Talk:Persian Empire (dynasty)/Archive 3

This should be a disambiguation page

Persian Empire may refer to Persia in general or Achaemenid Empire, Sassanid Empire, Samanid Empire, Safavid Empire etc. So in order to avoid controversy and WP:SYNTHESIS, we should just turn this into a disambiguation page with links to all those pages. --Kurdo777 (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

See User:R'n'B's comment in the top section of the talk page. Dekimasuよ! 11:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A (fact conform) reason why we can't have a disambig is the one provided by Dekimasu (17:17, 21 August); i.e. because most users do not know what PE refers to, so a description is necessary, which is not really possible with a disambig. And (17:25, 21 August) because there are 1800 links pointing here, all of which would need clean up. Also, it needs sourcing to keep OR at bay, but sourcing is not "normal" in a disambig. -- Fullstop (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

I've rewritten the introduction for a start. I'm sure there are problems with my formulations, please play around with it. I also commented out the sections on the Medes and Seleucids, as I've not seen anyone defending their inclusion within the article. john k (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

They could easily be mentioned within other sections as background for what the imperial systems develop out of if necessary (without any real need for detail). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible structure

I've been talking to Warrior directly and this was my idea for how to structure the page (note, there should be a strong political focus): 1. Culture - short background on Iran, Afghanistan, India, Iraq, and other territories along with language and religions in a general sense 2. Imperial system - use of the term Shah, various common attributes, originating territory, and its original background. 3. History - discusses rulers, types of rule, styles of imperial states, and size (a. Achaemenid - discusses pre-Achaemenid and fall, b. Sassanid - discusses pre-Sassanid and fall, c. Islamic conquest to Mongol conquest - the various dynasties competing for the imperial title, inner war, trying to create a new Persian state, d. Mongol conquest to present - taking over imperial title by Mongols to reclaiming by Persians up until the formation of the Iranian nation state and end of the imperial system). 4. Legacy covering use of the term and views of the term of both Persian Empire and shah in the modern (post WW1) world. The actual size of each can be up for discussion, but I feel that there is enough in the Scope discussion that would allow everyone to accept a discussion on the dynasties attempting to become -imperial- if they weren't imperial according to everyone's definition. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. But the key to a good article on an important term such as "Persian empire" is the use of the term "Greater Iran" much before "culture" of a group of people who lived under systems of "imperial dynasties with certain common idea of unification" each with certain "specific historical relevance". The very undisputed fact that "Persian empire" is a referential term to "unique territorial boundaries more or less" unchanged in "different and changing periods of history" may show the problem with this article--Xashaiar (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems fairly reasonable, although I think the proposed sections 3c and 3d need to be short and focused so as to avoid duplicating History of Iran, as should any background about the Medes, Seleucids, and Parthians in the sections on the Achaemenids and Sassanids. john k (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Already covered by Culture of Iran, Greater Iran and/or Persianate society; 2. Already covered by Shah and History of Iran (among other pages); 3. Already covered by History of Iran and relevant sub-articles on various empires etc.; 4. Don't really understand what this is about. --Folantin (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

And History of Iran is covered in multiple pages. etc etc etc. Should we have no page on the US because all of the information is covered in other pages? You are forgetting something - those are forks of -this- page. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What? "Should we have no page on the US because all of the information is covered in other pages?"Again, I don't understand what you are talking about. --Folantin (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea is that there is overlapping all over Wikipedia. Why is this particular overlap so unacceptable? Personally, I think this article is very problematic in that, at the moment, it generally just repeats material that is also in History of Iran, and is not clear about what its purpose is which is different from that page's. I think that, in general, it would be a perfectly appropriate solution to turn this page into a short setlist, because its contents are largely covered in other articles. That being said, I don't think an article set out in the way Ottava suggests above is necessarily unacceptable just because the material it covers is in other articles - as Ottava pointed out, all the material in History of Iran is covered in other articles, as well. That being said, an article whose contents are going to be largely duplicative of other articles needs to have a very clear purpose - we need to have good sources for what we're doing with this article, and why. Why do we need a Persian Empire article which is separate from History of Iran? And how can we insure that this article avoids any original research - particularly non-standard claims that various dynasties which ruled between 800 and 1500 should be described as "the Persian Empire?" john k (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's been the point I and others have been making all along. There is no real justification for this page's existence. At most it should be no more than a short article with a bunch of links to the relevant content elsewhere.--Folantin (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There is what we would prefer, and what we can actually achieve. I'm not really convinced there's a need for an article to do much more than that, either, but we clearly have a substantial number of people, beyond just Ottava, who feel differently. The article as it stands is unacceptable, for reasons we've gotten into before, but that doesn't mean it can't be turned into something that's relatively decent. If the only obstacle to that is fear of duplicating material elsewhere, I don't know that that should be the stumbling block. That being said, I think it remains to be demonstrated whether the article can be turned into something that's relatively decent - but engaging constructively with proposals seeking to do that seems like the best way forward. In the near term, we're not going to be able to turn the article into a setlist, or short disambiguation page, or whatever. Seeing how things have gone so far, insisting on that as the only option seems like a road to constant edit warring, a very unstable page, and probably some sort of arbitration, eventually. It'd be best to avoid that, if possible. As such, I think it's best to at least work to see if the article can be salvaged in anything like its present form. If not, we can go back to edit warring, instability, personal attacks, and eventual arbitration. john k (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree we should compromise on quality and accuracy in this way. Again, it seems like duplication for the sake of it.--Folantin (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that we should see if we really need to compromise on quality and accuracy. If so, that's unacceptable, but maybe something can be worked out which would be acceptable to everyone. john k (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

@John K: So you mean we should accept this crappy page just because someone like Ottava persistently defends it with some absurd arguments? If solving this problem need arbitration, then go for it. A topic ban (on Iran-related pages) is the best solution for someone like Ottava who hasn't been previously involved in any Iran-related page (and hasn't contributed anything in this broad topic) and is now disrupting this discussion (just because of some old dispute with Folantin). Alefbe (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I am definitely not saying we should accept this crappy page. I'm saying there might be a way to make it into something worthwhile without so much drama. If I'm wrong, arbitration always remains available. john k (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

John - The History of Iran page is missing quite a bit of information, such as cultural and religious views that are left out. The focus should be shifted more towards culture (swapping out 5 k of one for 5k of the other spread evenly). The Pre-historical section should be the general model for the rest of the historical sections (to accomplish the emphasis on culture). That would allow a clearer different when this page focuses on politics, governmental changes, rulership, extent, etc. This page can also allow for the intersection between History of Iran and History of Afghanistan or to other countries. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that I would agree with this. The political history of Iran after the Arab Conquest is not the same thing as the history of the concept of the Persian Empire after the Arab conquest. The basic political narrative ought to be given at History of Iran. If this article is not to be turned into a setlist, it ought to focus on the Achaemenids and Sassanids, on the later usage of the term "Persian Empire" and on the ways Islamic dynasties in Iran looked back to the legacy of the ancient Persian Empires. The complicated political narrative of the seventh to twentieth centuries ought to be based in History of Iran. john k (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

John, with what space? Articles are limited by the MoS in size. There is no way to discuss the history of Iran, which involves thousands of years before the empires, the various cultures, language, and other aspects, plus the current history in addition to in-depth discussions of politics. The page should probably have a summary in the middle of it of the -Persian Empire- page to deal with the political history. History is more than politics and government. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

And so you know, 5k would be roughly one or two lines of text from each of the sections. It would not be a major change. But it -would- show a different emphasis. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

John - The focus will be on political first and foremost, and the condensing of the dynasties into one section should keep all of it down to about 3/4 paragraphs that focus on the fighting for dominance and the attempt at restoration. That would definitely keep it different than the history page (which, itself would need to be further reduced according to summary style). Ottava Rima (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on what you point 4 would involve? john k (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that it would partly discuss how the Iranian government (both pre and post 1979) viewed the Empire in political, social, and religious terms. The other part would be how non-Iranian government (both pre and post 1979) did the same. This could easily discuss the "common use" of the word as someone argued above about how it was used as a "romanticized view of the past". Ottava Rima (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What does the post 1979 Iranian government have anything to do with Persian empire!? What you are suggesting, would be a clear violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. --Kurdo777 (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis is to create something not directly mentioned in a source. There are -many- sources discussing the modern Iranian view of the past. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I still believe that this should be turned into a disambiguation page, but Fullstop`s proposed version is the next best thing. The old version is poorly written and not encyclopedic at all. --Kurdo777 (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wont happen. You don't turn a top priority and high priority page linked to over 1500 pages into a disambiguation in any possible way, especially when most people are against that. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, what is this obsession with keeping this page as a full article when all the content is already available elsewhere (and summarised at History of Iran)? "Point 4" and statements like "I was thinking that it would partly discuss how the Iranian government (both pre and post 1979) viewed the Empire in political, social, and religious terms" are meaningless - it just sounds as though you are making stuff up off the top of your head in a desperate attempt to justify this page's existence in long form.--Folantin (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

About building a consensus

As I've mentioned earlier, most of users who now insist on preserving the old version (which is full of misinformation and nonsense) haven't been previously involved in any Iran-related page and all of a sudden have become interested in this page. I prefer to see more opinions from those who have been previously contributed in Iran-related pages (or pages related to the history of Middle East and Central Asia). Alefbe (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Does contributing two featured pictures about Iranian culture count? File:Layla_and_Majnun2.jpg, File:Ijazah3.jpg. Please explain exactly what is "misinformation and nonsense" and provide sources. Best wishes, Durova³⁰⁶ 19:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No, importing pictures doesn't count. We are talking about articles and disputes over the content of pages. About the "misinformation and nonsense", you can spend some time and read the whole discussion. Alefbe (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually those were both careful digital restorations rather than mere imports. It helps to practice what one preaches about taking a moment to read the context. :) Durova³⁰⁶ 20:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: In the last week, Wizardman, Ottava Rima, Nathan, NuclearWarfare and Durora have insisted to reverting back to to the old crappy version. None of them have been previously involved in any Iran-related article. Building a consensus shouldn't be about just counting people (who all of a sudden have become interested in this content dispute). I haven't seen anyone who has previously contributed in Iran-related articles and now support preserving that 56k crappy page or defending Ottava's arguments. Alefbe (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, but your massive edits of this encyclopaedia are so far just reverting and moving/renaming like "xyz->al-xyz". So maybe counting is not all that matters, and "contribution" should matter too.--Xashaiar (talk)

For those who don't know what Xashaiar is talking about: He is upset about this previous discussion. Alefbe (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No I am not upset about that, I am trying to show "only those who make contributions] have the encyclopaedic authority to dismiss relevance of others' presence in this discussion". clear?--Xashaiar (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is really tedious. Accusing other people of not having the credentials to contribute gets us nowhere. john k (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That was not my idea. That was a response to those who say "...None of them have been previously involved in any Iran-related article" so not credentials to contribute and I answered, maybe.. but the person making those statement do not qualify either if we see things from their point of view.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Xashaiar, you came back? I thought you left Wikipedia? As well, you didn't change your talk page. Warrior4321 20:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Who told you I am back?--Xashaiar (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

@Xahsiar: Other than your old dispute with me (in another page), do you see any reason to preserve the 56k crappy version of this page or defending Ottava's arguments? If yes, please explain. Alefbe (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a top priority article. It shows up on a lot of lists and a reduction of 59k as originally happened sets off a lot of alarms on various filters. Furthermore, you ignore John K, and you also ignore that you, Kurdo and Fullstop have operated together on multiple pages which would show a problem. This page has also been listed at RPP, ANI, multiple wikiprojects, and an RfC was going on above. Did you forget about that RfC? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you just being your usual charming self? Or was there something other than yet another value judgment in the ignorant "you, Kurdo and Fullstop have operated together on multiple pages which would show a problem"? (btw, pleased to meet you Kurdo77) -- Fullstop (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, a search on my name reveals quite a bit of me responding to other situations or, when I am brought up, it being shot down as pointless or people not understanding rules. But it doesn't take much to see that you three have been siding on quite a few of the same sides on many of the same pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

