pieces out of History of Iran", there are no pieces from that page. Please don't make things up which are clearly contradicted from the "history" tab at the top of the pages. ] (]) 15:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
*Amélie Kuhrt: ''The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources for the Achaemenids''
*A.T. Olmstead ''History of the Persian Empire'' (deals with Achaemenids).


:::(Edit conflict - to Alvestrand) Yes. Time would be better spent fixing up the ] page, which has fewer flaws and avoids the whole issue of which entities - apart from the Achaemenid Empire - to call the "Persian Empire". I've already pointed out some of the inadequacies in the old "Persian Empire"'s coverage of the Safavid era and after . (The confusion over the dating of the start year of Shah Abbas's reign is not necessarily Misplaced Pages editors' fault - some scholarly English sources give 1587, others 1588). --] (]) 19:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
On a later period (revival of Iranian political unity in 1501/1502):
*Andrew J. Newman: ''Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire'' --] (]) 15:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:Folantin, thank you for providing a source in that last one that contradicts 100% everything you have been saying, especially when that source describes how it is a restoration post Mongol conquest. It will be very nice around here once you are finally banned and Misplaced Pages is free of your nonsensical blankings of pages, POV warring, and other blatant disregards for both encyclopedic integrity and common sense. ] (]) 23:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:"The Mughal Empire (Persian: شاهان مغول Shāhān-e Moġul; self-designation: گوركانى - Gūrkānī) was an Islamic and Persianate imperial power" - i.e. Persian Empire - L. Canfield, Robert; Jonathan Haas (2002). Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521522919, 9780521522915. ; p. 20. Most of the subpages on the dynasties are equally referenced with the same statements. ] (]) 23:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::You have nothing to say about the numerous sources which use "Persian Empire" to refer to the Achaemenids? And the fact that the Mughal empire was "Persianate" and an empire does not mean it can be called the "Persian Empire." That is just totally specious. You make up nonsense about the Mughals, etc., and then refuse to even begin to deal with the fact that there's a ton of books that call the Achaemenids the "Persian Empire." And nobody has denied that the state(s) ruled by the Safavids and their successors is/are sometimes called the "Persian Empire." It's the application of the term to dynasties between 700 and 1500 that is dubious. ] (]) 02:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Perhaps you should get a clue? is the previous version of the page. As you can see, they are included. What isn't included after the blank were the bulk of what is defined as the "Persian Empire". Notice that little note at the top "Most of the successive states in Greater Iran prior to March 1935 are collectively called the Persian Empire by Western historians". That "successive state" was the constant back and forth from 600 AD until 1800 AD. "And nobody has denied that the state(s) ruled by the Safavids and their successors is/are sometimes called the " Obviously, you haven't actually read the dispute, or bothered to look at the current page. ] (]) 02:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::But you are saying that the Achaemenids and the Sassanids are not the Persian Empire. You have said this several times on the talk page. At any rate, you seem to be using the old article as though it is a reliable source for what should be in it. It is not. And I have looked at the current page, which does in fact say that the Safavids and their successors are sometimes called the Persian Empire. What is in dispute is whether the Medes, the Seleucids, and the Islamic dynasties that ruled before the Safavids are ever called the "Persian Empire". I see little evidence that they are. The "evidence" you present appears to be separate uses of the words "Persian" and "empire" in books talking about the Seljuks or the Timurids or whatever. The old version of the article doesn't even include the Mughals, btw. ] (]) 03:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::"But you are saying that the Achaemenids and the Sassanids are not the Persian Empire." Correct. Just like Augustus's reign is not the "Roman Empire". Just like the Byzantines are not the "Roman Empire". Just like Charlemagne is not the "Roman Empire". They are all just cogs in a greater whole. "which does in fact say that the Safavids and their successors are sometimes called the Persian Empire" - a brief mention does not justify blanking a 60k page that had references. When an Arbitrator comes and reverts a page blanking, and then people revert him while ignoring multiple WikiProjects involved and years of consensus, that is a major problem. ] - "page blanking". This, by definition, is an act of vandalism. It is also a disgraceful act that has revealed to be based on an POV attack against the term "Persian Empire" simply because of "I don't like it". ] (]) 03:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::By the way, on Misplaced Pages we do not blank pages because they might not be complete. And you may claim to see little evidence that they are called such, but each of those pages has individual links to many references that say so. ] (]) 03:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::By the way, John, from looking at your talk page and history of it, it seems like you have quite a few people disagreeing with your "understanding" of history, especially when it comes to empires. This is quite a problem. ] (]) 03:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


