Talk:Greater Iran

message: :::Are you sure it's In Persian Iran-e boziorg or Iran-e Bozorgtar? I think in Iran th term Iran-e Bozorg refers to the same current Iran.Diyako Talk + 20:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Iran e Bozorg is correct. Even the Farsi Wikipedia mentions this.--Zereshk 04:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Native name

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

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

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 The AFD discussion for that article has been archived here.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

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

message: *Mehrdad says: "There was no region called Iran before the 14th century."
:I dont think so. See this scan I made.--Zereshk 22:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you say is true, but the source is only taling about Persians. I don't think Kurds, Afghans, or people in Pakistan have ever called their land Iran. The article might have to be re-written to make sure this is a historical term, not a political one. But I have to get a copy of your source first. AucamanTalk 02:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those ethnicities called their land Iran when they were part of Iran, unless you can prove otherwise. --ManiF 08:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No you're saying they called their land Iran so you have to prove it. I'm not claiming anything here. AucamanTalk 11:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your are making claims that "the source is only taling about Persians" and the other ethnicities may not have called the land Iran. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you. We have already provided evidence that the land was called Iran. --ManiF 12:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't put things I haven't said in quotes and make it sound like I've said them. This is extremely inappropriate. AucamanTalk/e 12:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I quoted your EXACT words : ...the source is only taling about Persians. --ManiF 13:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay there's nothing to prove here. The source is talking about Persians of course. It says the Sassanids used the term Iranshahr. It doesn't even talk about Afghans or Kurds or anyone else. AucamanTalk/e 13:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, those are merly your assumptions, the source says the land was called Iran by several ruling dynasties of Iran. Any other conclusion would have to be supported by direct quotes from authoritative sources. --ManiF 13:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my assumption that the source is talking about the Sassanids and the Achaemenids? Just read it yourself. This is the end of out discussion here. I'm going to get a copy of the source provided in the article and see how it defines the term "Greater Iran". We can then discuss the differences (if any). Right now I'm not challenging anything. AucamanTalk/e 13:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I made some slight changes from "persian" into "Iranian" in the text to accomodate Aucaman's objection.--Zereshk 23:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please pay attention that due to historical reasons, what we (within the country) call Iran, has been in the west referred to as Persia for a very long time, and likewise the people were mistakenly called Persian, where in fact Iranian was meant. In reading books by western authors one has to be very careful as to what meaning of Persia/Persian is meant. Sometimes it specifically talks about Persians (as opposed to Mededs, for example, or Azaris, in modern times), and sometimes it is just a sloppy substitution for the term Iran/Iranian which includes all of these people. In that sense, many times you see the word Persian in a situation where actually Kurds and Lurs and the others are included. It might be considered a misnoming, but it is still common practice. Unfortunately things are usually not very standardized. Shervink 15:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This article is about the Iranian Cultural Continent, not Iran. We have an article for your polemic. It is: Iran naming dispute. We can discuss this matter there. Khosh Keisin.--Zereshk 21:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Iranian Cultural Continent souds like a proper name for this article then, why not call it so. Zereshk, I would like to know your openion on Garthwaite caliming that Achaemenians did not have a designation for all their empire and consider it collection of regions.  md 08:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Garthwaite's claim is valid. But I dont think it's relevant here. You claimed: "There was no region called Iran before the 14th century". And that's not right.--Zereshk 00:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not really

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

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

message: According to the present article, the term Greater Iran applies to the entire region where Iranian languages are today spoken as a first language, or as a second language by a significant minority. Obviously based on the above definition, Armenia and Georgia are NOT parts of this region. So the question is why they have been included in the map?Heja Helweda 22:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats incorrect, Greater Iran, on top of including regions where people speak Iranic langauges as a first or second language, also includes territories that are historically an integral part of the Iranic Empire. By the definition, we should also include the rest of Eastern Iraq.Khosrow II 22:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then your guys have to change the definition to something like this, ...regions where majority of people speak Iranian languages, and territories that traditionally belonged to the Persian Empire.Heja Helweda 04:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Heja, youre misquoting. The article says: "Iran means all lands and peoples where Iranian languages were and are spoken, and where in the past, multi-faceted Iranian cultures existed.".--Zereshk 14:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map is not accurate 