None of these people came here because of that RfC. Alefbe (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Pool A here is interesting. Ottava's on it and three other names from that one short list have appeared here. Ottava has made several references to conversations made off-wiki.WP:CANVASS (campaigning)) is the relevant policy here. OR has been busy poisoning the well. --Folantin (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That conversation took place on Wikipedia Review. If you had any experience on Wikipedia, you would know that Wikipedia Review is not my friend, nor do they like me in any regard. And Folantin, there is a blatant RfC going on with this topic and it is a top priority page. Now, if you want to go on and on about canvassing, there is quite a bit of evidence of meat puppetry and sock puppetry by you and your defenders. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

And did you forget that this was mentioned at ANI and my talk page? Do you know how many admin read my talk page? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

So they're here because of you rather than the subject matter. That figures. ANI has never previously been noted for its burning interest in Iranian history topics.--Folantin (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No, they are here because of the dispute by people like you that is causing disruption. Then, when they do come here, they realize that you are trying to justify large scale removal of text and edit warring it out of existence. The average person is disgusted and offended by such actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it's just pure coincidence there are a large number of newcomers here associated with WP:WIKICUP, WP:DYK and Featured Pictures, areas where you tend to hang out. --Folantin (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikicup, DYK, FP, and you forgot GA, FAC, FAR, ANI, etc. The people who have responded above tend to deal with most topics, especially top priority topics. There aren't that many top priority topics and most admin watchlist them for vandalism. I'm sure that if Cluebot would have beaten Wizardman to reverting the blanking you would claim some bot conspiracy against you too. But the simple fact is that you were caught POV pushing and edit warring across multiple pages and you are desperate to not get banned. However, you are just digging deeper. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, a "Top Priority" article that has been marked for clean-up since March and unverified claims since April. Somehow I think my interpretation of events is more convincing. Anyhow, enough. Either make good on your threat to have me banned for editing Iranian history articles or shut up about it. --Folantin (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between people cleaning up a page and blanking a page. If that statement has been there since March, why do you suddenly come in now and then suddenly decide that there is nothing salvageable? Sure seems like your own argument only reveals you are a troll that seeks only to wipe out a top priority page than to actually contribute. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really want to be thrown in with any side here - my preference would still be for a short article, but I don't think continuing to revert to a short article that doesn't have consensus is productive. Perhaps instead of throwing accusations back and forth it would be best to hold off and take a deep breath. Continuing to revert is just going to result in protecting the page again, which doesn't help anybody. The page was in its current state for a long time before - I don't see the harm in leaving it like that while we figure out what to do. That is what's going to happen anyway, but it would be better to leave the article open so that it can be improved by editing. Ottava has suggested a program for revising the article; perhaps he could edit the existing article to incorporate what he wishes to dowhich would allow us to have a better sense of what he wants to do to it. At that point, we could have a more educated discussion of what the preferable course would be. john k (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the discussion above and comments by some, the issue of the format of the article was supposed to be resolved (with a rough consensus on the "Bulgarian model"). Since people haven't seen fit to comment with a point of view in the RfC about it above, and argued that the discussion should move on to discussing specific content, we can assume that this is still correct. No one should be attempting, then, to remove 60k of the article without achieving a separate and superior consensus. Nathan ^T 20:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Both John K and Nathan raise good points. Durova³⁰⁶ 20:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Where does this "Bulgarian model" means preserving that 60k crap? That "Bulgarian model" was Folantin's suggestion and he is totally against preserving that 60k crappy version. Alefbe (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The responsibility rests on your shoulders to persuade a consensus that 60k of material is so seriously flawed that it ought to be removed rather than revised. Editors are willing to be persuaded, but a hostile/dismissive tone and epithets such as "crap" aren't helpful. At Wikipedia, the burden of responsibility always rests with editors who want to make substantial changes to the existing status quo (particularly when that means 60k reduction rather than 60k expansion). Slow down and assemble an organized and referenced presentation for why you think that change would be better. I, for one, am not going to take time from my day to read old threads if they carry a similar tone to Alefbe's statements in this thread. But an organized and systematic presentation would be welcome. Durova³⁰⁶ 21:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No, Durova. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." (WP:BURDEN). This article is "crap", a pov fork (by someone on a soapbox) of another article. The "blanking" mantra is a myth, and has been addressed several times. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That is verifiability. WP:VAND has an entry on blanking, which includes the unjustified mass deletion of text that consensus has deemed needed to stay. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Nathan, I think that the Bulgarian model has many flaws and only deals with a handful of groups. In either situation, it is too tiny to really effectively discuss the page. I will put together something in subspace on a possible condensing of the page later. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"No idea whether this is misinformation or not". This doesn't exactly inspire confidence in your revert to the current version. This page has been marked for "clean-up" since March and "unverified claims" since April. The moment people with experience editing Iranian history articles try to fix this dreck once and for all, a whole load of people turn up out of the blue trying to preserve said dreck in aspic. --Folantin (talk) 08:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes when you try to do a huge cleanup project all in one go, it fails spectacularly and results in a small riot. It's happened to me in the past more than once - most of the time it sticks, once in awhile everything goes pear shaped. The leftover path, then, is the one that takes a long time and involves civil discussion. You can't, of course, control whether other people do the same thing - be the voice of reason, and the contrast will be as clear as it can be. Nathan ^T 15:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is by this stage I'm having my doubts that the "Wikipedia way" really works. This discussion has produced far too many examples of the Sword-skeleton theory at work. --Folantin (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

first sentence

The article is in bad shape. The first sentence is "The Persian Empire was a series of successive Iranian or Iraniate empires that ruled over the Iranian plateau, the original Persian homeland, and beyond in Western Asia, South Asia, Central Asia and the Caucasus." This is un-sourced. I could not find a definition of the tern Persian empire as it is always used as clear from context. I propose changing to The Persian empire is a term used by scholars of ancient, medieval, and modern history of Iran and near east to refer to various consecutive and non-consecutive dynastic states as well as their territories and domains of cultural and political influence.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That is much better, although I think the Iranian plateau would need to be mentioned. john k (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So maybe: The Persian empire is a term used by scholars of ancient, medieval, and modern history of Greater Iran and near east to refer to various consecutive and non-consecutive dynastic states centred around the Iranian plateau as well as their territories and domains of cultural and political influence.--Xashaiar (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

another potential way of organizing the article

I thought I'd suggest the following as a proposed organization for the article. Three main sections of comparable length:

1. Achaemenid Empire
2. Sassanid Empire
3. Use of the term and idea with respect to different regimes ruling Iran after the Islamic conquest

Thoughts? john k (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

First we have to define the term "Persian empire" (see above). The geography of Persian empire should not be defined because it is impossible.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds ok to me, aslong as this doesnt become a disam page. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's fine. That's the "Bulgarian model", btw. (ps: BritishWatcher: how do you feel about a pseudo-setindex?). -- Fullstop (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, is everyone happy?

So now the current version, which I think everybody at least theoretically agrees is flawed, is protected for a week. I hope everyone is proud of themselves. I would suggest that anyone interested in a long version of the article prepare a draft for what you're actually contemplating here. I also suggest archiving talk. john k (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggested it earlier, but no one cared. Alefbe (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, putting full protection on articles like this is the hallmark of the novice admin, or at least of admins with no sort of experience with these ethnic feuds. Note how the template says "protected from editing until disputes have been resolved". Allow me to chuckle. It appears that NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) expects the community to "resolve the dispute" with the Persian nationalist crowd. I suggest you come back in 2050 or so and see it is going, NuclearWarfare. Great username for patrolling Iran-related articles, btw.

What admins need to do instead in cases like this is enforce project principles and clamp down on editors pushing an idfeology. Of course this isn't easy, first you need to invest time in understanding what is going on, and then nobody will thank you for your pains, and you may even be dragged to arbcom, and arbcom after months of a vitriolic "case" will mildly admonish everyone to please be nice. This is what you are asking for if you take admin action on an article infested by nationalism. Take it or leave it, I suppose, but protecting an article for a few days and hoping things will sort themselves out is assuming a level of good faith encyclopedicity that may simply not exist in your audience. --dab (𒁳) 09:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

At least one person seeking the blanking of the page has been pointed out to operate multiple secondary accounts and have a strong Kurdish anti-Iranian agenda. If you want to talk about "nationalism", please don't act like there are Iranian nationalists here, as that is clearly not the case. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

@dab: Well said. Enforcing project principles (e.g. the V/OR/RS plane) seems to have taken a backseat to everything else. The "please be nice" superficiality is the fundamental flaw in the system because people who are out to misuse WP don't play nice to begin with (whether to further their agenda, or just to be insufferable jerks on an ego trip). They have learned to game the system, and -- if they scream loudly enough, and misrepresent issues often enough (e.g. "vandal!", "blanking!", "troll!") -- sometimes even manage to be feted as great wikipedians.

It is true that admins are rarely thanked for their pains. This is a serious shortcoming (also on my part) and I'm going to take this opportunity to thank Moreschi, Dbachmann, Doug Weller, Ev, FutPerf, ChrisO and a host of other old hands for keeping the abuse in check. You guys are appreciated, even if this isn't expressed as often as it ought to be. -- Fullstop (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it has taken a back seat because you are unwilling to recognize sources and promote many different ideas that are contradictory to what Wikipedia is about. Fullstop, your comments about "misusing WP" apply to you and the others that are pushing an agenda that flies in the face of everything Wikipedai stands for. You can claim -I- misrepresent issues, but comparing my edits with yours shows that I have done far more for Wikipedia than you have, especially when considering that stunts like this are all you have really accomplished here. I love how you mention Moreschi, Doug, and the rest, who have been tag teaming on various pages for a long time and most people know that it would be best for the project if all of you were kept away. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This is just a list of talk pages that you guys have tag teamed on. There is far more evidence showing that you guys have been acting inappropriate in terms of edit warring and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

In my "Possible structure" section, I defined a structure. User:Ottava_Rima/Persian_Empire is half way through the condensing of the history sections per what I am proposing. As you can see, the sections are tight and focused on the empire building and important aspects of the empire. I am not past the Sassanids. As I mentioned on John's page, There should be four paragraphs for a lead, 2 on the term "Persian Empire" (and use of "Iran") along with common uses and how it appears in other uses. The section after will deal with imperial aspects, such as the term "shah" and other defining characteristics. The first two sections are the first two of the four proposed history sections. As you can see, I condensed them quite a bit. I would like it for people not to edit the page so I can work on the proposal quickly. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