* As stated in the previous two straw polls and the previous RfC, I would like the restoration of the top priority 60k article that has been edit warred out of existence. ] (]) 04:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
==Moving forward==
I think the discussion has been getting bogged down over questions about Ottava's comments that the scope of the article should be from "600 AD to 1800 AD". Since neither of the extant options defines the term that way, it would be more productive for us to discuss which is preferable: the current stub, or the article before it was turned into a disambiguation page. Upon reflection, I believe the old article is more useful to the reader. Both exist to summarize the topic; if there are questions of historical continuity, they can be dealt with within the framework of the article. I don't see a pressing need to reduce the amount of information that's available in our summary of other applicable articles. The old article appears to comply sufficiently with ] that it would be worth restoring the article. It seems that a significant number of other editors share this assessment (Juliancolton, Shoemaker's Holiday, Wizardman, BritishWatcher, R'n'B, and possibly even johnk and Warrior4321, although they are arguing with Ottava over other issues). ]<small>]</small> 05:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
: It depends on what you mean by "''useful to the reader''". The old version of this page was a rehash of the content of the page ], mixed with some bizarre original research and pure nonsense. I don't call such a thing "''useful to the reader''". I should also mention that asking opinion of other users is a good way to reach a consensus. But I prefer to see more comments from those who have been active previously in Iran-related articles (or pages related to the history of Middle East and Central Asia), not users who haven't been involved in any related page and don't care about the content of the page and just think that a 60k page is better that a 1k page (no matter how crappy and redundant that 60k is). For all who want to comment on this issue, I advise them first to read the arguments in this talk page and then look at the old version of this page and then look at the page ] and then think about whether having that 60k rehash of ] was useful or not, or whether Ottava's arguments are acceptable or not. ] (]) 06:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::I totally agree with Alefbe. The old article was simply "History of Iran c.700 BC - 1935 AD". It was a pure fork of the ] article (minus the pre-history, the Elamites, half the Pahlavi dynasty - for some unexplained reason - and the Islamic Republic). It made some pretty dubious claims about almost all the polities ruling Iran between c.650 and c.1500 being "Persian Empires". What is the value of keeping this? People are getting upset because "60K of content" has been removed but when the content is misleading at worst or simply a duplication of information available elsewhere at best then there is no reason for it to be here. I've removed 150K of content from an article before because it was no good. As for "usefulness to the reader", well, look at Ottava Rima's contributions to this page and you have a perfect example of what the old article has done to the understanding of a complete novice in Iranian history. He relied on this Misplaced Pages article rather than Britannica, ''The Cambridge History of Iran'' (or other scholarly sources) to find out what "Persian Empire" meant and he's ended up in utter confusion. --] (]) 07:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::This brings us back to Dbachmann's post at the very top of the page, which contained a question that was never adequately answered. There have been a number of editors claiming that the Persian Empire article was a fork of ], but there have also been suggestions that much of the content of ] would have been better off here instead; i.e., that it's not profitable to talk about the "history of Iran" before the point at which it came to be known as such in the Western world (among historians writing in English). Now, I know that you two disagree, which is why I didn't include you in the list above. However, in light of the discussion here since the page was dabbed/stubbed, I don't see any emerging consensus in favor of the dabbing/stubbing. It may be more useful to proceed from within the -framework- of the old article. Alternatively, an RfC could be opened–I have to object to the idea that editors who have been involved in articles on the Middle East or Central Asia in the past should be yielded to on those grounds. ]<small>]</small> 09:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::The history of the "Persian Empire" (or the various states known as the "Persian Empire") is a subset of the ]. 1935, the date when the Iranian authorities requested that foreigners should call the country commonly known as Persia "Iran" had no effect on the internal history of Iran. Likewise, 1985 (the date the authorities in Ivory Coast requested foreigners should start calling the country Côte d'Ivoire) was not a major turning point in Ivorian history and we don't split the article accordingly. Our article on the history of Siam is at ] with ] a disambiguation page explaining the historical meaning of the term. The "History of Thailand" page doesn't start in 1939, then stop in 1945 and resume in 1949.--] (]) 09:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::(Oh, I see he wrote 1925, not 1935 - although the former version of this page stopped suddenly in 1935. No, again, there is no reason to split the history there. I know of no books that do this. The Pahlavis were just as much Shahs of Iran as the Qajars. The transition from the Qajars to the Pahlavis wasn't a seismic shock in the history of Iran on the scale of the transition from the Ottoman Empire to the Republic of Turkey. The big shock came in 1979).--] (]) 10:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


*This page should be '''on the Achaemenids''', as is common usage. There should also be a disambiguation page on the various states which, being Persian and ruling all of the Iranian Platean, can reasonably be considered empires and are sometimes called ''Persian Empire''.
(ec)
*If there is consensus that the Persian Empire of Cyrus and Darius is not the primary use of the name, the second choice would be to make this the '''disambiguation page''', and keep to the standard form of dab pages.
:In light of the two immediately preceding comments (ec: the comment of Dekimasu at 09:25, and Folantin's that follows it), I think I recognize what is going on and where the misunderstanding lies. To clarify:
*To make a single page out of all of these states is to reify a fantastic and hypothetical entity which had a continuous existence fromm 529 BC to 1979, despite being in occultation for centuries at a time; this is indeed an attested point of view, held for example by the late Shah, but it is not consensus. (It also makes the Sassanian displacement of the Arsacids into a civil war, indistinguishable from the innumerable civil wars between the Arsacids; this ain't consensus either.)
:* a) In academic literature, and in a historical context, "Iran" does not refer to the present-day country of Iran. Rather, "Iran" refers to Iranian ''nation'', which is a concept that has existed since time immemorial, known to the Greeks since the mid 5th century BC, known to speakers of English since at least the 1500s, and in academic usage ever since the field of Iranian Studies was initiated by Anquetil Duperron in 1771.
*For our purposes, however, there is a crowning argument: why do we need a page indistinguishable from ]? Who needs it? What benefit is it to the reader? ] <small>]</small> 20:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
:* b) The geography that goes with the idea of an Iranian nation extends from the Tigris to the Indus. It too is of great antiquity, was also known to the Greeks and Romans, and is what the lead of the ] article identifies itself as covering. As such, 'History of Iran' is comparable to ], which is distinct from the article on the 'History of the Republic of India'.
:* c) In academic literature, and in a historical context, "Persian empire" is a technical term. It is <u>not</u> a catch-all phrase for any odd dynasty that happened to rule of what may or may not be termed "Persia". The latter term is ''extensively'' misused on Misplaced Pages, where it is often treated it as equivalent to every meaning of "Iran", which it is not. This misuse then (evidently) leads to the incorrect premise that "Persian empire" is a synonym for "Iranian empire", and ultimately to the mess that was this article.<div>In reality, only very few Iranian kingdoms were/are called Persian empires. Of these only two are properly Persian empires in every sense of the word. Of these, only one is ''the'' Persian empire, and the rest are so-called only through analogy with the original.
:Because the premise of the "framework" of the Persian empire article was false, it is not a good starting point for anything. The mini article on what "Persian empire" ''really'' refers to is a good starting point; it was the RightThing to do, and whoever did it deserves a medal.
:Whether that mini article ought to be fleshed out, is something to be discussed at some other time. The basics need to be addressed first: is this article going to accord with what the RSs tell us, or is it going to be about what the uninformed would like the world to believe? -- ] (]) 11:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::Fullstop, before you make another claim about the use, please bother to read . That is the actual use of the term. You can see that the English page was a translation of that page. ] (]) 13:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


::I suggest merging some of the former contents of this article with History of Iran, and just redirecting there, since I am not convinced that Persian Empire is overwhelmingly the Achaemenids. As for why this article might exist, it can be used to elucidate and clarify historical inaccuracies commonly perpetuated on the public, by pointing out that there isn't a single Persian Empire. Ofcourse, some newspaper hack also said it was a nice article... and it was worthy of inclusion into a CD version of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 09:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
*There are four votes for the restoration of the page already. A member of the ArbCom was the first to revert the vandalism, and people have been edit warring it back in. There is no community support. The page will be restored and if people want to expand it to improve it, or if they want to copy edit it, that is fine. ] (]) 13:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:It has not been proven that the page is indistinguished, especially since the scopes are quite different. Furthermore, the existence of the military history and standard history of Italy as two separate pages verifies that Misplaced Pages does not agree with your beliefs on the subject of different pages. ] (]) 21:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
::Will it ever be proven to OR's satisfaction? ''Est-il possible''?