message: I think that the article's name should be changed to Iranian Cultural Continent. Any comments? Tājik 00:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. Current title seems more sensible to me. —Nightstallion (?) 21:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. Since Iran is the name of an existing country today, the term greater Iran might be taken in a negative light, as its obvious from the discussions here. Iranian Cultural Continent or History of Iranian Plateau would remove the negative stigma associated with the word greater.--Gerash77 17:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think both Iranian Cultural Continent and Greater Iran are ok, as far as the text clearly enough makes the distinction between the country and the subject of this article. I personally wouldn't mind the change, though, as Iranian Cultural Continent is also well established. Shervink 17:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Although too many Iranians in the USA live with the idea that Iran and Persia are the same, they are not. In fact there is no country called Persia. There are no evidences that there has been once an independent Persia either. Persia was a tributary/ or part of Median empire. Before that time it is generally believed to be part of the Elamian kingdom. The mis-usage of persia instead of iran stems from the fact that the capital of Iran during Achamenid was in Perisa (Ostan-e Fars), and according to the Greek historical tradition of city -states the name of a capital was given to the surrounding areas. So the fact that the capital was called Parse-kade (persepolis) (Takhte Jamshid is only the popular belives), then the whole empire was called as such. Then the Arabs and Westneres adpated the same reason. TRhe Old testament of Bible has used Median/Persian interchangeably and the Iranians themselves have always used Iran (and not persia or any other names) for this country.
Babakexorramdin 10:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats why the article is called Greater Iran.--Zereshk 21:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  yes but someone has added Greater Persia this Persia that in some parts. Usually Iranian Amercians (of divrese ethnic backgrounds) doing this, but their motives stem from other than facts. (they simply do not want to be called Iranians). Babakexorramdin 06:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, what you say about the reason for the Greek originally saying Persia when they meant Iran is correct, but anyway Iran as a country was called Persia (in common English use) until 1935, and the official position of the Iranian government was that both names could be used interchangably until 1979. So it is not exactly right to condemn people for still using an old name which was in use until recently, nor is it correct to say that a country called Persia never existed. When an Iranian says he is Persian he means it the sense that the name was used in the west till recently, not as the name of a province of Iran. Shervink 15:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Iran was called Iran and not Persia. It is very simple. Early medieval poets such as Ferdowsi and Nizami Ganjavi used consciously Iran. Mongol invaders called it Ulus Iran. Safavi, Afshari, Zand and Qajar Kings also used the name Iran in all official documents, long before Reza Shah. The name Iran has its roots in Avesta. It is simply not only wrong but also harmful to call Iran as Persia --Babakexorramdin 09:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look these things are all correct. The point is, however, that in common english use, the word Persia has been used for centuries as a substitute for Iran. So when you're speaking english, such as on the english wikipedia, there's nothing wrong with using the terms interchangably, since it is how the country was called until recently. Similarly, there's nothing wrong with saying Japan or Finland or Greece or Germany or China, even though none of these names are in fact used by the inhabitants of those countries. Shervink (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greater Iran not Persia 

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

message: Iranian World for the name of this article is a legitimate one.
There are a lot of Worlds which are less legitimate: 1- The Western world= It is too diverse and to vast with a very fragmented culture and political sphere
2- The Arab world: it is only based on the Arabic language. imposed pon so many non-Arab peoples who do not understand each other properly and moreover they are in value cultural terms very different. A lebanse or Egyptian is culturally too different from a Qatari or Saudi.
3- Turkish/ic world. This term is promoted by Anti-Iranianist agents. However it is true that there are a variety of Turkicspeaking people in the region, they nevertheless try to bring all these under the influence of turkey (whcih should be ruled by extremist elements). These Turkic peoples have not been part of the Ottoman empire however.
Moreover Turkey and Iran are not antagonistic countries. They share a similar culture and are in friendly terms.
Another fact is that the Turkic peoples who share cultural similarities, they do it also with non-Turkicspeaking Iranic people. Those Turkic peoples who did not come close to the Iranic people are distinct (Yakut, Chuvash etc...).
All and all if there are other worlds, the Iranian world sounds only more legitimate than the other ones.
--Babakexorramdin 12:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian World 

message: In the lead, the article said Greater Iran "[corresponded to] the two Persian Empires (Achaemenid and Sassanid)".This is not correct. Greater Iran is a cultural concept, not a political one. 
Greater Iran does not include Northeast Africa (Egypt) or the Near East (Western Mediterranean, the Pontus, the Levant, the Arabian peninsula, Babylonia). And yet these were all at one time or another part of one or both empires, and Babylonia is even where both the Achaemenids and Sassanids had their capitals.
On further examination, I found sections on Iraq/Armenia (and to an extent also other Caucasus stuff) coatracked onto this article. This may be a remnant of the confusion of state and nation, and/or the projection of "Persian Empire" yadda yadda onto this article. While cultural influence on these territories did exist, these were brief, and those regions are not traditionally included in Greater Iran (e.g. one will not find studies on them in the Cambridge History of Iran beyond issues of government). To include Iraq and Armenia in Greater Iran just because those regions were briefly ruled by Iranians is like including Iran in the Magna Graecia just because it was briefly ruled by Greeks. Its simply not appropriate. The Caucasus subsection needs to be generally more circumspect; the Iranian peoples (or speakers of an Iranian language) do not represent a majority there, and the supposed Iranian cultural influence is not so significant as is being suggested. (The title of the cited Iranica article is also [incidentally?] false. It is not "Caucasus Iran", but "Caucasus and Iran").
Aside from the state-vs-nation confusion, it seems that there have also been a couple of mindless chipmunks at work here. In the caption of an image lower down on the page, Iranian plateau has been designated "Persian plateau". I don't think "One pill to make them bigger, and one pill to make them small" works for topography, and unless someone in official capacity has since decided to confuse matters, the Persian plateau remains the upper arch of the Iranian plateau that stretches from Luristan to Golestan (particularly clear in this image). This confusion appears to stem from an edit to 'Iranian plateau' (30 Nov 2007) in which someone screwed up what should have otherwise been clear. Will fix.
I will try to make the distinction between nation and state even clearer by an addition of a second lead paragraph. But I'll leave the fixing of the Caucasus/Iraq bits to someone else.  -- Fullstop (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  state versus nation (administration versus culture) 