OR , so we have a few good editors finally trying to tackle this festering mess of an article, and all you can say to that is "won't happen"? Please let the people finish the job. Please try to listen to what Folantin has been saying. We have Achaemenid Empire for the actual "Persian Empire", Shah for Persian monarchy more generally, and History of Iran for anything else "Persian" and "Imperial". What you are proposing is simply {{duplication}}. --dab (𒁳) 09:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann, I don't think you understand how Wikipedia operates or even know what a "good" editor is. Seeing as how I have worked in good articles and FAC for over a year and have many, many more than most here have new articles. I think I know about how articles operate. This is a notable term. It must have its own article. It cannot be in a stub, as even the stub template says that the article must be expanded. You cannot simply redirect a notable term. This follows summary style with information directly linked to the term. Your claim above would remove Roman Empire because all information can be found on other pages. Hell, your claim would remove Samuel Johnson because of the same thing. Your claim shows a complete ignorance about encyclopedic matters or is merely a false justification to push a POV of many of your friends. The fact that you say "actual 'Persian Empire'" when above has many, many references that say the term is used elsewhere only verifies that you are pushing a POV and don't really care about our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann has been at Wikipedia forever and, in my experience, is almost always right. It is really poor form to simply accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being incompetent, or stupid, or a POV pusher, or what not. I don't think that anyone has been primarily pushing for this article to be a redirect, but turning it into a disambiguation page seems completely appropriate, and there are plenty of articles about "notable term" which are disambiguation pages (or redirects, for that matter). Persia, for instance, is a notable term which redirects to Iran. Imperial China is a notable term which is a disambiguation page. Via media is a notable concept in Anglicanism, but that redirects to Anglicanism. French Empire is a disambiguation page. And the proposal you've been putting together, so far, looks like it's just a slightly warmed over version of the current article, which there is clearly no consensus to maintain. You respond to the fact that people don't think there should be a section on the Medes by merely moving the section on the Medes to the beginning of the section on the Achaemenids, with no explanation; similarly for the Seleucids and Arsacids with the Sassanids section. These other dynasties probably deserve no more than a sentence each, if that. The post-Islamic conquest part of the article needs to be shortened drastically, because calling any of them "Persian Empire" is non-standard - there should be no more, I think, than a brief discussion of the ways these dynasties tried to connect themselves to the pre-Islamic past, and some brief note that some of them are occasionally referred to as "the Persian Empire." But brief - the discussions of the Achaemenids and Sassanids should each probably be longer than the discussion of the later period. I'll try to work up an almost certainly inadequate draft. john k (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I know a lot of people that would be happy when Dbachman is gone for his long history of blatant POV pushing. Just look at his talk page and you can see a long time involvement with the users who are pushing an anti-Iranian agenda here. "by merely moving the section on the Medes to the beginning of the section on the Achaemenids, with no explanation" Seeing as how the Achaemenid Empire was born out of the Medes, it is important to understand where it came from just as the Roman Republican is necessary to understanding the Roman Empire. That should have been obvious. If you noticed, I chopped out quite a bit. And as I proved above with many sources, many of the Post-Islam dynasties are called Persian Empire and Folantin has already conceeded past 1500 as being a Persian Empire. John, your recent comment on the matter contradicts a lot of what you have said before, which is really inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, John, consensus needs to be formed to -change- a page, and consensus below 60% is not consensus. There are 6 strong opposes to changing the page from the long format. So don't mouth off about consensus when it is clearly against you. If you want to take such a stance, fine. Your opinion will be ignored along with the other trolls because you are not here to actually fix the page but destroy it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

When Dbachmann says stuff like that where I am merely defending the argument that multiple admin, an Arbitrator, and many other editors have held, it is a sign that he doesn't even have a clue about Wikipedia or whats in the best interest. It seems apparent that Wikipedia would be better with 4 less people around here. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Um. "Folantin has already conceeded past 1500 as being a Persian Empire." I haven't "conceeded" this, I pointed out from the start that some sources have referred to Safavid Iran (and the states which followed down to 1979) as a "Persian Empire" (I'm the one who mentioned Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire? etc.). Please stop misrepresenting other people's arguments - again. It's not even worth bothering to address the rest of your comment.--Folantin (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"I pointed out from the start that some sources" Ahahaha. If you are going to lie, at least not do it on the same page that makes it clear that the contrary is true: ""Persia" is slightly outdated. (Only the Achaemenid and Sassanid empires were Persian in every sense of the word). --Folantin (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)" There are other instances in which you tried to erase everything post Islam. Hell, your stub version does just that. Funny how that happens. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's perfectly obvious what I said from the archives, so people can look at that rather than rely on your interpretations (and, yes, only the Achaemenids and Sassanids were from Persis). "Hell, your stub version does just that." No it doesn't. --Folantin (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

So, if they are the only "Persian Empire" then your claim that post 1500 is not a "Persian Empire". But then you said above that it was. Sure seems like you are saying two very different things at once. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Folantin said that only the Achaemenids and Sassanids were Persian Empires "in every sense of the word." That certainly leaves open the possibility that the Safavids, or any other group, might be a Persian Empire in some sense of the word. john k (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so, if someone was to give you money in "some sense of the word", do you expect it will be cash? If someone is not going to harm you in "some sense of the word" do you feel safe? If your dentist says it will be okay in "some sense of the word" are you going to relax? I sure as hell wouldn't because in the English language "some sense of the word" is a phrase to say that no, it isn't close to what word I am claiming it is like in "some sense of the word" and that there is only a loose connection. She knows exactly that she was blanking out everything but the first two and did just that. This is just revisionist history because she knows a ban is coming down soon against a few key players and she was helping them from the very beginning. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A tentative attempt at a draft

Alright, I've made a meager attempt at an alternate draft here. It's still 28K, which seems too long to me. I basically deleted all the material about the Medes, Seleucids, and Arsacids, as well as most of the previously existing material on the period after the Islamic conquest, which I replaced with (likely inadequate) text by myself. I basically kept the currently existing material on the Achaemenids and Sassanids without looking at it too closely. This is just an attempt, anyway, to which I am not committed in any way, so have at it, but the basic idea was to significantly shorten the article without replacing it entirely. I assume that the material on the Achaemenids and Sassanids can also be condensed, and I imagine that the material I wrote on the later periods needs to be subjected to considerable editing by those more familiar with the subject than me. I'd be open to completely replacing that material with an even shorter summary, as well, since I'm afraid it's largely just an incompetent rehash of material at History of Iran. It might, at any rate, be grievously flawed in any number of ways, but I'd be interested to know what people think. john k (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that, on the whole, this was an experiment, to see what such an article might look like. I'm not convinced it's the best way to deal with the article. A much more radical restructuring and shortening would probably be a better option. john k (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The Achaemenids are born out of the Medes and took over the Medes. To erase them would be completely ahistorical. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The Medes were not the "Persian Empire," nor were the Persians "born out of" them. And the Medes are mentioned in context of their relations with the Persians. john k (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Did I say that the Medes were Persian? No, I said that the Persian Empire came about through them. There was a close political relationship, and information like that matters when the Achaemenids took over their empire. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The Persians' relationship with the Medes is discussed, though. I don't see why this article needs a detailed history of the Medes. john k (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If you consider what I have as "detailed", I would suggest you buy a dictionary and look up the word. Detailed would be at least 10 or 20 times that much information. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at it more closely over the weekend. Thanks for the attempt. At first glance, I think it's a good basis but it should be reduced further, as you say (likewise, as you say, it still preserves some of the errors from the "protected version" of this page.--Folantin (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As for john k, your draft is fair enough, but it still doesn't address the ore question of {{duplication}}. Why does it have a section "Arabs, Turks, and Mongols (643-1500)"? How is this different from the corresponding sections at our history of Iran article? We already have a dedicated article on each entity mentioned here. If you ask me, this page should simply become a disambiguation page, because it simply doesn't have any scope not already duplicated elsewhere. --dab (𒁳) 20:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

(slight refactor) --- any time you finish explaining to Ottava that Persia does not "include India, and the rest", can we get back to business and try to agree on an article scope, or a {{split}} --dab (𒁳) 18:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Changed heading

Ottava Rima, please find an artile where you can contribute meaningfully. This may not be easy, but we have three million of them, and I am sure there must be one. The longer you stick around on this page, the more you are making an ass of yourself. Seriously, not even the nationalists manage to come up with the incoherent nonsense you have managed to accumulate during your brief involvement. Ok? Please let people work. If you have a point to make, present some sort of academic references. You are really doing nobody a favour by pulling random claims involving "Persians" out of your sleeve. This isn't a forum discussion. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 20:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at my record, every article I've contributed to has been meaningful. Looking at your record, it is a wonder why you haven't been banned a long time ago. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The very fact that you don't understand that Persia does not equal Iran, but includes Afghanistan, Iraq, India, and the rest, is very disturbing and has been pointed out many times. Such things are indicative of a major POV push. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

And please actually read what you link. From the duplication template: "by replacing the section with a link and a summary of the repeated material". That only applies to -complete- duplication. This, as was pointed out by at least 4 contributors, is already in summary style and does not duplicate anything but the idea, thus conforming to the MoS guide on summary style. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"One thing is best explained from the start...Iran and Persia are the same country." (Axworthy Iran p.XV). Historically, "Iran" has not been confined to the borders of the current Islamic Republic. During Safavid times, for instance, they were very different (and regularly shifting). In the same way, 19th century Russia included Ukraine, Belarus etc. (and 21st century Russia includes Chechnya). --Folantin (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that happens to be one of the most ridiculous comments ever. Italy and Rome are not the same entity. Yes, they are related. However, the Roman Empire and Italy are very different. Modern day countries, i.e. what we call "Iran", is not the same thing. Iran does not equal Afghanistan, parts of Iraq, etc. The Persian Empire does. This page talks about -multiple- countries. The History of Iran talks about -one- country. The History of Afghanistan is its own separate page. That was linked -multiple- times. There is no excuse for you not to know this. There is no claim that can be made to say that this is a clone of Iran when it deals with information from the History of Afghanistan topic also. That little detail right there verifies that your argument have no merit and you -know- they have no merit. That makes you a troll. Stop it immediately. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the analogy that you keep making, that Rome:Roman Empire:Italy::Persia:Persian Empire:Iran, is flawed in some way, and this is why people keep disagreeing with you? john k (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, John, Ottava is simply full of it and came to this page for the single reason of annyoing her arch-nemesis Folantin. Not because she is interested in the topic, and god forbid not because she has the first clue on the topic. She is just picking things up as she goes along. Can we agree to go for WP:DENY here and try to focus on the article? --dab (𒁳) 19:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann, are you capable of abiding by any of the rules, policies, or guidelines? Talk pages are not to have sections with people's names in them like that. Furthermore, if you want to say that I have no idea about the topic, why are you even here? We all know that you've worked on many pages with Folantin and have nothing to contribute here. However, you do do a great job backing her up in all of her disruptions. Furthermore, claiming I don't have a clue is to condemn many, many others, including the first person to say on the talk page that the blanking was wrong, then Wizardman for reverting the blanking, and so on. It is obvious that you are in the vast minority on this one. Your attacks here are only a distraction so you can continue disrupting and hope to chase people who actually care about the encyclopedia away. You are like a child with a toy that isn't theirs - you want to destroy it because if you can't have something no one should. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Dab was on this page long before you turned up. As for WP:TALK, you might want to refresh your memory of the bit where it says: "Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with 'admins you know' or having them banned for disagreeing with you." It's getting to be a habit of yours. Now please just give it a rest and go and edit an article on a subject you might actually know something about.--Folantin (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he was on this page, and just about every other page in which you start a dispute and push whatever fringe view. And the banning wouldn't be because you disagree with me. The banning would be from you constantly edit warring, using multiple editors to help in the edit warring, your flagrant disregard for consensus, for verifiability, for reliable source, and on and on and on. This is just one of many pages that you chose to destroy. And Folantin, I have demonstrated far greater knowledge on this topic than you have, but you rarely demonstrate any knowledge on any topic. You mostly just make claims and hope they stick. You have done nothing to try and improve this page, nor are you willing to accept the community consensus that says that, surprise, we want to keep a detailed page on a term that is highly notable, is top ranked on a wikiproject and high ranked on another, and linked to by over 1000 pages. So you have two options: actually help John with his writing and citing (because I know you wont bother to do it on my version, which is similar to John's), or just go. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

1911 Britannica

I know I mentioned it a few times, but I feel that their entry (and scope) about the Persian Empire is important: p. 226. It goes so far as to say Hulagu Khan ran the Persian Empire. As such, it is rather strongly implied that all of the dynasties mentioned are part of the Persian Empire. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