::But what difference is there in scope? Both begin with archaeology and the Medes, both continue to 1935. One ends there, and should continue to the "anniversary" of 1971 and the Revolution; the other should probably hand to over to articles on current events at about the same line (perhaps 1989). Both mention, but are weak, on the Abbasid and Turkish periods. ] <small>]</small> 18:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
:Who are the four people? ]] 14:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::Ottava, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and a simple vote based on head count does not trump arguments based on reliable sources. ArbCom has no mandate to adjudicate on matters of content so the fact that someone commenting on this page is an arbitrator is irrelevant. --] (]) 14:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)' :::Both don't begin with archaeology. One starts before 2000 BC, the other does not. The other does not continue "until 1935" as it is about 40% about modern Iran. ] (]) 19:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Yes, ] continues on to - and past - 1935 (it should ''not'' continue to the present, on which we do not yet have historical perspective); so would ''Persian Empire'' if its author had any interest in finishing the narrative. ] <small>]</small> 19:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Consensus is a large portion of people. Five people saying no means that you lack consensus. If you go against the consensus, it would only justify speeding up a request to topic ban you for your actions. And ArbCom has a mandate on edit warring and blanking. Also, see the Macedonia naming dispute - they put many topic bans there, but a quick RfC would take care of it if you bother to restore the blanking. ] (]) 14:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::Juliancolton, Shoemaker's Holiday, Wizardman and Dekimasu per his first comment in this thread. Plus myself. Since large scale changes must have consensus first, five people saying not to reduce the page by that much and instead work on how to improve it. ] (]) 14:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC) ::::Saying it shouldn't describe the present is like saying we shouldn't have BLPs. It wont ever happen. ] (]) 19:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I'm not seeing many arguments based on reliable sources there. You haven't presented any such arguments so "I agree with Ottava Rima" doesn't really cut it. The nearest you've come to using any source apart from Misplaced Pages or your own imagination is Gibbon. Apart from the fact he's two hundred years out of date, he did refer to the Sassanid Empire as the "Persian Empire". Here are some quotations on ]. --] (]) 15:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


*This article should be about the 'Persian Empire'. What we should do is agree upon the meaning of this name (in English, other languages can have other understandings).
===How about using the term in the same way reliable, up-to-date sources do?===
*Is it a name with a rather vague understanding, clearly applied to several historical states? In this case 'Persian Empire' should be a disambiguation page.
As demonstrated in the examples above, if you read a book with "Persian Empire" in the title you won't get coverage of the history of the various states of Iran from 700BC - 1935. You will most likely get a book on the history of the Ancient Persian Empire(s) from the ] to the ] (per the Britannica definition) or, even more likely, a book about one specific Ancient Persian empire, particularly the Achaemenid Empire. More rarely, you will get a book dealing with a dynasty of the Shahs of Iran between 1501/1502 and 1979. The title will state which dynasty it deals with (see ''Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire'' above).
*Is it a name with a common understanding, clearly applied to a single state? In this case 'Persian Empire' should be about that state only. ] (]) 19:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


*This page should be a disambiguation page, as the continual arguments over content of this page amply demonstrate. The proposal to move ] to ] has just closed, with result no move. Now it is time to propose moving ] to ]. --] (]) 14:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
If you want a book that covers every state known as the "Persian Empire", then you will have to get a history of Iran, the prime example being '']'' (as Fullstop has demonstrated above).
:The continued arguments have stilled failed to overcome that the original page is 60k and that it is only being kept from it by edit warring. You would need to put forth a proposal that the 60k Top priority content that matches the Farsi and is still part of Wiki 1.0 would need to be removed before you can turn it into a disambiguation page. Nothing in our policies have been used to justify the removal, as most of the claims have been debunked. ] (]) 14:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
**how the hell does it matter how many kilobytes the page used to have? This talkpage has 167k. So what? The point is that the entire 60k were a ]. There wasn't a single k that did not duplicate scope and content already covered elsewhere. Please go to ]. The usage of "Persian Empire" is exhaustively summariyed at ]. The term overwhelmingly refers to the Achaemenid Empire, so the current redirect is perfectly fine. There is nothing to see here. --] <small>]</small> 18:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
:::Size matters as it reveals that there were plenty of people who thought that the topic was well enough to fit without a "disambiguation" in discussing the uses of Persian Empire for many, many years. A disambiguation page is used for multiple pages discussing -the Persian Empire-. None of those pages discuss the Persian Empire but individual Empires that were later classified under one such term. All of the claims about flaws of the page were proven by many to be non arguments as you can easily fix the page and adjust it. However, over 12 people so far have stated a need for the page, and Wiki 1.0 already has it registered as a major page. It is also a major page on all of the foreign language Wikis. WikiProject Mirror alone would justify restoring the page simply to match what the Farsi page has. This is a -major- change and requires -major- consensus to begin to discuss the matter of removing the page. ] (]) 20:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
::::Then enlighten us. You are clearly in favour of this . You defend that this article is the correct one, right? ] (]) 02:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::I defended it. 12 others have defended it. More than 3 years of consensus defended it. The Farsi Wiki defended it. Wiki 1.0 defended it. ] (]) 03:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