message: This information has been added to the entry without adding any source. It seems more a "personal view" on the subject.
["greater Persia" is common in English] Because the concept is a cultural one, representing regions settled by Iranian tribes, it does not correspond to any particular political entity, and—because it represents a late Bronze Age dispersion—predates such political entities by many centuries. For the Sassanids, in whose 3rd century inscriptions the term 'Iran' first appears as a political concept, the multinational Iranian state included Asia Minor but excluded territories east of the two Iranian salt desert basins. This situation is however reversed in the cultural context, i.e. that of the Iranian nation.
As far as it has been mentioned in all encyclopedias and historical/geographical documents, in Western languages, Iran was called "Persia" since 6th century BC until 1935. This article also is an "English" article. Yes in Sassanian period, the name "Iran" was appeared in the texts, but in the Persian texts, not Western texts. So using this example in not right here.
It's much more better that we (as a neutral source) present what is a "fact" and leave our personal ideas for our own articles. I mean, not adding descriptions to the entries which there is no source for that. --Shayan7 16:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not new! That paragraph has been in the article since User:Fullstop added it here on 5 September 2008. In the discussion topic Talk:Greater Iran#state versus nation (administration versus culture), Fullstop says "I will try to make the distinction between nation and state even clearer by an addition of a second lead paragraph." I gather that he was trying to summarize the article in this paragraph, trying to tie together the definitions of Patrick Clawson and Richard Nelson Frye. Would you reconsider the deletion of that paragraph, or would you consider rewriting it? Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Binksternet, thanks for your note. I think it should be removed. There is no sound document for that claim and also it's more close to a personal view to the metter, not a fact. No clear source source has been mentioned either. Meanwhile as I mentioned in the previous note, based on various documents, maps, etc. in Western languages Persia = Iran. As a short and general but clear information about the title "Greater Persia" or "Great Iran" the current info is fine. Thanks again for your attention. Shayan7 (talk) --Shayan7 08:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New info without source 

message: I advise Shayan 7 (Pejmen Akbarzadeh) and other associates with radio Zamaneh stop vandalizing all Iranian-related articles. Iran has been Iran since the Sasanid time. Take it or leave it. I know you get discriminated in the Netherlands if you say you are from Iran, but this has nothing to do with wikipedia.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Babakexorramdin, You stop it and please be polite. My name is not Pejman Akbarzadeh but I know RZ team. As far as I know none of us has been discriminated in the Netherlands. It's a quite safe and nice country for foreigner. Please stop accusing and insulting people and countries. I did not Vandaliza Iran-related articles. It seems you have a personal problem with the name "Persia". yes, "Iran" has been the name of this country since Sassian era in "certain" historical periods. I really advise you to study the history of the name in Mohammad Ajam's book which has been recently published in Tehran. Meanwhile we are now in Wikipedia ENGLISH section. In Western languages it has been Persia since 6th century BC until 1935 officially and still is popular in some contexts. Please accept the historical facts instead of writing such notes for active users. --Shayan7 (talk)--Shayan7 12:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is Iran. Ok? That is the name used by the United Nation. That is the name  used from the Sasanid Times. And not only in certain sources. Go read a few history books. And good for you that you do not get discriminated in the Netherlands. Of course you are happy that the netherlands has offered unqualified people a job in Radio Zamaneh.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: stop it!