But maybe that usage of "Persian empire" is precisely about "the territories and geography of Persian empire" which are indeed difficult/impossible to define. One looks at "a Persian empire" and its geography and say "the next ruling dynasty which is not necessarily Persian ran the Persian empire'." Though it is possible that Persinate dynasties have been count as "Persian empire". Can you post the complete sentences of Britannica?.Xashaiar (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Impossible to define? Um, Britannica makes it seem rather easy to define, as with the Wiki article. And can you not see the link above? I have posted many, many links which makes it clear that the Persian Empire includes a lot of stuff various people want to claim it doesn't to simply justify a removal of content. The Britannica is just another notable source verifying what I've been saying. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not say anything that "could imply" that "Persian empire does/did not include a lot of stuff". The point is that "Persian empire is a term to be understood from the context". Achaemenid and sassanid empires were different in the sense of geography, Buyids were even more different but still a "Persian empire" (though by an exclusive and full understanding of "Persian" as "speaker of the Persian languageand native of south-western Iran" makes people like fullstop disagree with this usuageof the term.) Xashaiar (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Different in the sense of Geography? That is like saying the US was not the same country as it was 200 years ago. Geography matters little. Regardless, the term "Persian" is a designation by Western Nations and always has been. The term was used to describe the series of dynasties in the Iranian, Afghanistan, etc region. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Right. Please define the term "Persian empire" the way you understand it, so that we can agree on the basis of an article. (see also the definition above). Xashaiar (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Please check the post you are responding to. I gave a definition. Plus, that is one with a capital "E", not a lowercase. There is a difference. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Sometime one makes mistakes. So can you please re-post your definition here once more so that people can work together and reach a Consensus. (as a designation for dynasties ruling a region, is not a definition). My definition is: Persian Empire is a term used by scholars of ancient, medieval, and modern history of Greater Iran and Near East to refer to various consecutive and non-consecutive dynastic states centred around the Iranian plateau as well as their territories and domains of cultural and political influence.? Xashaiar (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Why has Ottava Rima started discussing the 1911 Britannica? When I pointed out the use of "Persian Empire" in the current Britannica, he stated, "Britannica is not a reliable source. It is a tertiary source. We use secondary sources." [1] So the up-to-date Britannica and Encyclopaedia Iranica (dismissed by Ottava as "not a reliable source") are irrelevant, but a 100-year-old work is worthy of consideration? This is getting beyond a joke. --Folantin (talk) 10:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Folantin, we both know Ottie doesn't care about whatever it was he said yesterday, or five minutes ago.

Fwiiw, the only entry under "Persian Empire" in the current Britannica is on the "historical empire from about 550 BC-640 AD". In literature, "Persian Empire" overwhelmingly refers to the Achaemenid Empire. I had a hard time finding references where the term refers to the Sassanian empire, and then mostly qualified as "second Persian empire", "Neo-Persian Empire" or similar. See wikt:Persian Empire. Britannica 1911 itself calls the Sassanid Empire the "Neo-Persian Empire" (s.v. "Mahomet"). It cannot be ruled out, of course, that in the entire history of writing about the history of Persia, "Persian Empire" has been used in another or a looser sense, but such usage is so marginal that a simple disambiguation hatnote will be more than enough. Having Persian Empire point to anywhere but Achaemenid Empire would be like, say, turning Mount Ararat into a disambiguation page because there is Mount Ararat (Pennsylvania).

ignoring, for the moment, all trolling and all the hostility involved in this, the obvious course is to simply redirect this page to Achaemenid Empire, and place a {{redirect|Persian Empire}} there, which will point to Persian Empire (disambiguation), which duly points out that the term may also refer to the Sassanid state. As for the 1500+ links pointing here, I fail to see the problem. We have bots, and we can just point them at history of Iran instead, assuming that most of them were created to avoid the Persia redirect which (misleadingly) points to the article on the modern state. --dab (𒁳) 12:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This'd be fine with me. As a practical matter, how can it be achieved given that not only Ottava, but various others as well, seem to think Persian Empire should be an article? How do we propose to turn this into a redirect without insuring a process of constant edit warring, protection, and eventual arbitration? If the choice is to take it to arbitration, we should just do that, and quit arguing here. john k (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the definition: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in Wikipedia article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic". This makes it clear that Persian empire can not be a Disambiguation page because the "topic is unique here" just like any other "general name". A topic that several times appears in "the title" of books, a term that has been used to call many dynasties (including obviousely Achaemenid empire and without any difficulty also for Sassanids: these exact searches that "sassanid persian empire", that "persian sassanid empire", and this particular series are in fact very often used. Also note these usages that likely do not refer to any of achaemenid or Sassanid. I also note the little summary in a book with that title that should tell the people who are afraid of "Persian nationalism involvement here" that the term is used to make different points than nationalism. The term Persian empire is a term that needs its own article (though preferebaly short).Xashaiar (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Xashaiar, welcome to the real discussion - Folantin has wanted to turn this into a disambiguation page for a long time. Two Kurdish POV pushers who have been blocked for such previously started off the mess and Folantin picked up their argument. Don't worry about Dbachmann's comments, he follows her to many, many pages and simply throws out whatever he can to defend whatever notions she has. So, their above arguments are just a desire to destroy the page. There are 6 people above that say that the page should not be reduced dramatically (which is more than those saying it should be turned into a disambiguation), so we can all effectively talk about how to correct the article without worry about Folantin, Dbachmann, etc, or their desires to just destroy content. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I've argued for a short article on the concept "Persian Empire" with links to specific articles or a disambiguation page. Stop misrepresenting people's views again. You have given no explanation why you are suddenly discussing the 1911 Britannica, given your dismissal of the most recent version of that work. --Folantin (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

And you've reverted to a redirect. You have stilled failed to comprehend that short articles are inappropriate, as even the stub template states that they should be expanded. And you haven't once told Alefbe that his statements are inappropriate. Funny how that happens. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirect to Achaemenid empire (with {{redirect}} hatnote there) is fine by me too. After all, as dab points out, "Achaemenid empire" is what "Persian empire" overwhelmingly^[##] refers to.

@johnk: I think the "PE needs to be an article" idea was tied to/the product of the "it-can't-be-a-disambig" issue. Since the "1500 links" issue can be fixed (and ought to be fixed independently of what happens at the PE article), and a redirect is not a disambig anyway, the "need" to be an article vanishes.

@dab: Having bots "fix" the links is not a good idea given that bots screwed them up to begin with (example: this). Instead, just convert instances of (pattern match) [[Persian empire|xxxx]] to 'xxxx'. Anyway, that's a secondary issue that can be dealt with on another day and in another place. -- Fullstop (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think that your google time-line search is abuse of google to prove a point? 1. Google Scholars and books should be used. 2. Your search shows this: "overwhelmingly the web-pages mentioning the term "Persian Empire" also mention something, somewhere about ? BC-300 BC (Achaemenid related time-line)" and nothing more". This is true and clear why: Any discussion about Persian empire should involve its history and since it is undisputed that Achaemenids formed the first Persian empire, they come naturally into any discussion on Persian empire. Xashaiar (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That search result showed the distribution of dates between 800 BC to 2009 that occur in close proximity to the phrase "Persian empire".

Also, that link _included_ gbooks, but here, have _only_ gbooks. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Still does not prove anything more that what I said. This is a fact that literature on Achaemenid Iran is far more than any other period in Iranian history, whence your search result. Also on the previous point a sentence like "Safavids established a Persian empire first heared of after Cyrus the Great in 600 BC" will apear in your search result and still counts something diffrently that its primary meaning. Even considering those google search results the way you want. we should consider Persian empire associated to (600 - 400 BC), Sassanid (200-600 AD), Timurid and Safavid (1400 - 1800 AD). Even more seriousely the graph on the top of the page you posted show that the term is applicable almost continuesely from 600BC-1900 AD. So how you can reduce it to Achaemenid empire? This kind of search shows nothing. A short article should solve the problem.Xashaiar (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

@Dbachman: Having this page as a redirect to the primary usage and another page as a disambiguation page (for other usages) is fine. Alefbe (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That's an option I could approve of. --Folantin (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

the primary meaning is clearly Achaemenid Empire. I have now found attestation of Persian Empire in the 17th century, and of Imperium Persarum in the 1st. It is conceivable that the English term orignates in the 16th century, but I have not found a quote so far. As for explaining the term "Persian Empire" and its sometimes fuzzy application, this should be done at translatio imperii, see my explanation of this point here. As for Persia (as opposed to "Persian empire), we may want to review the redirect to "Iran (1979 Islamic Republic)". In practice, most (as in, virtually all) links to Persia will occur in a pre-1979 context, and it may make sense to have Persia point to history of Iran to account for this. --dab (𒁳) 07:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Nobody who wants to keep a full version of this article has pointed out what it contains that isn't in History of Iran (or the sub-articles on the empires). Nobody who wants to keep the full version has removed any of the numerous errors this article contains. The page is now unblocked. So what are we going to do?--Folantin (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Every time you make that claim, it is refuted by pointing out that this page also covers information on History of Afghanistan, thus, you cannot claim that this is a duplicate page. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, where's Herat nowadays, for instance? I think you'll find it features in History of Iran. Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about. --Folantin (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to honestly argue that the Persian Empire is not a major part of the History of Afghanistan, then you have only verified that you should have been banned at the very start of this argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You don't have a clue, do you? --Folantin (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You were given two options - either admin that the history of Afghanistan is intertwined with the Persian Empire or verify that you do, indeed, don't know what you are talking about. Either way, your argument about the History of Iran page is null. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

History of Iran includes the history of Afghanistan before the eighteenth century. You may think that it shouldn't do so, but it does. Saying that Persian Empire should include Afghanistan, and that this is something which is not covered in History of Iran is not an argument at all. As for whether History of Iran should cover Afghanistan, there's all kinds of business like that in Wikipedia - just off the top of my head, History of India covers Pakistan and Bangladesh before 1947 and History of Germany includes Austria before 1866. john k (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I just want to say that I think "Persian Empire" not only primarily means "Achaemenid Empire", but is also the WP:Common name for it, and therefore Achaemenid Empire should be moved to Persian Empire, rather than a redirect going the other way. Any content in Persian Empire not duplicated already can be merged elsewhere, and a hatnote takes take of the occasional use of Persian Empire (usually with Second or Neo qualifiers) to refer to non-achaemenid empires. See also WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Rd232 ^talk 23:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

PS For convenience' sake, here's a link to the last unredirected version to make it easier to see what, if anything, needs merging. Personally it looks like a straight summary of a series of articles, so what's really lost by deleting the article? Rd232 ^talk 00:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That has been proposed above and there are many, many more challengers for the title than that. It has already been demonstrated that the term has been widely used in many sources and that it is not simply one dynasty. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see the sources which contradict the idea that the primary meaning of "Persian Empire" is the AE, and also which contradict it being the common name for the AE. Rd232 ^talk 00:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