Our coverage should reflect this state of affairs. This page should be a short article explaining the meaning of the term "Persian Empire" with links to the articles we have on each specific Persian Empire. What it should ''not'' do is provide a more or less continuous history of Iran from the 8th century BC to the early decades of the 20th century. --] (]) 11:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:. That is the term. Unless you want to edit war other Wikis too. You can look at the Languages and see that the original page was reflected in the other versions. Your understanding is of a limited minority and originated in you being unwilling to accept that "Persian" was used instead of "Iran" on a page I was editing. There are many people above that wish for a restoration of the page and you lack all academic and logical credibility here. This page follows the format of ] as companion to ]. It also deals with issues related to Afghanistan, parts of Iraq, India, etc, as these governments controlled large territories. ] (]) 13:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::No, it doesn't. It only follows the history section. ]] 13:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::"It only follows the history section." What? That is what is being discussed. And it does not -follow- anything. That is where the article came from. This article is a translation. I already got a hold of a few people that I am friends with in Syriac studies that know multiple languages and could verify the content on the page and on other pages. In their field, they are also strongly involved with the history of the Persians. ] (]) 14:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::{{editconflict}}<span style="color:green"> This page follows the format of Roman Empire </span>
:::: You said that a few comments above. My response was :
:::::<span style="color:red"> No, it doesn't. It only follows the history section. </span> ]] 14:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::And as I said above, the history section is all that is under discussion or matters when the page is a -history- page. Regardless, the "follows" was in relationship of ] to ]. ] (]) 15:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source (as you have found out by relying on Misplaced Pages rather than Britannica, ''The Cambridge History of Iran'' etc.). No Misplaced Pages article in any language can be used as a reliable source in the citations on a Misplaced Pages article. --] (]) 14:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::Folantin - here is a simple little thing for you - you claim about a use of a term. You claim about what words mean. You have no evidence to back that up. Even in other languages, people are 100% against your interpretation. Consensus is against you. Logic is against you. The sources are against you. The other Wikis are against you. There is only you in a corner with a few others who delight in blanking of pages and disrupting things. ] (]) 15:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Once again, nobody has "blanked the page". Nobody is being disruptive here apart from you. There is no way we could create an article based on your ideas because there are no reliable sources on the history of the Middle East and Central Asia which regard the Achaemenid and Sassanid empires as "pre-Persian", think the Mughal Empire was called the "Persian Empire" or tell us that "the Persian Empire was the 30 or so dynasties between 600 AD and 1800". This is pure nonsense. Please stop it, it's getting embarrassing. --] (]) 15:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::::By definition, reducing a page by 60k is blanking. And your actions, by definition, are disruptive. I now have six people on my side and consensus is clearly against you. Are you done digging your own grave here? "There is no way we could create an article based on your ideas" - There was already an article and I, like the other five, are defending that article which you are hell bent on vandalising out of existence. ] (]) 16:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


I think is a content fork of ], but that is an entirely separate question to the one at hand. The question at hand is should ] be a dab page, or not? I think it should be a dab page. I also think a compromise may settle the other question: Add ] to the dab page. Also, make ] either a redirect to ] or an article (). --] (]) 02:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::"Even in other languages, people are 100% against your interpretation."
:So in your (Una Smith) opinion we should turn 'Persian Empire' into a dab page, right? ] (]) 03:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::Oh, yeah? The interwikis indicate otherwise.
:::::Ottava Rima, you are being a pest. Uninformed ''and'' opinionated ''and'' tenditious.
:::::Unless you have reliable sources to back up your absurd contention that the phrase "Persian empire" applies to A) every government that ruled over (portions of) Iran between 600 AD and 1515 (or 1800 or whatever version you are following now), and B) that Persians were not Persians but that Greeks, Arabs, Turks and whatnot were all Persians, then for heaven's sake cough them up. Otherwise quit bothering us and let everyone else do what is necessary to improve the encyclopedia. -- ] (]) 15:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Fullstop - You have provided nothing and consensus is against you. Your arguments are nothing. I have already provided many sources, and the page is referenced just like the individual pages that are being summarized. It was also a direct translation of the Farsi version before cites were added. So, this is not new, novel, or anything else, except in some strange POV twisted perspective which you seem to hold. ] (]) 16:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


::Um, no. I think ] should be moved to the page name ]. What other articles should exist, that concern any form of "Persian Empire", is of no concern to me. See, I do not care about the details of the content dispute going on here, only that the dab page occupy the ambiguous page name. I do care that there is an ongoing content dispute, and I think the best remedy includes ''neither side of the content dispute'' getting control of the contested page name. I note that at the moment ] is a redirect to ], which in light of the arguments here seems peculiar. --] (]) 04:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
:(outdent) Say what? How many sources constitute "have provided nothing"? I gave you the correct link to the Cambridge History of Iran, after you -- in all ignorance -- abused that series to tell us that the Seljuks were Persians. Folantin has provided a list of sources that refer to the Achaemends as the "Persian empire". And, here is . You'll probably now presume to tell us that all that is invalid, and that instead Misplaced Pages has been right all along.
:::Now ] is a redirect to ]. --] (]) 05:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
:Further, since when does violating V/RS/OR constitute having "consensus"? This article has been tagged since ''April''.
::::] and ] should also redirect to ]. ] (]) 04:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:And, contrary to your bold faced supposition that " have already provided many sources", it would seem that you have not provided a single non-Misplaced Pages one aside from Gibbon (!), which you then also only vaguely allude to. Indeed, you haven't provided ''any'' sources for the absurd theory that "<span style="color:purple;">The 'Persian Empire' refers to a series of dynasties between 600 AD until the Ottoman Conquest. No more, no less.</span>" (23:56, 21 August 2009) Or for the bizarre notion that the Seljuk and Moghul empires were "Persian empires" (15:31, 22 August; 15:41, 22 August), or for the weird idea that anything pre-600 was "<span style="color:purple;">pre-Persian Empire empires</span>" (15:25, 22 August); etc, etc, gaffes ad nauseum.
::"I do not care about the details of the content dispute" Which is why your comments have nothing to do with our policy or anything else. You cannot randomly come in and make claims without any proof. You think that a contested issue over the content means that a page shouldn't exist. That is not what Misplaced Pages is about. Misplaced Pages makes it very clear that there are more than enough sources describing a Persian Empire that was more than one country so a page on the Persian Empire that matches every other language Wiki is necessary. ] (]) 13:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
:If you have cited reliable sources for those and other absurdities, I must have missed them, in which case please list them again.
:::Ottava Rima, you and others are fighting over ''article existence''; I am talking about ''page name''. They are not the same. --] (]) 14:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
:And you are mistaken if you suppose that the dimwits who wrote the fa version were any better informed that the idiots who wrote this one (or for that matter better informed yourself, who demonstratively won't bother doing his homework). The mere fact that you hold up the banner for this pernicious nonsense is itself evidence of how badly it fails to inform, but actually disinforms.
:So get your act together, shove the "strange POV twisted perspective which you seem to hold" abuse where the sun doesn't shine, and let the informed people do what is necessary to ''inform'' (and not to soapbox as has thus far been the case). -- ] (]) 16:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC) ::::You obviously never paid attention to the Macedonia page naming dispute at ArbCom which verified that a page's name is part of the content dispute. ] (]) 14:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
::I take it that you haven't bothered to actually read anything on the page, or you would have seen multiple sources. Hell, look above where I pointed out references contradicting Folantin when she tried to claim that the Mughals were not Persian and part of the Persian Empire. The only one violating anything is you. The fact that you would dare try to put up the above while being demonstrably false is just proof that you aren't here to do anything but disrupt. I love how incivil you are, throwing around terms like "dimwits" and the rest. Are you done with your disruption? Consensus is clearly against you and building more and more each day. ] (]) 16:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