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

message: It is such nonsense to say that Georgia is part of Greater Iran just because it was under its control for a period of time. Georgia has nothing in common with Iran, language, ethnic origin, or culture. If being conquered counts then it is also part of "Greater Byzantium/Greece" which one must admit had a more profound effect on its culture than anything. And Eastern Georgia was not "historically attached to the south for support." In fact, eastern Georgia was so fed up with fighting off the invading Persians that they voluntarily signed the Treaty of Georgievsk which was used by Russia as a pretext for annexing the lands. King Erekle (Heraclius) II of Eastern Georgia did this because he thought that although losing sovereignty was bad, being part of the Christian world would save the Georgian culture from imminent destruction.--141.161.58.224 (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess Georgia is mentioned because it has had influence on Iranian culture and vise versa. there are Some Iranian Georgians.Pouyakhani (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Georgia

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

message: So any areas conquered through military force by Persia at one point in time or another become part of greater Iran? This article seems to be flawed on many levels. Let's take for example Iraq. It was ruled by the Ottomans for much longer than the Persians, so does it become part of greater Turkey? The Greeks through Alexander the Great ruled the entire area including Persia, so should the entire Near East become part of greater Greece?
How about the Arabs. They ruled Persia for hundreds of years. It is Arab culture that is today dominant in Iran from peoples names, to influence on language, script, etc. Does Iran become part of greater Arabia?
This article is ultranationilistic and racist in nature.
Please consider deleting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.67.184 (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consider Deleting 

message: I've limited my editing to fixing a couple obvious errors introduced by this edit, but I have doubts about it's overall value.  I'm far from an expert on the region (hence the limited edit of obvious problems), but the edit seems heavily biased toward placing Iraq as the center of Greater Iran.  I also have doubts about the multiple large scale deletions of referenced information.  Lastly, some of the additions made could use editing to make them flow better. Jelloman (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of the edit made on 2014-02-09? 

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

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

message: Khajidha removed the reference to Persia adopting Iran as its new name in 1935 creating a missing link and misinformation in the article. At this point, the article lists all the countries which were part of Greater Iran but Iran. The information is clear enough but he/she thinks that the text implies that Reza Shah named the region of "Greater Iran" to "Iran" which even a layman can understand that that is not the case. I tried my best to adjust the text to clarify it further from the original text but it seemed unsatisfactory to him/her. So, i am opening this thread as i disagree with current state of the article with that information removed. Sheriff | report | 19:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the cultural region of Greater Iran, it even mentions that "The term Iran is not limited to the modern state of Iran", so any mention of Iran without previous disambiguation will be understood as referring to the region. The country of Iran could be linked in the second occurrence  of the word in the previously mentioned sentence. However, I fail to see how the official name of the modern state is relevant enough for the change to be mentioned in this article. --Khajidha (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please make the proposed change the way you are suggesting it instead of completely removing it. The mention of present day country is relevant as it derives the same name and was an important part of the "Greater Iran" region. It is definitely encyclopedic to mention that. Sheriff | report | 20:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Khajidha: I will suggest that you stop edit-warring and revert yourself since you just reverted another editor LouisAragon over same content. That was a majority point of view and you should accept it. I also invited you to make the change in the text the way you want it but it seems that you are unwilling to do that and instead want to continue with your edit-warring by removing the text altogether and that also at the same time when a discussion is already open. Sheriff | report | 21:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

text: The text adds encyclopedic value as it describes that modern-day Armenia, Azerbaijan and minor parts of Eastern Turkey were those Caucasian provinces which Iran had to cede in result of the treaty and that they were part of its concept for centuries and now permanently severed from it. The additional text does add encyclopedic value. Sheriff | report | 18:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the English of the sentence is poor, it should be rephrased and condensed. Something like "After the Russo-Persion War (1826-1828), the Turkmanchey Treaty of 1828 ended centuries of Iranian control of the Caucasian provinces (including modern-day Armenia, Azerbaijan and parts of eastern Turkey) and set the modern boundary along the Aras River." --Khajidha (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and thank you for your suggestion. Sheriff | report | 18:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persia adopting Iran as its new name 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Greater Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101024033230/http://www.iran-heritage.org/interestgroups/language-article5.htm to http://www.iran-heritage.org/interestgroups/language-article5.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Greater Iran's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Gignoux_Aneran":
From Name of Iran: 
From Iran (word): .
From Aniran: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Greater Iran]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Greater Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130311105340/http://tehrantimes.com/economy-and-business/104757-iraq-plans-to-send-200-member-trade-delegation-to-iran to http://www.tehrantimes.com/economy-and-business/104757-iraq-plans-to-send-200-member-trade-delegation-to-iran
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229191502/http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=543750 to http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=543750
*Added  tag to http://www.iranicaonline.org/newsite/index.isc?Article=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iranica.com%2Fnewsite%2Farticles%2Funicode%2Fv9f5%2Fv9f553c.html
*Added  tag to http://www.iranicaonline.org/newsite/articles/ot_grp8/ot_kulab_20050727.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

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

message: The article should be changed from Greater Iran to Greater Persia. Arianam or Ariana is not refered to Persis. The region in Avesta is modern day Afghanistan, easter Iran and southern Transoxiana. The article is not neutral and hangs around history of Persia. Aceditor00 (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what is trying to be argued here. The link seems to be a blog, i.e. not WP:RS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

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