(a bit off-topic) You claim something and your proof is "prove me wrong". This is not the way one argues. If you read some of the discussion, there is really nothing to disagree. The only point is that "Persian Empire" is a general name no matter how often it is used for one particular case.Xashaiar (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Here. You probably missed it because it was improperly archived. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it has been at all demonstrated that it is widely used to refer to anything but the Achaemenid dynasty. It has been demonstrated that it has been occasionally used to refer to other dynasties. john k (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I had actually read that archive page (Talk:Persian_Empire/Archive2#Sources_already_presented) already, and that strengthened my view that the Persian Empire has a single primary meaning (in the sense of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) - referring to AE, while "a Persian empire" is a description sometimes used of others. The difference is between "Persian Empire" as proper noun, and "Persian empire" as a noun phrase - an empire which is Persian. Rd232 ^talk 11:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Primary topic is for two different types of topics that both have the same name. It would be one thing if there was Persian Empire and Persian Empire (book). This is not the case. The primary topic of "Persian Empire" is a Persian imperial state. There were multiple ones. Each have their own page. Therefore, this page is devoted to the -name- and its -use-. You cannot say that it can only talk about one use and therefore be a redirect. That is not acceptable in policy nor is there any precedence for such an action. See WP:WEIGHT for how to deal with the amount of emphasis put for amount of uses, which is the only thing even close to what you are talking about, and it would not allow for a redirect as that would be a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is irrelevant - it is about presenting views within an article in proportion to their prominence. The equivalent for pagenames is... WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Having cleared that up, all we're left with is your unsourced assertion ("The primary topic of "Persian Empire" is a Persian imperial state") that "Persian Empire" is not in fact a proper noun. Perhaps your first language is not English, so to be clear: if the E in Empire is capitalised, it's a proper noun. Not capitalised, it's a compound noun. We're on Talk:Persian Empire. Rd232 ^talk 00:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Compounds do not have a space in between. 2. It is used as a Proper Noun in this article and on many, many sources. 3. I provided many sources to the contrary of you above. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well at least you're succinct in your errors. 1. In English compounds, there is typically a space. (This is unusual - other languages tend to have no space - Compound (linguistics)). 2. Yes, that's my point. And qua proper noun, it refers specifically to the Achaemenid Empire. 3. No you haven't. You've pointed me to the archive, where I've seen nothing to suggest that what I've said is wrong. Rd232 ^talk 02:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I have an extensive background in linguistics and taught it before. At no time was there ever a "compound" in English in which they were two words. Compounds are single words, not phrases. The whole concept of "compounding" is merging two words together as one. By definition, "a compound is a lexeme", and lexemes do not have spaces in the middle of them. An item with a space is a "phrase". 2. As I proved above, it does not. 3. Many sources say otherwise. There was a whole section devoted to listed references. Look under "Scope" and you can see where it lists references provided. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

A new proposal for the lead

Per references given above that Persian empire does not "exclusively" refer to Achaemenid empire, I propose the following as the lead of the article:

Persian empire is a term used by scholars of ancient, medieval, and modern history of Greater Iran and Near East to refer to various consecutive and non-consecutive dynastic states centred around the Iranian plateau as well as their territories and domains of cultural and political influence. Thus

• strictly speaking "Persian empire" is used more often for dynasties ruling Greater Iran who originated from south-western Iran and/or officially used the Iranian language "Persian" of that region. References to Achaemenid, Sassanid, and Buywids as "Persian empires" follow this.
• roughly speaking "Persian empire" is a term used less often by English speaking scholars and authorities to call any of "empires" of a country they knew as "Persia". In this case Safavid Iran is also sometime refered to as a Persian Empire.

This is not perfect, but I guess we can work on this.Xashaiar (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If you could integrate the bullets into sentences (bullet points in a lead is a little awkward), then I would support. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought "bullet" format is necessary in order to distinguish "different" usages. But everyone can propose what they think is correct.Xashaiar (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see your point, but it might be best to keep a bulleted format in a first section on the term itself. Leads can be messy things to deal with and are the first section. I don't know, but I do like the content. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Straw Poll

There were nine people before that made it clear that they wanted the article as an article, not as a disambiguation, a redirect, or anything else. However, it seems like we have to go through this drill again. So, lets establish consensus by getting everyone's opinions nice and clear. You can choose multiple options (this straw poll is adopted from the standard on Nathan's user talk page). This options are done based on minimum size you would like to see the page, with any option besides disambiguation, redirect, or stub being considered as wanting there to be a page in the greater sense for determining lack of opinion for turning this into a disambiguation or redirect page. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Full page

Page over 45k

Users who wish to see the page at least 45k in size

1. First choice. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
2. First choice, mainly per DGG. Hopefully this will provide a (rough) consensus as to whether a redirect is the right thing and at least halt the redirection every time it comes out of protection. Ironholds (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
3. The subsections under "Full page" are rather pointless, but I would endorse all of them in descending order. NW (Talk) 02:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC) For my views on why, I posted a few times earlier on in the discussion, and I broadly agree with Ottava and DGG) NW (Talk) 17:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Major topic--major empire over a long period and needs extensive coverage even in the summary article. The references show that the term is used generally for later periods also. I agree with NW that these sections are a little overspecific for a poll, & would suggest just having the two choices of full page and redirect. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
5. First choice (a detailed article). The topic is of major importance in Ancient History of Near East. Only "First Persian Empire" can/should be redirected to Achaemenid empire. Xashaiar (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
6. Only sensible one out of the kb options, per above. Wizardman 01:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Page over 30k

Users who wish to see the page at least 30k but less than 45k in size

1. Second choice. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Second choice. Ironholds (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Page over 15k

Users who wish to see the page at least 15k but less than 30k in size

Under 15k

Users who wish to see the page under 15k but above a stub size

Reduced page

Stub

Users who wish to see the page as a stub

Disambiguation

Users who want to turn the page into a disambiguation page

1. First choice - logical when there's no consensus on meaning, but a preponderance of evidence for one meaning (Achaemnid), and no evidence for a continuously existing referent. --Alvestrand (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Users who want to turn the page into a redirect

1. Second choice. --Alvestrand (talk) 11:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on straw poll

This is for discussion on the straw poll. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This format is confusing for newcomers. I have no idea what the implications of the different options are, and I'm not going to wade through pages and pages of acrimonious "discussion" to figure what it all means. As someone who's reasonably familiar with ancient Greek and Roman history, "Persian Empire" means the state ruled by the Achmaenids, and I'm surprised to see that Persian Empire leads to something else. Yes, the term "Persian Empire" can be used to mean the Parthian Empire, the state ruled by the Sassanids, and probably other states as well. But, as far as my experience goes, the primary meaning of "Persian Empire" is the state founded by Cyrus and conquered by Alexander. Achaemenid Empire should be renamed Persian Empire, and Persian Empire (disambiguation) can handle the rest. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

OR, I would in fact do this as having only the two choices. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Claiming primary meaning has no reliable source. Many, many sources treat the whole series of dynasties as one entity. They don't say "Persian Empires" (notice the "s"). Ottava Rima (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. This is one of the clearest instances I've ever seen of WP:DEMOCRACY. Also, who are all these people who come here to vote for a long page without being willing to engage in any kind of discussion of why they think this? Why should any of us take their views seriously if they can't be bothered to actually explain them? I refuse to participate in this poll. john k (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well of the four current supporters of a long page, two have now explained their actions and the third is Ottava Rima, whose opinions are rather well known to you. The central intent of this poll is to establish some kind of rough consensus as to whether or not there should be a page, something that will stop the edit-warring over a redirect every time protection comes off. I would've thought that establishing some kind of stability is something everyone can support. Ironholds (talk) 06:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

What John said. This is ridiculous. How the hell can you decide a priori whether the page should be 15k, 30k, or 45k long without regard for content? As has been repeated time and time again, the content in this article is available elsewhere at History of Iran, Greater Iran, Achaemenid Empire etc.. There has been no engagement with the intellectual arguments. --Folantin (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite easily - John made it clear that he wanted a much shorter article. You have complained that there is too much detail. The size options allow you to pick what exactly you mean. Some people would say "shorter" to mean 15-30k whereas your use meant "stub". Very different items. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

15k, 30k, and 45k are meaningless to me. You might as well ask whether I want the text to be 3, 6, or 9 meters long, or whether it should be 4 quarts. It would be better to ask what subject matter the article ought to contain. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"15k, 30k, and 45k are meaningless to me." Then please, spend more time in content work. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not a helpful response. A helpful response would be a description of the substantive differences between the 15k, 30k, and 45k versions that you have in mind. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There already were such discussions on the matter. As I stated, Folantin stated she wanted a "short" article if not a redirect. Someone else said they wanted a "shorter" article. Obviously, they now have the ability to make it known what they meant by such. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with John K. Alefbe (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

@Akhilleus: The title of the page Achaemenid Empire should be discussed in its own talk page. I, personally, don't see any advantage in moving that page to this title. Redirecting this title to that page is fine. Alefbe (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

A few questions, for those who want a long article:

I'm having a hard time understanding why we're arguing about how long the article should be, rather than what should be in it, so I thought I'd ask a few quick questions to those of you who are voting for "45 K+ article":

1. What should this article cover which is not covered in History of Iran and why?
2. Beyond discussing the Achaemenid Empire, what should be this article's scope and why?

Thanks. john k (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

For how many K should be the article, I have no argument. I support a detailed article that discuss "Persian Empire" as a concept and general name. History of Iran does not/should not deal with "administrative of empires of Persia", "names of the states", ... History of Iran is simply (as it stands looks at history of Iran as whole). For the second however: I proposed earlier what should the lead be. I think covering things like "First Persian empire", "Second Persian Empire" and "its last usage" are very important. I will have no problem to source the applicability of the phrase "Persian empire" for a long long period of time (see the what others posted): I would look at "Acta Iranica Tome I" to source the claim that "Persian empire" is used beyond Achaemenid and Sassanid. I think after the lead we can have three-four sections. A. First Persian Empire: about Achaemenids. B. Second Persian Empire: about Sassanids. C. Empires of Medieval Era of Iran: about dynasties and the cultural/political spheres of influences that were usually referred as "Persian empire". (sentences like "XXX lived in Persian Empire" is a common sentence that can be explained only if we understand Persian empire beyond dynasties...). d. Less often references to other Iranian empires: discuss the undisputed facts that certain authors have used the "Persian Empire" for dynasties other than Achaemenid, Sassanid, Safavid. (wrongly I know, but it has happened. And the explanation is that "Persian empire" here means empire of a country/state "the western world" knew as Persia). This explain why this page is not the same as History of Iran. In this page we want the phrase "Persian empire", its different usages, and it legacy perhaps be explained.Xashaiar (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Other issues aside, I've yet to see a coherent explanation of what the value added of this page is supposed to be, given that it appears to be merely a WP:Summary-style collection of intros to different Persian empires. How is this better than a disambiguation page? If a coherent explanation were forthcoming, I'd see an argument for Persian empires as a topic, either as an article or as a section of something else. I still have no sources contradicting my view that "the Persian Empire" has one meaning (Achaemenid Empire), whilst "a Persian empire" (eg book "Safavid Iran: rebirth of a Persian empire") is sometimes used of later ones, in a way that suggests a disambiguation page, and quite possibly a primary topic usage of Persian Empire for Achaemenid (i.e. move Achaemenid to Persian Empire). Rd232 ^talk 00:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You asked:"How is this better than a disambiguation page?" Because according to definition of WP:disambiguation (that the concept is "unique": sorry for bad example but for 90% of history the "concept" Logic was used undisputedly for First order logic, but in later developements we have Second order logic!....), and that we need a page that gives a short summary of the concept with sources. Look at the sentence "Safavid Iran was a rebirth of Persian Empire" (wrong or right.. there are many such sentences). This usage of "Persian Empire" does not refer to Achaemenid or Sassanid. It referes, as far as I understand, to something like what has been said earlier. Moving Achaemenid to Persian Empire is against WP:NAMING and WP:POV: that what the most respected sources in Ancient history use as the title/naming of their discussion of "Achaemenid era".Xashaiar (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying about the disambiguation. I'm not sure where your sentence comes from or what it's supposed to prove. Sentences in isolation anyway prove nothing, even if we're not going to start analysing your sentence (pointless without a source) to see whose view it actually supports. Rd232 ^talk 02:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources for all the usages of Persian empire are given in the discussions above. The second point was about "Achaemenid empire->Persian Empire" which according to WP:NAMING is not possible. In any case "Persian Empire" can not be made into a disambiguation page. This is far more than obvious.Xashaiar (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither "Achaemenid" nor "Persian" appears at WP:NAMING so you'll have to explain that a bit more. And your second point I refute thus: Persian Empire (disambiguation). Which brings me back to my original question in this section: what did the previous Persian Empire article add to Persian Empire (disambiguation)? Stacks of text copied from the linked articles? I don't see any value added there. Rd232 ^talk 02:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"Neither "Achaemenid" nor "Persian" appears at WP:NAMING" what do you mean? (If I understand you correctly:) Are you disputing the fact that "Achaemenid Empire" is the correct title of the corresponding page? The rest of your comment has been the topic of discussion in previous sections of this very page. Once agian disambiguation is not a good idea because 1. The TERM (Persian Empire) is not a term that we can say is used for a definitive number (say 3) dynasties. It is a general unique concept that has to have atleast a sentence or two as summary ("I" would like to see an article like what I outlined in my first comment here) ... 2. See this comments. Xashaiar (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Per John, people arguing for a long version of this article will have to: (a) justify why it's not going to be a duplication of History of Iran (or Achaemenid Empire etc.) - in other words what is going to be the unique informational value of this article? ; (b) avoid original research and the downright misleading impression that the "Persian Empire" was a more or less continuous entity from the 8th century BC until 1935 which the old version gave; (c) avoid the many inaccuracies and imbalances of the old version. --Folantin (talk) 07:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Recap of the "Persian empire" mess, how it developed, what the problems and potential solutions are/were