:Thank you for revealing yourself Una. Everyone knows that 1. content fork does not mean what it is being used and 2. It is perfectly acceptable to have pages devoted to highly notable terms with overlap on other articles. This article follows WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. As has been proved many, many times, the History of Iran covers a significant amount of time before the Persian Empire, a lot of information after the Persian Empire, and the Persian Empire covers a lot that was -not- Iran. ] (]) 03:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
:::], you "take it" wrong. The fact that I quoted some of the nonsense is an indication that your edits have been an endless source of amusement. Folantin did not "claim that Mughals were not Persian and part of the Persian Empire". You are putting words into his mouth. What Folantin did was dismiss your absurd idea that the Mughal empire was a Persian empire. That was a perfectly valid dismissal.
::now would be a good time to remember why you are even here. You first came here because you were wikistalking Folantin. You did not have the first clue about Persia or the Persian Empire. You have since spent an epic amount of effort to make life difficult for the people trying to fix this long-standing problem and you have made some hilariously confused statements about Persia. By now you have absorbed enough basics to make halfway coherent statements about the question, but now you just can't back down and keep this alive out of spite. Perhaps editors on this page who ''are'' here because of their interest in Persia should just decide to leave good enough alone, close this RfC and move on. --] <small>]</small> 08:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
:::And again you claim "disruption" when in fact editors were working constructively until you came along to amuse them with "POV warrior" polemic and full throated assertions ala "<span style="color:purple;">The 'Persian Empire' refers to a series of dynasties between 600 AD until the Ottoman Conquest. No more, no less.</span>". Ditto the spurious claims of "Consensus is clearly against you and building more and more each day" while ] to honor ''any'' wp policy. Last time I heard, WP:V / WP:OR and WP:RS were still in force, and will continue to do so no matter how uncouth you become, or how hard you work to undermine them.
:::Yes, I was wikistalking, hence why I appear at all of the Persian Empire pages and the rest where the many disputes the above people are involved in which would constitute "wikistalking". Or, it could be that I built up the 18th century page and Folantin tried to involve it in her edit war to push her interpretation of the term to try and use that as evidence, and then she started claiming that since the page didn't exist it couldn't be linked. That tipped me off that she was edit warring and pushing something that was wrong. As I stated, the Persian Empire did exist in the 18th century, and the individual I labeled long ago as a Persian Emperor was one. Dbachmann, your claim is factually wrong and a personal attack. And I did not have the first clue about Persia? Even Wizardman said that I was 100% right. Even Warrior says I am right. The facts are truly against you. ] (]) 13:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
:::Again, I note that the full-throated assertion that " have already provided many sources" could not be backed by reiteration of those (phantom?) sources. Please diff if reiterating them is too much trouble. -- ] (]) 17:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::Sorry, who's "her"? ] (]) 14:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
::::Fullstop, word of advice. Your constant beligerances and inability to accept consensus, your claims to have secret knowledge of "truth", and your unwillingness to actually read above and see what everyone else can see is a serious problem. ] (]) 23:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, why meat? ] (]) 14:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
::::And Fullstop, there was no one "working constructively". When it was first blanked, Wizardman stepped in and said it was a problem. I followed immediately after. There was never consensus for it. And here are some more lovely sources (there are quite a few above) that poke even more holes into your story: , , and many, many more , which refer to the Mongols defeating the Persian Empire and then ruling over it. ] (]) 23:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::What? And oh yes, the 18th century page, which claimed: "1722: Afghans conquered Iran, ending the Safavid dynasty." Except the Safavids survived until 1736. --] (]) 14:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Except you never proved that with diffs or the rest. Plus, your edit warring was over use of the Persian Empire. Funny how you ignored all consensus based processes and instead attack other editors. That is the very definition of battleground. Combined with your edit warring on this page over the same term, there is definitely major problematic behavior. ] (]) 14:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::"Funny how you ignored all consensus based processes and instead attack other editors." Yes! ] (]) 14:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::] "His reign saw the downfall of the Safavid dynasty, which had ruled Persia since the beginning of the 16th century." ] "Mir Mahmud Hotaki (1697? — April 22, 1725) was a leader of the ethnic Afghans who overthrew the Safavid dynasty to become Shah of Persia in 1722" The dynasty's rule was ended. That is rather clear from all of the sources and on Wiki. Your revisionist history is interesting. ] (]) 14:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::See ] and ], both Safavid shahs ''de jure''. Abbas wasn't deposed until 1736. "nstead attack other editors." Your first edit to this page was an attack on me. Before that, the atmosphere was collegial. Anyway, enough of this. The RFAR has already dealt with these matters. --] (]) 14:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::The original wording said -Persian Empire-. Were they a dynasty of the Persian Empire while someone else kicked them out of the country? And the RfAr closed non-prejudicial at 3/3 with 6 members not responding, which means that it can easily be rerequested. ] (]) 14:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


* By the way, my first comment was - "Roman Empire and History of Italy. Italy is a territory. Rome is an Empire. The Persian Empire was made up of many, many dynasties with some being Afghani. Afghanistan is -not- Iran. It is its own territory. I find it amusing that Folantin decries that "Persian Empire" is seen as a "synonym for Iran", when she has been edit warring to push such a claim. However, that is what happens when you have such people that are here only to cause disruptions. A block should probably allow for people who actually care about Misplaced Pages to put a page in place. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)"
== Redirect to ] ==
:You were edit warring, and you edit warred other pages to promote your edit war on this page. Pointing out directly obvious problematic behavior is not an attack. ] (]) 14:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
::Um, no, I wasn't "edit warring". We've been through this time and time again. We've just spent two weeks on an RFAR which went nowhere and was hardly a ringing endorsement of your behaviour. Enough. --] (]) 14:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
:::, . Two reverts, two different pages, after the standard Bold, Revert, Discuss took place. There was no discussion before you reverted. Thus, you violated the Edit Warring policy. ] (]) 14:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I came here because of the RfC but the heart of the controversial issue is not clear to me. It seems to be asking whether the main page for "Persian Empire" should be a disambig page, and the answer to that is "no". "Persian Empire" has a current meaning based on precedent in most English literature throughout most of the history of English literature, and that meaning refers to a specific "Persian Empire". Years from now if culture changes and the name has a different meaning, then a disambig page may be necessary, but Misplaced Pages is not the place to promote social change in naming conventions. No disambiguation page, please. ] 19:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
:Bluerasberry is right. ] (]) 20:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


