Talk:Hyrcania

message: Hi. I know that this edit is wrong. Because, If you can visit this page, you'll see that "whose name (Hyrcania) is perhaps preserved in Tabaristan". So, we are not "a perhaps enyclopedia", isn't it? And, I've removed this template.--Sabri76'message   16:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  be merge 

message: I came across this article while reading about the Caspian Sea.  I started trying to clean up the "History" section but can't make heads or tails of it.  There are many references to "orientals" which have no place in an encyclopedia unless referenced directly from ancient writings, and there is so much hyperbole it's hard to know who was talking about what, when.  Can anyone who knows something about the area turn the History section into a factual, encyclopedic description of the region?  --Sam (talk) 04:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: , the fact that Hyrcania was known as Tabaristan in the Medieval period has been mentioned in the lead. I reverted your contribution because it contained post-Islamic history, which belongs in the Tabaristan article, as Hyrcania only refers to pre-Islamic history. Mugsalot (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed your contribution on the basis of its historical era, not the mention of Zoroastrianism. I am aware Zoraostrianism was dominant within Hyrcania, however, I did not mention this in the article as I have not found a source that explicitly states this. If your contribution was limited to stating that Zoroastrianism was the majority religion, and did not refer to the history of Tabaristan, I would have no issue with your edit. Mugsalot (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on Tabaristan is not as informative as our standards would want, considering that I have just been looking at records talking about the struggles over 9 centuries, between Islam and Zoroastrianism, as the shifting state religions of various feuding principalities within Tabaristan.  What's there now looks discouragingly little for finding out much, but if I have time tomorrow I my have a go at adding some of this information to that page where it would belong. Philip Mexico (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest using Encyclopedia Iranica if you would like to edit Tabaristan, I've used it extensively in writing the Hyrcania article. I've also edited the religion section so to note that Zoroastrianism was the majority religion. Mugsalot (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tabaristan 

message: "Under the Arsacid Empire, the Great Wall of Gorgan, a series of forts and outposts with the plains of Hyrcania, was constructed to aid in the defence of Hyrcania against raids undertaken by the neighbouring Dahae tribes".This is fantastic statement because breeding grouping Daχistan in which ancestors of Persians,Aparnaks etc. by then for a long time has stopped the existence (as the name of Nomaic Confederation of Aryan tribes), but remained as the geographical term.I'ts an anachronism.It is well-known that the wall "Red Snake" in Persian Gorgan/Horasan was constructed against Khiyaona/Hyon tribes, but not Dahae  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.172.58.15 (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: "against... Dahae tribes" I'ts an anachronism"

message: In article the term "dihistan" (?) deliberately is used to distort and underestimate value of this Daχistan/Dahestan name as name of Tribal Confederation of Aryan/Iranian nomads and the historical-geographical name. In Wiki's article about Dahae we see that writing "Dihistan" is on the third place on rate of the use. And in general confederation tribes of Daχistan/Dahestan/Dahistan not "Dihi" called themselves, but Dahae/Daχi  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.172.58.15 (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Daχistan/Dahestan it is correct

message: The footnote for the third paragraph of the etymology section is incorrect; page 27 of the cited text contains absolutely none of the ridiculous information in that paragraph and I'm just so sick and tired of idiots writing on things they have no clue about. Before even checking that text (which is publicly available on archive.org), it was clear as day that the etymology *dhau from PIE > Dahae is ridiculous. The *dh- of the Anlaut in that root is a single phoneme dh, i.e., a coronal voiced aspirate. It cannot be broken down into *d + *h. Setting aside the fact that Proto-Indo-European didn't even have a phoneme *h (and could not even have had the vowel *a in that position), it's like saying that one can separate the 'th' sound of the word 'the' into t and h -- it simply isn't two sounds, it's one sound /ð/. Whatever idiot goes around putting up this nonsensical, absolutely ridiculous information should have their wikipedia account revoked. Why force people who actually know what they're doing to explain this? I'm going to remove that section unless someone can post a reference that actually exists; although I wouldn't hold my breath for one. Vindafarna (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology section is one of the worst I've ever seen; furthermore the source is nonsense