To recap the "Persian empire" mess, how it developed, what the problems and potential solutions are/were:

1. First a little background on nomenclature:
   • The "Persian empire" is named after the tribal affiliation of the 6th-4th century BC Achaemenids, who came from (and had their power base in) Persis, i.e. Persia proper, a province in the south-west corner of the Iranian plateau (the Iranian plateau stretches from the Tigris to the Indus).
   • The only other polity to which the term "Persian empire" can be applied in the same sense is the 3rd-7th century AD Sassanid state. However, this usage is much less frequent.
   • The Latin "Imperum Persarum [et Medorum]" to refer to the Achaemenid empire is the origin of "Persian Empire" in English language, and -- as in Latin usage -- predominantly refers to the Achaemenid empire.
   • There is also some isolated RS use of "Persian empire" to refer to the Safavids (ca. 1501–1736) and Qajars (1796–1925)
2. The problems with the Persian empire article:
   • it willy-nilly defines "Persian empire" to refer to any odd kingdom.
   • the article is riddled with OR, some of which is quite fantastic.
   • because of novel definition of "Persian empire", the article is /per-se/ an OR magnet.
   • it was originally a POV fork of [History of Iran], as part of the well-known "say-Persia-not-Iran" soapbox.
3. The (history of) solutions to the Persian empire article:
   • Originally, dbachmann, folantin and alefbe had settled on turning the page into a disambiguation, listing the two genuine Persian empires and covering other usage with a 'see also'.
   • This was objected to on the grounds that there are 1800+ incoming links to "Persian empire" (as it turned out, many were erroneously created by a bot that sought to disambiguate "Persia"), so the page was then turned into a short article that prose-ified what the disambiguation would have otherwise said. This was acceptable to all but one.
   • A hybrid of the disambiguation/short article options was the (pseudo-)setindex, which would allow a disambiguation style listing but also accomodate a brief description for each entry, and also enable proper sourcing. This too was acceptable to many.
   • A variant of the short article model was the so-called "Bulgarian model", an allusion to the Bulgarian empire article, which (like "Persian empire") has two states that were both called "Bulgarian empire". Following that model, the Achaemenids and Sassanids would receive a section each. This was acceptable to all but one.
   • The Bulgarian model would however merely be a duplication of what the relevant subsections in [History of Iran] article already say. So, the option would be to redirect to [History of Iran].
   • But redirecting to [History of Iran] would have only continued to leave the impression that "Persian empire" and "History of Iran" were synonyms, rather than the former only being a small and fragmentary subset of the latter. Because "Persian empire" overwhelmingly refers to the Achaemenid empire, it made/makes more sense to redirect PE to AE, with a hatnote at AE that linked to a disambiguation page.

Assuming that there is no point in duplicating what the [History of Iran] or the [Achaemenid empire] articles already say, A) a redirect or B) a disambig or C) combination of redirect+disambig is really all that can be done without resorting to original research.

Had the otherwise-rational discussion between otherwise-sensible editors not been disrupted with vociferous charges of "blanking", "vandalism", "pov pushing" and assorted other iniquity, the problems with the 'Persian empire' article would have been solved by now. Needless to say, the claims of "blanking", "vandalism", etc are false. Here, as elsewhere, its best to just let the people familiar with the sources do what needs to be done. -- Fullstop (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about a solution like in previous section (a variant of your variant of Bulgarian model): A sentence or two on the definition of the term "Persian Empire" and then three sections A. First Persian Empire (i.e. Achaemenids with stress on its simple usage also as "Persian Empire"), B. Second Persian Empire (i.e. Sasanids) C. Few dynasties of Medieval and Modern Era Iran. Though I insist on non-dynastic meaning of "Persian empire". This can not be denied that "Persian empire" refers to certain mysterious teretorial/cultural/political sphere of influence.Xashaiar (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

while it is disconcerting to see how much disruption a single bad faith user may cause if they go about it right, I think we are finally back on track now. The way wikidrama works is that everybody dumps text until the page becomes too long for anyone to care enough about to read, then everybody who was just here for the show buggers off and the sane editors can finally fix things. --dab (𒁳) 10:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Why the article has been deleted? Achaemenid is popular because of Greco-oriented Western oriented history which should not reflected in Wikipedia. That is since the West is primarily interested in the history of ancient Greeks, the Achaemenids play the most prominent role.

At the same time, in google books both "Persian Safavid empire" and "Safavid Persian empire" give a combined hit of 100 books. 100 sources is more than sufficient for Wikipedia and there is absolutely no reason to delete it. --Wayiran (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

All the "Persian empires" are covered in summary style by History of Iran. There is no point having a full-length article which duplicates the same material here. In English, "Persian Empire" overwhelmingly refers to the Achaemenid Empire, which is why this page redirects there. There is a link to a disambiguation page at the top which gives the other, occasional meanings of the term "Persian empire". --Folantin (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, not all of the Persian Empires are covered there and the History of Afghanistan reveals that there is a lot of information on the Persian Empire that covers multiple countries so cannot be claimed to be covered by History of Iran. The above idea has been debunked many, many times. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, the history of Afghanistan and other areas during the time when they were ruled by various dynasties based in modern Iran is, in fact, already covered in History of Iran. john k (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you only have to have a look at the maps on History of Iran to see this is the case. --Folantin (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

John, really? You are saying a brief mention of Afghanistan as being one of many is somehow comparable to the History of Afghanistan page? There is no actual discussion of Afghanistan history. There is no discussion of Indian history. There is no discussion of Iraqi history. The Persian Empire includes all of these. The fact that the History of Iran is 99k, in violation of WP:SIZE, with many, many problems only verifies that the pointing towards such a page is completely inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No general "History of Iran" is going to confine itself to the current borders of Iran. The Cambridge History of Iran certainly doesn't. --Folantin (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that the old Persian Empire article goes into notably more detail about Afghanistan than History of Iran. Nor do I see that it should. A detailed history of Afghanistan can be found at, er, History of Afghanistan. john k (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"confine itself to the current borders of Iran" based on that rationale, there should be no history of Afghanistan, history of Iraq, etc. However, that claim is patently absurd and has nothing to do with how Wikipedia operates. John, there is no "detailed history" at any of those pages. WP:SIZE makes it very obvious that we have many, many pages on various topics. You know this. You've been here long enough. Therefore, your own experience would state that your argument is wrong. So, you either have been here for a long time and know that your argument is absurd, or you don't have a clue. Furthermore, "I don't see that the old" is a really, really silly argument. It doesn't matter what the old page did or didn't do, as we have the ability to improve pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what your argument here is any longer. Afghanistan, during its periods of political unity with Iran, is covered in History of Iran, which is exactly what you claim we need Persian Empire to do. For periods when it has not been united to Iran, it has not been covered in either History of Iran or Persian Empire. History of Iran can be about subjects broader than the current borders of Iran while we at the same time have History of Afghanistan which covers some of the same material. What exactly about Afghanistan can be covered in Persian Empire but not History of Iran? john k (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"I have no idea what your argument here is any longer" and that is a problem. I suggest that if you don't understand it, then you should not respond. I made it clear that the distractive tactics above by Folantin are an affront to multiple guidelines and policies and do not reflect Wiki standards nor common sense. You tried to claim that the previous page did not cover a topic as if it mattered what the previous page covered or not. The fact that you are saying that the History of Iran should be broader when it is already over its WP:SIZE limit is utterly absurd and reflects pushing a matter against all reason and against all policy and guideline for some unknown reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Could we avoid resorting to personal attacks again, please? I agree with John - I don't understand the drift of your arguments either. As yet nobody has come up with a convincing reason for the existence of the full version of this page. --Folantin (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A false accusation of a personal attack is, as per WP:NPA, a personal attack. I suggest you strike your claims immediately. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying History of Iran should be broader. I am saying it already covers Afghanistan at least to the extent that the Persian Empire article did. john k (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

And that is a non-argument. 1. It is clear that the History of Iran page is over sized. 2. The claim that the scope of the History of Iran page covers everything under the Persian Empire is not only negated in 1, but in the existence of other pages like the History of Afghanistan. 3. Saying that there is an article that deals with a similar topic is not enough to claim that there should not be another article and never has been. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's no more oversized than History of France or History of the United States. History of Iran has more justification for its length given the time span of Iranian history. Again, History of Iran covers all the "Persian empires" in summary form. --Folantin (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Saying other pages violate our guidelines is not an excuse. The fact that you would even try such an argument only further undermines your whole claims here. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As to your point one, article length is a guideline, not a policy, and a very loose guideline, at that. Articles on vast subjects like History of Iran ought to be expected to be rather longer than articles on more manageable subjects. 100K for an article on the history of a country going across 3000 years hardly seems particularly oversized. As to point 2, that sentence is so convoluted that I have no idea what you are saying. As to point 3, the question, once again, is what Persian Empire is supposed to cover that is not covered in History of Iran. You keep saying "Afghanistan," but you have as yet provided no details as to what you mean by this. john k (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Lets see - a term that appears in hundreds of thousands of sources is some how not allowed to have a page because of the existence of another article that is already over its limit and shown not to be comprehensive, and the best you can come up with is that WP:SIZE is a "loose guideline"? It is rather evident that you are just trying to pull out any argument, no matter how unreasonable, simply to push a view. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In those hundreds of thousands of sources, Persian Empire overwhelmingly means the Achaemenid Empire. That's why the page has been redirected, with Persian Empire (disambiguation) covering other uses. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"overwhelmingly means" - Please don't post such utter falsehoods. You did not check the sources, nor could you have. This is a pure fabrication and has no place in such a discussion. It has already been demonstrated that your connection to this page represents a strong behavioral inappropriateness. Such comments above only further this. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You've been advised to stop personalizing this debate. Obviously, you don't want to take this advice. Unfortunate. And if you really believe that it's inappropriate for me to participate at this page, I invite you to seek administrator intervention through an appropriate noticeboard. Otherwise, I would appreciate it if you stopped alleging this.

As for sources, it's true that I haven't checked "hundreds of thousands of sources"--but I am well informed on the subject of ancient Greek and Roman history, and I know how sources in that area use "Persian Empire." From discussion on this talk page, it is clear that far fewer sources use "Persian Empire" to refer to later states. If you disagree, it would be helpful if you illustrated your argument with sources, instead of using inflammatory phrases like "utter falsehoods" and "pure fabrication". --Akhilleus (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

For any interested third parties, this thread has been around for a while now and is a partial summary of sources that can easily be accessed by others debunking above claims and is well known by those above that may claim that there has not been such produced. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You know, it's funny. I've read the section that Ottava Rima just linked to, and I think it supports my view better than it supports his. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Length is a loose guideline, in the sense that there are no hard and fast rules. It basically says "once you're over 50-60K or so, start to think about making it shorter," but it contains no hard directives that articles must be under 60K. john k (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It mostly goes with words. What happens is this - the History of Iran page is 99k. That is huge. It deals from everything from 6000 BC to present day. The History of Iran needs to be weighed based on the prominence of each issue per WP:WEIGHT. As such, it would be impossible to have something that adequately talks about the political periods and development over time. Each of the individual dynasty pages cannot talk about the greater development. The obvious argument against the History of Iran statements is that the middle section should be summaries of the -Persian Empire- page. Not only would that clean up the sloppiness of that article, but it would allow for the WP:WEIGHT and WP:SIZE issues to be fixed in a clean and orderly fashion. It would also allow for the History of Afghanistan page to also follow suit (with emphasis on Afghanistan in the Persian Empire) and the rest. By the way, check out France in the Middle Ages - it deals with multiple dynasties and different types of governments. Each of those individual groups have their own pages in the same way the various dynasties have their own. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above "Achaemenid is popular because of Greco-oriented Western oriented history which should not reflected in Wikipedia. That is since the West is primarily interested in the history of ancient Greeks, the Achaemenids play the most prominent role."