==Consequences==
The same information that is contained here is maintained on ]. Either redirect it there, or make a disambig page to the seperate empires, as having two pages containing the same information is redundant. ]] 15:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Whatever the choice for this name space, and the current one seems to be to redirect to Achaemenid Empire, there are consequences, not the least of which is that all those 1800 or so links mentioned need to be checked for correctness. I was led to this debate because the ] (1465-1762 A.D.) was described as being a tributary to the Persian Empire (in this case the Safavids), by making Achaemenid Empire the default redirect oddities like this are bound to occur. The option with the minimum of work would, in my opinion, have been to redirect to the disambiguation page, however since this is unacceptable to some editors, the work must be done to insure that all links link to the correct Persian Empire, which ever that may be.] (]) 10:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
:As pointed out countless times - Iran is one territory. That is like redirecting the Roman Empire to History of Italy. The Persian Empire covered parts of Iraq, Afghanistan, India, etc. It is a fundamental part of -all- of these territories. ] (]) 15:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:By the way, same information? Have you bothered to look at the pages? They are clearly not the same. ] (]) 15:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
{{edit conflict}} No it isn't. Atleast look at the pages first. Roman Empires start's it's "history" section from 27 BC and ends in the year 476, while the History of Italy page starts in the prehistoric era and ends in 2008. Big difference huh? History of Iran and Persian Empire both end at the formation of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and begin at the Median Empire. ]] 15:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:Actually, I see that ] starts and continues well past 1979, and includes ]s on Khomeini and Khamenei. This article, on the other hand, starts at the Median Empire and ends , around 1935. <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 15:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::So because of two or three sections, two pages containing the same information excluding the two/three sections should be contained on Misplaced Pages? ]] 17:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Yes, I've already made this point above (twice): "The old article was simply 'History of Iran c.700 BC - 1935 AD' It was a pure fork of the History of Iran article (minus the pre-history, the Elamites, half the Pahlavi dynasty - for some unexplained reason - and the Islamic Republic)". And: "This page should be a short article explaining the meaning of the term "Persian Empire" with links to the articles we have on each specific Persian Empire. What it should not do is provide a more or less continuous history of Iran from the 8th century BC to the early decades of the 20th century." --] (]) 18:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::Exactly. All the "Persian Empires" are covered in ]. Yet rather than having a "short article", why not make it a disambig page which would then lead the users to the appropriate empires/dynasties. ]] 22:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Folantin, you do realize that you are being mocked off site for such a ludicrous argument, right? People are saying that you would have all pages related to France be one page. Please see the MoS size requirement. Pages are not supposed to have over 60k worth a text, and that"one page" cannot contain all information. Furthermore, you seem unwilling to acknowledge that the Persian Empire includes Afghanistan, India, and other territories that are not covered under the History of Iran. That little fact alone proves that you have no ground to stand on. Stop with these shenanigans immediately. ] (]) 23:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::Is there information on this page that is not covered in History of Iran? ]] 23:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::Yes. As I said, Afghanistan, India, and Iraq are not part of the history of Iran page. ] (]) 23:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::They are not part of this page either. ]] 23:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Really? Then why are there lines like "and the northern parts of the Indian subcontinent.". This is the 8th time you have demonstrated not having actually read the other page. Go bother somewhere else. ] (]) 23:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:45, 27 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Persian Empire (dynasty) redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Former featured article candidatePersian Empire (dynasty) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 12, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 21, 2005, and March 21, 2006.
This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconFormer countries
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
Error: Target page was not specified with to.
Good Job!
"Robust, well-linked introduction" — Sunday Times (London), 4 September, 2005
Archiving icon
Archives

RfC: What should this page be?

Further information: Talk:Persian_Empire/workpage

Problem: Editors are warring over the content of this pagename (Persian Empire)... the most likely choices are restoration of the pre-battle 60k article, conversion to a smaller article, turn this into a disambiguation page (see Persian Empire (disambiguation)) , or redirect it to another article. Please note, there is a related WP:RM requested move for the Achaemenid Empire (see Talk:Achaemenid Empire)

This article was previously noted for its quality by a newspaper, and was placed on a CD version of Misplaced Pages, so I believe that an RfC for wider participation is necessary, especially since this warring has been going on for more than a month. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