Also there are enough reliable sources which state that Persian Empire is series of Empires, and not just Achaemenids. As example, see this one:

Tiwary, S.S. (2008). Encyclopedia of Asia: Land, Culture and People (First ed.). Delhi: Anmol Publication PVT. LTD. ISBN 978-81-261-3561-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

"The Persian Empire was a series of historical empires that ruled over the Iranian plateau, the old Persian homeland, and beyond in western Asia, Central Asia and the Caucasus."

Also, for "Safavid Persian Empire" and "other dynasties + Persian empire" we get enough number of sources in google books or other similar websites. We can't limit the Persian Empire to Achaemenids only because some parts of it is already covered in "History of Iran". This is not a good reason to delete the "Persian Empire" article! --Wayiran (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The text you quoted from Tiwary and Kumar is virtually identical to older versions of this article. I would wager that the text was taken from Wikipedia, in which case this book is not an independent witness that the Persian Empire is a series of empires.

Also, when I search for the phrase "Safavid Persian Empire" on Google Scholar I get 9 results, which tells me this is not a common phrase in academic sources: [2]. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't play games with google scholar to fake results. It is unbecoming. No one is saying that "Safavid Persian Empire" is one phrase, but that Safavid can be interchanged with "Persian Empire". Thus this is the more accurate result, which has 616 hits. You have wonderful results like "Safavid (Persian) empire" in the second entry. Such things would not appear in a search done in the matter you attempted. Achaemenids receive 2260, with wonderful hits like "History of the Persian Empire (Achaemenid Period)" Which suggests that Achaemenids are only one part of the Persian Empire. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Something is indeed unbecoming here. Wayiran was indeed saying that "Safavid Persian Empire" is one phrase.

As for your search on Safavid Persian Empire, it turns up any document that combines the words "Safavid", "Persian", and "Empire". Not very useful for our purposes--although one of the results is The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Clothing Through World History, which says on pp. 62-3: "The Persian Empire was the last of the string of powerful invasions into the region and the last of the great Middle Eastern kingdoms, ruling from 539 to 330 BCE. By 486 BCE, the Persian Empire controlled the entirety of Mesopotamia and the Arabian Peninsula, reaching nearly to Egypt, India, and Greece…The end of the Persian Empire came at the hands of Alexander the Great…" And then on p. 64: "The last major empire to rule Persia was the Safavid Empire, which ruled between 1502 and 1736." So the search you're calling "more accurate" turns up results that clearly distinguish between the Persian Empire and the Safavid Empire. Perhaps I will agree with you after all that the search is more accurate. Oh, and by the way, the result "Safavid (Persian) empire" was the first result in my search: [3].

In connection with your search for Achaemenids Achaemenid Persian Empire, you mention the "wonderful" result "History of the Persian Empire (Achaemenid Period)". You seem to be unaware that this is a result for A.T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire, Chicago 1948. To confirm this, go to your search, click on "library search", and you'll be taken to a worldcat catalog page. Notice that only one library in the Worldcat system holds the book under this title--in subsequent printings of the book, the title is simply History of the Persian Empire ([4]) so I'd say the University of Chicago Press thinks the Persian Empire = the Achaemenid Empire. By the way, Olmstead is now outdated, but for a long time was considered a standard work on the Persian Empire--and it covers only the Achaemenid era ([5]). --Akhilleus (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"turns up results that clearly distinguish between the Persian Empire and the Safavid Empire" And as I pointed out, the very same thing happens when you try to claim the Achaemenid as the above. So, all I proved is that you can easily game "the numbers". You were claiming that the numbers meant something. I proved that they didn't. You only verified above my proof that the numbers don't mean anything. "I'd say the University of Chicago Press" The fact that you would attempt to attribute one book to a whole press is intellectually bankrupt. "Olmstead is now outdated, but for a long time was considered a standard work" More bs. But seeing as how you tried to falsify numbers to mean something they could not mean, attributed to a whole press which is clearly not true, and then pulled that one, well, it only verifies that you are not here for honest discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone is not here for honest discussion, that's true. Honest discussion wouldn't involve accusations of meatpuppetry, falsification, and other ad hominem attacks. On Olmstead, see L.L. Grabbe, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27.5 (2003) 32: "A T. Olmstead has long been outdated (even if still frequently quoted by biblical scholars), but none of the recent histories of the Persian Empire come close to the completeness and breadth of scholarship of this [Briant's] magnificent work." --Akhilleus (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Honest discussion wouldn't have such? Really? Every time someone not connected to Folantin arrives, they question what is going on. I received an angry complaint from Caspian Blue on my talk page about the crap that is going on here. The people are pissed off and the only ones who agree with this are a tiny little group that has been operating inappropriately. Maybe you should look around at the situation as it actually is and then back away before you can't get out. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, so we're back to personalising the debate, are we? That didn't last long. --Folantin (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how we have policies about such behavior being inappropriate on Wikipedia, you have no right to claim "personalising". You are being disruptive, and the above is a furtherance of the disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The old version of this page was simply a poor content fork of most of the History of Iran. You can compare the Safavid sections in each. By a rough count I did last week, "History of Iran" has about 475 words on the Safavids, the old version of this page about 365. The "History of Iran" version also has fewer errors and avoids the whole issue of "undue weight" as to whether to call Safavid Iran a "Persian empire" or not. --Folantin (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You can say that over and over, but the majority of people do not buy that argument. The fact that you keep repeating it over and over its very revealing. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A comparison of the two will prove my point. The old "Persian Empire" was nothing but a shoddy content fork of "History of Iran" (minus a few sections). --Folantin (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You assume that a page cannot be fixed. That is troubling. Furthermore, you claim that the History of Iran page is merely a content fork. Proof that the Persian Empire was created after the History of Iran page? [6] This is the original History of Iran page. Sure doesn't seem like it has anything to do with the Persian Empire. Oops. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't care who wrote which Wikipedia page first. Besides which, from the edit history, this page started life as a redirect to Iran. It was only later turned into an article with material taken from Iran and History of Iran according to this edit [7]. The history of Iran (including that of the "Persian Empire(s)") is best dealt with by History of Iran. Obviously. The idea that the whole history of Iran prior to 1935 can somehow be dealt with by a page called "Persian Empire" is ludicrous. --Folantin (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Really? Your whole argument is based on the premise that one is a fork of another, which implies a chronology. "The history of Iran (including that of the "Persian Empire(s)") is best dealt with by" Actually, Wikipedia use to have a page called "History of Persia". That page was destroyed in making the current History of Iran. By that time, the Persian Empire page was well under way, and it appears that the History of Iran was modeled after the Persian Empire page. So, the problems exist in the copying of the Persian Empire page. This is an easy fix. By the way, since the History of Iran is already 99k, it is quite appropriate and recommended for there to be a "fork". Regardless of the way you cut it, you have no argument above in not having a Persian Empire page. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No, your arguments are based on internal Wikipedia chronology (a chronology which, as I've shown, doesn't quite do what you suggest it does), which is ultimately irrelevant. Mine are based on common sense and some understanding of Iranian history. There is no reason for a full-length "Persian Empire" page to exist when all it does is duplicate most of the "History of Iran" page. As well as being superfluous, the old version of this page was misleading. Nobody has come up with a convincing argument for the existence of this page. --Folantin (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"No, your arguments are based on internal Wikipedia chronology " Actually, -your- arguments are. -You- claimed this was a content fork. -You- were wrong. You have been pointed out as being wrong on this issue on every single possible way, and people keep coming around and stating this that you can't even prove there is a connection to me and saying that your argument is ridiculous. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This material exists at History of Iran. That's the point. Nobody has given any convincing argument for the existence of a full-length "Persian Empire" article which merely duplicates most of that content. I'm not going to go on repeating myself. --Folantin (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the detailed size chart at WP:SIZERULE applies to readable prose size, not total file size. Given that the History of Iran article has more than 100 references and a typical assortment of other non-readable prose material, and that its total size has recently been reduced a bit to 94k, it looks to be well within the readable prose guidelines. A. Parrot (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well within the guideline for what? It clearly states that content forks are acceptable when it is above a certain amount. Do you know what that amount is? By the way, there are 9500 words based on my counter. The limit is 10k roughly speaking. It is obvious that there are more than 500 words in the previous Persian Empire page which are not duplicated over at the History of Iran. It is also obvious that matter that is important to the history of the Persian Empire (such as history of Afghanistan) is not covered at the History of Iran page. That is two strong reasons. Don't be ridiculous. The claim that the page cannot exist because of the History of Iran page existing is unbelievably laughable. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

ummm... I don't find it possible to read WP:SIZERULE as saying that content forks are appropriate. It points to WP:CFORK, which says "Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies." I assume that the reason for the pointer is to get at WP:CFORK#What content/POV forking is not, which gives some guidance on appropriate thigns to do in splitting articles. I do find it easy to read it as saying that splitting a page is appropriate. But those are two very different things. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think you know what you are talking about. You are confusing a POV fork, which is based on a certain bias, with a normal content split. There is nothing about POV forking here as there can be no claim to it. Furthermore, Persian Empire is a highly notable term, so it would not fall under either. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Based on this I am now going to agitate for making Roman Empire cover the history of Italy up to 1945. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice one. And Roman Republic has scandalously shunted off its 18th and 19th century versions to a disambiguation page. --Folantin (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And that well-known princeps reipublicae Romanorum who abdicated in 1806, Francis von Habsburg; now there's a legacy for you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A false argument. The Roman Empire was a series of disconnected dynasties that lost power, had splits in between them, suffered defeats from invading enemies, etc. If you want to say that it should be expanded to include Charlemange, then you would be historically accurate. To then say that Mussolini wanted to connect back to it might be something for a -legacy-, but there is a difference in a desire and an actuality. The Persian Empire was constantly reborn. This has already been demonstrated in -many- sources. Furthermore, the "Persian Empire" was a Western term for describing the Persian nation, and it was used as such. The "Persians" themselves did not call themselves the "Persian Empire". Ottava Rima (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"The Roman Empire was a series of disconnected dynasties that lost power, had splits in between them, suffered defeats from invading enemies, etc." Well, yeah! --Akhilleus (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Most Empires are; even the Empire of Mexico. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm new in this discussion but AFAIK the English is indeed a product of the western world. You may say that the language (and the teaching of history in the English language) was and is influenced by the ancient Greeks but is there any logical reason not to move the article Achaemenid Empire towards Persian Empire asap? AFAIK the ancient empire which fought against the ancient Greeks, won the battle of Thermopylae, and at the end was invaded and conquered by Alexander the Great is called 'Persian Empire' in the English language. Flamarande (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read the information provided above - there is definite proof that at least three specific empires had the term "Persian Empire" with many sources referring to various dynasties in between as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

And which of these "three specific empires" does the term "Persian Empire" refer to most often? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The most frequent referent is an imperial state located in Persia. As such, that would cover all of them as secondary components of it. Your question is trying to claim that the Roman Empire should redirect to Augustus's rule simply because he dominates in terms of works on it. I have already demonstrated in previous sections with John that there was cohesion and connections between the different groups, and that the term Persian Empire, used in 16th century+ English histories refers to the Persians and the previous times as one continuous ethnic based entity. There was no difference between the groups besides the individual leaders in the eyes of Europe, which is why the term was used for various groups. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me see: The Persian empire was established by Cyrus the Great, fought against the ancient Greeks (hence the name Greco-Persian Wars), and was invaded by Alexander the Great. Darius III was its last ruler. After Darius we have Alexander the Great's empire shortly followed by the Seleucid Empire. The Sassanid Empire (which came much later, after the Parthian Empire) was loudly and officialy proclaimed by its rulers to be a revival of the Persian Empire. The claim is faithfully recorded; hence alternative names like Neo-persians, Sassinid Persians, etc. However in the English language it is widely called Sassinid Empire. We should use uses names which are taught in school and written in books (English language). I mean the Persian Empire (disambiguation) is very fair in this matter: "the Sassanid Empire (sometimes called "Neo-Persian Empire", "Second Persian Empire")". Flamarande (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

As many people have already provided substantial evidence for, your claims are quite wrong. The "Persian Empire" was a term created at a time in which -all- of the groups were placed under the label. It is not different terms, but one universal term for the imperial state in the Persian area. You can see this clearly with the Chinese empire or any other ethnic based empires. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me understand you correctly. My claims? Isn't Cyrus the Great the founder of the Persian Empire? Isn't Darius III the last ruler? Isn't the Sassinid Empire widely known as 'Sassinid Empire' in the English language? Please do show me how "my claims" are wrong. Flamarande (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be wise for some people here to take a deep breath and then read WP:POINT Simonm223 (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"Isn't Cyrus the Great the founder of the Persian Empire?" Nope. He didn't call it the "Persian Empire". The term was created by Europeans much, much later. Plus, the Persians were always seen as one continuous plague, the "East" that was constantly trying to invade Europe. To separate "the East" out during such a time would be impossible. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

IMHO Ottava Rima's argument is OR. It doesn't matter what Cyrus the Great called his kingdom (he founded a new kingdom which was certainly not called 'Achaemenid Empire' as he didn't spoke any English). This is the English language wiki. What matters for the English wiki is what English speaking and writing historians call it. What is used in English books, English documentaries, and taught in English-speaking schools. That's the common name in the English language and that name should be used as such. Flamarande (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC) (English as in English language, not English ppl from England)

Please read WP:OR before using it. I have clearly placed many sources in previous versions of the page that already verify. Now, to apply your own standards - please provide a source that says that the Persian Empire was only used to denote what you claim it denotes and please show where that source says that it was not used to denote any others. I have already provided dozens of sources that would contradict such a source if you could find one, thus making that source unreliable and not worthy of even being used as a source. As such, it would be impossible for you to do any of the above. The Persian Empire does not refer to one dynasty or one group. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In other words: I'm somehow supposed to prove that 'Persian Empire' is solely used to name the ancient state founded by Cyrus and ended with Darius III.

Everybody knows that that is impossible to prove. What I'm telling you quite clearly here and now is that the majority of the English speaking world (the majority of its historians, books, historical documentaries, schools, etc) uses the name 'Persian Empire' for the state established by Cyrus and which ended with the death of Darius III, thereby making 'Persian Empire' the common name for that political entity in the English language. Are you truly going to deny this? Flamarande (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"Everybody knows that that is impossible to prove." Thank you for admitting that you and everyone else has no more basis to claim that the Persian Empire page should be anything beyond what it was - a discussion of -all- the uses of it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You have failed to challenge that: the majority of the English speaking world (the majority of its historians, books, historical documentaries, schools, etc) uses the name 'Persian Empire' for the state established by Cyrus and which ended with the death of Darius III, thereby making 'Persian Empire' the common name for that political entity as as far as the English language is concerned haven't you? I can only wonder why you avoided it completly, choosing to to twist my initial statement into your own liking instead, and I will repeat the last question: Are you going to deny that 'Persian Empire' is the common name of 'the state founded by Cyrus and ended with Darius III' as far as the English language is concerned? Flamarande (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Failed? And what makes you say that? I've already provided many, many sources that prove that the term has been used for multiple dynasties beyond 600 AD. As such, you haven't provided any proof of your claim. As such, you can either provide sources that verify your claim or you are simply acting disruptively. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

God gracious me, you gave another avoiding answer. Let me make this really clear simple: Do you deny that 'Persian Empire' is the common name for 'the state founded by Cyrus and ended with Darius III'? Flamarande (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Common name in the English language

Flamarande, you don't seem to get any of the discussion. Persian Empire means that group and many of the later groups. It does not mean -just- that group. Now, if you have any evidence from a scholar that says "Persian Empire refers only to that group", then please point it out. Until you do, you have no argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, let me honest: IMHO you're avoidng to provide any answer to the question above because you seem to to know that its true (Persian Empire is indeed the name of 'the ancient state founded by Cyrus and which ended with Darius III' = widely most common name used within the English language. Either way I believe that everybody can agree that we are getting nowhere. AFAIK I'm perfectly within my rights to ask for a survey for a move request. Therefore I'm going use this right. Flamarande (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Outdent - Flamarande, now you are just making things up. No one has denied that the "Achaemenid Empire" is -one- part of the Persian Empire. However, hundreds of sources have been provided that can be checked by others that verify that it is merely -one- part of the Empire. Until you provide sources that say it is the -only- Persian Empire and only use of the term, then you have no argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"No one has denied that the "Achaemenid Empire" is one part of the Persian Empire." Oh really? "The Persian Empire is not anything pre 600 AD. How can you not understand that?." Ottava Rima (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC) You've also claimed "The 'Persian Empire' refers to a series of dynasties between 600 AD until the Ottoman Conquest. No more, no less" [8], and that the Mughal Empire was one of the aforesaid dynasties of the Persian Empire. [9]. That gives a pretty good impression of your knowledge of this subject. --Folantin (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, coming from the individual who claimed that the Persian Empire meant two different empires, later changed and included a post 1500 AD empire, then claimed that it should just be a redirect from one, you really have no room to talk. However, I stand by the idea that the "Persian Empire" is the title given to the dynasties, whereas the other Empires have their own individual names which are used instead of "Persian Empire". That doesn't mean that I am not willing to -compromise- by having the others included. You, however, don't deal with compromise. You merely change your story as many times as possible simply to be contradictory. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course you aren't; any more than the present scope of Roman Empire requires proving that it was never used for the realms of Francis II, Baldwin of Flanders or David of Trebizond. It would be more than sufficient to show that Persian Empire is used of the Achaemenid domain, and is used distinctly more often for it than any of the other Iranian states. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No, Pmanderson. That is a flat out wrong claim. There are many sources that say that the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy nor Roman (an old joke too). There are no sources that claim that the Persian Dynasties were not part of the Persian Empire. There are many sources that -do- call them as part of the Persian Empire. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, how charming; the argumentum ex silentio, a demand to prove a negative, and personal abuse from somebody two millennia out of their field.

I would like to come up with a sixteenth-century parallel to this demand; but the best I can do is the following:

This source, and doubtless many others, say that Carausius ran a British empire - and he did; so did several other men. Are we therefore to make British Empire a collective page, including all these figures?

I'll come up with a source that the Ilkhans weren't the Persian Empire, after Ottava Rima comes up with a source that Carausius wasn't running the British Empire. Can't say fairer than that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(out-dented) @Flamarande: you say "the majority of the English speaking world (the majority of its historians, books, historical documentaries, schools, etc) uses the name 'Persian Empire' for the state established by Cyrus and which ended with the death of Darius III, thereby making 'Persian Empire' the common name for that political entity as as far as the English language is concerned". The question is so what? Is there any wikipedia policy that says something like: "any article on the term X should talk about and only about what the term is most frequently used for"? What about the article Shah, which in English speaking world refers largely to the Shah we know. There are many examples like that. Xashaiar (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK yes Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) does apply. Please notice that Shah was an office which was held by many persons as far as the majority of the English-speaking world is concerned. Persian Empire is a name clearly used for a single historical state as far as the overwhelming majority of the English-speaking world (historians, books, historical documentaries, schools, etc) is concerned. I invite you also to cast your honest vote (even if you oppose it - hey this is a free wiki). Flamarande (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No that page is for other way around: an article talking about certain things should use as title the most common term. The very fact that "Persian Empire" is a term used for non-Achaemenid era too, makes your argument baseless. Also based on your sentence we can write: "Please notice that Persian Empire was states/empires which were held by a few dynasties.." No I do not cast a vote for what "movie 300 or TV shows" teach you (based on your pre-election campaign there).Xashaiar (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You choose to compare the title of a ruler with the name of a state (it's a unwise comparision). Roman Republic would be a way better comparision. There were 3 states (a link is provided in the main article) but we clearly use the name 'Roman Republic' to speak about the most famous example. The same aplies to 'Persian Empire'. Flamarande (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you came under the impression that each of the individual entities known as the "Persian Empire" did not have their own pages. None of them are originally called the Persian Empire. They had their own names. Persian Empire was the title to lump them all. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You are simply reading my post way too literally. My point/argument/reason is the following:

When someone is talking about the Persian Empire (provided that the conversation is done in English) they are 99% of the time talking about the state 'established by Cyrus and which ended with the death of Darius III'. 99% is a figure of speech meaning: overwhelming majority of instances. 'Persian Empire' is the common name of a single state as far the English-speakers are concerned. De facto only 1 state is called 'Persian Empire' by the overwhelming majority of English-speakers. Are going to challenge that? Flamarande (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You've been asked multiple times to provide a reliable source verifying your claims. You have failed to. I know from experience that many, many scholars discuss the Roman Empire battling against the Persian Empire. In my background with Restoration to Victorian Litearture (including political and historical documents), Persian Empire was used in reference to the various post Islamic dynasties in Persia. I know for a fact that your claims are false. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we live in Victorian times or do we live in the 21st century? I think that I'm beginning to understand you. Correct me if I'm wrong: You have read and studied several older political documents, right? Several of these documents use 'Persian Empire', 'Empire of Persia', and/or 'Persia' more or less as a catch-all term for all the historical states (Achaemenid Empire, Seleucid Empire, Parthian Empire, Sassinid Empire, etc) of that area. Quoting a recent post: "the Persians were always seen as one continuous plague". Therefore in your opinion the name 'Persian Empire' is way too vague, and is largely a catch-all term. Flamarande (talk) 12:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Please correct me if I'm wrong.

As announced, I have exercised my right and in the interest of solving this issue for the foreseeable future I invite everyone to cast his vote in the survey at Talk:Achaemenid Empire#Proposed move towards 'Persian Empire'. I will ask you all the following: stick to a Support or Object and a single sentence at the survey. You may certainly present arguments below. Vote according to the best of your knowledge and conscience. Either way the survey will put things in the open. In all honesty I believe that I'm right in this issue but I concede that I might be mistaken (I am only human after all) but so what? If I'm wrong then I'm wrong, if I'm right then I'm right. To be very honest the Persian Empire isn't my favourite (I like the Roman Empire way better) but I do love to read about Classical Antiquity and I truly and honestly believe that I'm right. Nuff' said. Flamarande (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Page restored

After over a month, those wishing to change the format of the page have not been able to reach a consensus, nor have even attained more than 30% of support in basic straw polling. As such, there is no way to justify a change of the make up of the page at this time and it has been restored. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus in favor of your perception of consensus. Alefbe (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Alefbe. Your "straw poll" was nonsense which is why most of the people with some knowledge of Iranian history declined to take part. Plus nobody has yet explained why we need a poor and misleading duplicate of the History of Iran page here. --Folantin (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not and do not support a content fork. The version you are trying to restore is a content fork. So I don't support it. --Alvestrand (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It has already been proven that "content fork" does not apply nor are you using it properly. Furthermore, ever individual empire and dynasty page is a content fork, so do you want them to all be destroyed also? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)