See here for the page that is the topic of this RfC. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't unilaterally revert the page without participating in the discussion. Several users have discussed this issue in details and this page has been a redirect for a month. You cannot unilaterally change it just because of a request of an IP user. Alefbe (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The page was not a redirect for a month. It was an actual page. You kept edit warring it into one. Please don't fabricate history. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm aware of that; done my page-history research. In order to avoid an edit-war, the full page has been temporarily moved to a subpage. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The Persian Empire should not be changed to a redirect; there is clearly no consensus over this issue. Furthermore it looks like a decent article. Simonm223 (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
We've been through all this before. The Persian Empire (old version) was merely a poor duplicate of much of the History of Iran. It was full of errors and had been marked as such since March/April. There is no useful content that is not in History of Iran. The old page was also misleading because it gave the impression that the "Persian Empire" was some kind of continuous state from the Medes to 1935. This is completely false. The vast majority of sources in English use the term "Persian Empire" to refer to the Achaemenid Empire, which is why this page now redirects there. A disambiguation page lists the alternative uses. --Folantin (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
A side by side comparison makes it clear that there was no duplication. Furthermore, two proposed alterations of the page definitely established that the corrections could be made to ensure that there would be no ability to claim that there is duplication. This page was accepted into Wiki 1.0 for a reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there's no duplication of text between "The greatest of the Safavid monarchs, Shah Abbas I the Great (1587–1629) came to power in 1587 aged 16. Abbas I first fought the Uzbeks, recapturing Herat and Mashhad in 1598. Then he turned against the Ottomans recapturing Baghdad, eastern Iraq and the Caucasian provinces by 1622." (History of Iran) and "Safavid Persia was a violent and chaotic state for the next seventy years, but in 1588 Shah Abbas I of Persia ascended to the throne and instituted a cultural and political renaissance. He moved his capital to Isfahan, which quickly became one of the most important cultural centers in the Islamic world. He made peace with the Ottomans. He reformed the army, drove the Uzbeks out of Iran and into modern-day Uzbekistan, and (with English help) recaptured the island of Hormuz from the Portuguese." (old "Persian Empire"). But these are still content forks. Two inconsistent descriptions of the same history does *not* make Misplaced Pages better. --Alvestrand (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that an article cannot be improved and must simply be destroyed? Also, you continue to use the word "content fork" differently. You also use it as if articles cannot be split on a topic or have different foci. After all, there is History of Italy and Military history of Italy along with their being pages on the Roman Empire and Roman Republic. There is also Military history of ancient Rome. According to you, such pages have no place on Misplaced Pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "use the word content fork differently" - I'm using it one way, which I think is consistent with WP:CFORK - what's the other way? Articles that split focus is fine - but in that case, one needs not only to add a new article that delves deeper into the focus, one needs to REMOVE the corresponding content from the split-from article and replace it with a summary + a pointer. As far as I can see, there's not even the hint of a consensus that we should take pieces out of History of Iran and move them to Persian Empire, while it seems reasonably clear that the stuff pointed to in Military history of ancient Rome (itself basically a navigation article by now) will not be repeated in Roman Empire. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
By definition, a content fork cannot be an item that is independently notable. A content fork is created after another page on a subject that is not independently notable. This article was -never- split from the History of Iran. And take "pieces out of History of Iran", there are no pieces from that page. Please don't make things up which are clearly contradicted from the "history" tab at the top of the pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict - to Alvestrand) Yes. Time would be better spent fixing up the History of Iran page, which has fewer flaws and avoids the whole issue of which entities - apart from the Achaemenid Empire - to call the "Persian Empire". I've already pointed out some of the inadequacies in the old "Persian Empire"'s coverage of the Safavid era and after . (The confusion over the dating of the start year of Shah Abbas's reign is not necessarily Misplaced Pages editors' fault - some scholarly English sources give 1587, others 1588). --Folantin (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This page should be on the Achaemenids, as is common usage. There should also be a disambiguation page on the various states which, being Persian and ruling all of the Iranian Platean, can reasonably be considered empires and are sometimes called Persian Empire.
  • If there is consensus that the Persian Empire of Cyrus and Darius is not the primary use of the name, the second choice would be to make this the disambiguation page, and keep to the standard form of dab pages.
  • To make a single page out of all of these states is to reify a fantastic and hypothetical entity which had a continuous existence fromm 529 BC to 1979, despite being in occultation for centuries at a time; this is indeed an attested point of view, held for example by the late Shah, but it is not consensus. (It also makes the Sassanian displacement of the Arsacids into a civil war, indistinguishable from the innumerable civil wars between the Arsacids; this ain't consensus either.)
  • For our purposes, however, there is a crowning argument: why do we need a page indistinguishable from History of Iran? Who needs it? What benefit is it to the reader? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I suggest merging some of the former contents of this article with History of Iran, and just redirecting there, since I am not convinced that Persian Empire is overwhelmingly the Achaemenids. As for why this article might exist, it can be used to elucidate and clarify historical inaccuracies commonly perpetuated on the public, by pointing out that there isn't a single Persian Empire. Ofcourse, some newspaper hack also said it was a nice article... and it was worthy of inclusion into a CD version of Misplaced Pages. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 09:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
It has not been proven that the page is indistinguished, especially since the scopes are quite different. Furthermore, the existence of the military history and standard history of Italy as two separate pages verifies that Misplaced Pages does not agree with your beliefs on the subject of different pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Will it ever be proven to OR's satisfaction? Est-il possible?
But what difference is there in scope? Both begin with archaeology and the Medes, both continue to 1935. One ends there, and should continue to the "anniversary" of 1971 and the Revolution; the other should probably hand to over to articles on current events at about the same line (perhaps 1989). Both mention, but are weak, on the Abbasid and Turkish periods. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Both don't begin with archaeology. One starts before 2000 BC, the other does not. The other does not continue "until 1935" as it is about 40% about modern Iran. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, History of Iran continues on to - and past - 1935 (it should not continue to the present, on which we do not yet have historical perspective); so would Persian Empire if its author had any interest in finishing the narrative. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Saying it shouldn't describe the present is like saying we shouldn't have BLPs. It wont ever happen. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This article should be about the 'Persian Empire'. What we should do is agree upon the meaning of this name (in English, other languages can have other understandings).
  • Is it a name with a rather vague understanding, clearly applied to several historical states? In this case 'Persian Empire' should be a disambiguation page.
  • Is it a name with a common understanding, clearly applied to a single state? In this case 'Persian Empire' should be about that state only. Flamarande (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The continued arguments have stilled failed to overcome that the original page is 60k and that it is only being kept from it by edit warring. You would need to put forth a proposal that the 60k Top priority content that matches the Farsi and is still part of Wiki 1.0 would need to be removed before you can turn it into a disambiguation page. Nothing in our policies have been used to justify the removal, as most of the claims have been debunked. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    • how the hell does it matter how many kilobytes the page used to have? This talkpage has 167k. So what? The point is that the entire 60k were a WP:CFORK. There wasn't a single k that did not duplicate scope and content already covered elsewhere. Please go to history of Iran. The usage of "Persian Empire" is exhaustively summariyed at Persian Empire (disambiguation). The term overwhelmingly refers to the Achaemenid Empire, so the current redirect is perfectly fine. There is nothing to see here. --dab (𒁳) 18:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Size matters as it reveals that there were plenty of people who thought that the topic was well enough to fit without a "disambiguation" in discussing the uses of Persian Empire for many, many years. A disambiguation page is used for multiple pages discussing -the Persian Empire-. None of those pages discuss the Persian Empire but individual Empires that were later classified under one such term. All of the claims about flaws of the page were proven by many to be non arguments as you can easily fix the page and adjust it. However, over 12 people so far have stated a need for the page, and Wiki 1.0 already has it registered as a major page. It is also a major page on all of the foreign language Wikis. WikiProject Mirror alone would justify restoring the page simply to match what the Farsi page has. This is a -major- change and requires -major- consensus to begin to discuss the matter of removing the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Then enlighten us. You are clearly in favour of this article. You defend that this article is the correct one, right? Flamarande (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I defended it. 12 others have defended it. More than 3 years of consensus defended it. The Farsi Wiki defended it. Wiki 1.0 defended it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


I think this article is a content fork of History of Iran, but that is an entirely separate question to the one at hand. The question at hand is should Persian Empire be a dab page, or not? I think it should be a dab page. I also think a compromise may settle the other question: Add Iranian Empire to the dab page. Also, make Iranian Empire either a redirect to History of Iran or an article (this article). --Una Smith (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So in your (Una Smith) opinion we should turn 'Persian Empire' into a dab page, right? Flamarande (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Um, no. I think Persian Empire (disambiguation) should be moved to the page name Persian Empire. What other articles should exist, that concern any form of "Persian Empire", is of no concern to me. See, I do not care about the details of the content dispute going on here, only that the dab page occupy the ambiguous page name. I do care that there is an ongoing content dispute, and I think the best remedy includes neither side of the content dispute getting control of the contested page name. I note that at the moment Iranian Empire is a redirect to Achaemenid Empire, which in light of the arguments here seems peculiar. --Una Smith (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Now Iranian Empire is a redirect to History of Iran. --Una Smith (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Persian Empire and Persian empire should also redirect to History of Iran. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
"I do not care about the details of the content dispute" Which is why your comments have nothing to do with our policy or anything else. You cannot randomly come in and make claims without any proof. You think that a contested issue over the content means that a page shouldn't exist. That is not what Misplaced Pages is about. Misplaced Pages makes it very clear that there are more than enough sources describing a Persian Empire that was more than one country so a page on the Persian Empire that matches every other language Wiki is necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Ottava Rima, you and others are fighting over article existence; I am talking about page name. They are not the same. --Una Smith (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
You obviously never paid attention to the Macedonia page naming dispute at ArbCom which verified that a page's name is part of the content dispute. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for revealing yourself Una. Everyone knows that 1. content fork does not mean what it is being used and 2. It is perfectly acceptable to have pages devoted to highly notable terms with overlap on other articles. This article follows WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. As has been proved many, many times, the History of Iran covers a significant amount of time before the Persian Empire, a lot of information after the Persian Empire, and the Persian Empire covers a lot that was -not- Iran. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
now would be a good time to remember why you are even here. You first came here because you were wikistalking Folantin. You did not have the first clue about Persia or the Persian Empire. You have since spent an epic amount of effort to make life difficult for the people trying to fix this long-standing problem and you have made some hilariously confused statements about Persia. By now you have absorbed enough basics to make halfway coherent statements about the question, but now you just can't back down and keep this alive out of spite. Perhaps editors on this page who are here because of their interest in Persia should just decide to leave good enough alone, close this RfC and move on. --dab (𒁳) 08:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was wikistalking, hence why I appear at all of the Persian Empire pages and the rest where the many disputes the above people are involved in which would constitute "wikistalking". Or, it could be that I built up the 18th century page and Folantin tried to involve it in her edit war to push her interpretation of the term to try and use that as evidence, and then she started claiming that since the page didn't exist it couldn't be linked. That tipped me off that she was edit warring and pushing something that was wrong. As I stated, the Persian Empire did exist in the 18th century, and the individual I labeled long ago as a Persian Emperor was one. Dbachmann, your claim is factually wrong and a personal attack. And I did not have the first clue about Persia? Even Wizardman said that I was 100% right. Even Warrior says I am right. The facts are truly against you. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, who's "her"? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, why meat? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
What? And oh yes, the 18th century page, which claimed: "1722: Afghans conquered Iran, ending the Safavid dynasty." Except the Safavids survived until 1736. --Folantin (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Except you never proved that with diffs or the rest. Plus, your edit warring was over use of the Persian Empire. Funny how you ignored all consensus based processes and instead attack other editors. That is the very definition of battleground. Combined with your edit warring on this page over the same term, there is definitely major problematic behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
"Funny how you ignored all consensus based processes and instead attack other editors." Yes! --Akhilleus (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Soltan Hosein "His reign saw the downfall of the Safavid dynasty, which had ruled Persia since the beginning of the 16th century." Mir Mahmud Hotaki "Mir Mahmud Hotaki (1697? — April 22, 1725) was a leader of the ethnic Afghans who overthrew the Safavid dynasty to become Shah of Persia in 1722" The dynasty's rule was ended. That is rather clear from all of the sources and on Wiki. Your revisionist history is interesting. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
See Tahmasp II and Abbas III, both Safavid shahs de jure. Abbas wasn't deposed until 1736. "nstead attack other editors." Your first edit to this page was an attack on me. Before that, the atmosphere was collegial. Anyway, enough of this. The RFAR has already dealt with these matters. --Folantin (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The original wording said -Persian Empire-. Were they a dynasty of the Persian Empire while someone else kicked them out of the country? And the RfAr closed non-prejudicial at 3/3 with 6 members not responding, which means that it can easily be rerequested. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • By the way, my first comment was - "Roman Empire and History of Italy. Italy is a territory. Rome is an Empire. The Persian Empire was made up of many, many dynasties with some being Afghani. Afghanistan is -not- Iran. It is its own territory. I find it amusing that Folantin decries that "Persian Empire" is seen as a "synonym for Iran", when she has been edit warring to push such a claim. However, that is what happens when you have such people that are here only to cause disruptions. A block should probably allow for people who actually care about Misplaced Pages to put a page in place. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)"
You were edit warring, and you edit warred other pages to promote your edit war on this page. Pointing out directly obvious problematic behavior is not an attack. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Um, no, I wasn't "edit warring". We've been through this time and time again. We've just spent two weeks on an RFAR which went nowhere and was hardly a ringing endorsement of your behaviour. Enough. --Folantin (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
18:50, 21 August 2009, 16:03, 21 August 2009. Two reverts, two different pages, after the standard Bold, Revert, Discuss took place. There was no discussion before you reverted. Thus, you violated the Edit Warring policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I came here because of the RfC but the heart of the controversial issue is not clear to me. It seems to be asking whether the main page for "Persian Empire" should be a disambig page, and the answer to that is "no". "Persian Empire" has a current meaning based on precedent in most English literature throughout most of the history of English literature, and that meaning refers to a specific "Persian Empire". Years from now if culture changes and the name has a different meaning, then a disambig page may be necessary, but Misplaced Pages is not the place to promote social change in naming conventions. No disambiguation page, please. Blue Rasberry 19:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Bluerasberry is right. Flamarande (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Consequences

Whatever the choice for this name space, and the current one seems to be to redirect to Achaemenid Empire, there are consequences, not the least of which is that all those 1800 or so links mentioned need to be checked for correctness. I was led to this debate because the Kingdom of Kakheti (1465-1762 A.D.) was described as being a tributary to the Persian Empire (in this case the Safavids), by making Achaemenid Empire the default redirect oddities like this are bound to occur. The option with the minimum of work would, in my opinion, have been to redirect to the disambiguation page, however since this is unacceptable to some editors, the work must be done to insure that all links link to the correct Persian Empire, which ever that may be.KTo288 (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Categories: