Talk:Persian Empire (dynasty)

RfC: What should this page be?

Further information: Talk:Persian_Empire/workpage

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

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

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

Don't unilaterally revert the page without participating in the discussion. Several users have discussed this issue in details and this page has been a redirect for a month. You cannot unilaterally change it just because of a request of an IP user. Alefbe (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The page was not a redirect for a month. It was an actual page. You kept edit warring it into one. Please don't fabricate history. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of that; done my page-history research. In order to avoid an edit-war, the full page has been temporarily moved to a subpage. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The Persian Empire should not be changed to a redirect; there is clearly no consensus over this issue. Furthermore it looks like a decent article. Simonm223 (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

We've been through all this before. The Persian Empire (old version) was merely a poor duplicate of much of the History of Iran. It was full of errors and had been marked as such since March/April. There is no useful content that is not in History of Iran. The old page was also misleading because it gave the impression that the "Persian Empire" was some kind of continuous state from the Medes to 1935. This is completely false. The vast majority of sources in English use the term "Persian Empire" to refer to the Achaemenid Empire, which is why this page now redirects there. A disambiguation page lists the alternative uses. --Folantin (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

A side by side comparison makes it clear that there was no duplication. Furthermore, two proposed alterations of the page definitely established that the corrections could be made to ensure that there would be no ability to claim that there is duplication. This page was accepted into Wiki 1.0 for a reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there's no duplication of text between "The greatest of the Safavid monarchs, Shah Abbas I the Great (1587–1629) came to power in 1587 aged 16. Abbas I first fought the Uzbeks, recapturing Herat and Mashhad in 1598. Then he turned against the Ottomans recapturing Baghdad, eastern Iraq and the Caucasian provinces by 1622." (History of Iran) and "Safavid Persia was a violent and chaotic state for the next seventy years, but in 1588 Shah Abbas I of Persia ascended to the throne and instituted a cultural and political renaissance. He moved his capital to Isfahan, which quickly became one of the most important cultural centers in the Islamic world. He made peace with the Ottomans. He reformed the army, drove the Uzbeks out of Iran and into modern-day Uzbekistan, and (with English help) recaptured the island of Hormuz from the Portuguese." (old "Persian Empire"). But these are still content forks. Two inconsistent descriptions of the same history does *not* make Wikipedia better. --Alvestrand (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that an article cannot be improved and must simply be destroyed? Also, you continue to use the word "content fork" differently. You also use it as if articles cannot be split on a topic or have different foci. After all, there is History of Italy and Military history of Italy along with their being pages on the Roman Empire and Roman Republic. There is also Military history of ancient Rome. According to you, such pages have no place on Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "use the word content fork differently" - I'm using it one way, which I think is consistent with WP:CFORK - what's the other way? Articles that split focus is fine - but in that case, one needs not only to add a new article that delves deeper into the focus, one needs to REMOVE the corresponding content from the split-from article and replace it with a summary + a pointer. As far as I can see, there's not even the hint of a consensus that we should take pieces out of History of Iran and move them to Persian Empire, while it seems reasonably clear that the stuff pointed to in Military history of ancient Rome (itself basically a navigation article by now) will not be repeated in Roman Empire. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

By definition, a content fork cannot be an item that is independently notable. A content fork is created after another page on a subject that is not independently notable. This article was -never- split from the History of Iran. And take "pieces out of History of Iran", there are no pieces from that page. Please don't make things up which are clearly contradicted from the "history" tab at the top of the pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict - to Alvestrand) Yes. Time would be better spent fixing up the History of Iran page, which has fewer flaws and avoids the whole issue of which entities - apart from the Achaemenid Empire - to call the "Persian Empire". I've already pointed out some of the inadequacies in the old "Persian Empire"'s coverage of the Safavid era and after [1]. (The confusion over the dating of the start year of Shah Abbas's reign is not necessarily Wikipedia editors' fault - some scholarly English sources give 1587, others 1588). --Folantin (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• As stated in the previous two straw polls and the previous RfC, I would like the restoration of the top priority 60k article that has been edit warred out of existence. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• This page should be on the Achaemenids, as is common usage. There should also be a disambiguation page on the various states which, being Persian and ruling all of the Iranian Platean, can reasonably be considered empires and are sometimes called Persian Empire.
• If there is consensus that the Persian Empire of Cyrus and Darius is not the primary use of the name, the second choice would be to make this the disambiguation page, and keep to the standard form of dab pages.
• To make a single page out of all of these states is to reify a fantastic and hypothetical entity which had a continuous existence fromm 529 BC to 1979, despite being in occultation for centuries at a time; this is indeed an attested point of view, held for example by the late Shah, but it is not consensus. (It also makes the Sassanian displacement of the Arsacids into a civil war, indistinguishable from the innumerable civil wars between the Arsacids; this ain't consensus either.)
• For our purposes, however, there is a crowning argument: why do we need a page indistinguishable from History of Iran? Who needs it? What benefit is it to the reader? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest merging some of the former contents of this article with History of Iran, and just redirecting there, since I am not convinced that Persian Empire is overwhelmingly the Achaemenids. As for why this article might exist, it can be used to elucidate and clarify historical inaccuracies commonly perpetuated on the public, by pointing out that there isn't a single Persian Empire. Ofcourse, some newspaper hack also said it was a nice article... and it was worthy of inclusion into a CD version of Wikipedia. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 09:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It has not been proven that the page is indistinguished, especially since the scopes are quite different. Furthermore, the existence of the military history and standard history of Italy as two separate pages verifies that Wikipedia does not agree with your beliefs on the subject of different pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Will it ever be proven to OR's satisfaction? Est-il possible?

But what difference is there in scope? Both begin with archaeology and the Medes, both continue to 1935. One ends there, and should continue to the "anniversary" of 1971 and the Revolution; the other should probably hand to over to articles on current events at about the same line (perhaps 1989). Both mention, but are weak, on the Abbasid and Turkish periods. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Both don't begin with archaeology. One starts before 2000 BC, the other does not. The other does not continue "until 1935" as it is about 40% about modern Iran. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, History of Iran continues on to - and past - 1935 (it should not continue to the present, on which we do not yet have historical perspective); so would Persian Empire if its author had any interest in finishing the narrative. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Saying it shouldn't describe the present is like saying we shouldn't have BLPs. It wont ever happen. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• This article should be about the 'Persian Empire'. What we should do is agree upon the meaning of this name (in English, other languages can have other understandings).
• Is it a name with a rather vague understanding, clearly applied to several historical states? In this case 'Persian Empire' should be a disambiguation page.
• Is it a name with a common understanding, clearly applied to a single state? In this case 'Persian Empire' should be about that state only. Flamarande (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• This page should be a disambiguation page, as the continual arguments over content of this page amply demonstrate. The proposal to move Achaemenid Empire to Persian Empire has just closed, with result no move. Now it is time to propose moving Persian Empire (disambiguation) to Persian Empire. --Una Smith (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The continued arguments have stilled failed to overcome that the original page is 60k and that it is only being kept from it by edit warring. You would need to put forth a proposal that the 60k Top priority content that matches the Farsi and is still part of Wiki 1.0 would need to be removed before you can turn it into a disambiguation page. Nothing in our policies have been used to justify the removal, as most of the claims have been debunked. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• • how the hell does it matter how many kilobytes the page used to have? This talkpage has 167k. So what? The point is that the entire 60k were a WP:CFORK. There wasn't a single k that did not duplicate scope and content already covered elsewhere. Please go to history of Iran. The usage of "Persian Empire" is exhaustively summariyed at Persian Empire (disambiguation). The term overwhelmingly refers to the Achaemenid Empire, so the current redirect is perfectly fine. There is nothing to see here. --dab (𒁳) 18:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Size matters as it reveals that there were plenty of people who thought that the topic was well enough to fit without a "disambiguation" in discussing the uses of Persian Empire for many, many years. A disambiguation page is used for multiple pages discussing -the Persian Empire-. None of those pages discuss the Persian Empire but individual Empires that were later classified under one such term. All of the claims about flaws of the page were proven by many to be non arguments as you can easily fix the page and adjust it. However, over 12 people so far have stated a need for the page, and Wiki 1.0 already has it registered as a major page. It is also a major page on all of the foreign language Wikis. WikiProject Mirror alone would justify restoring the page simply to match what the Farsi page has. This is a -major- change and requires -major- consensus to begin to discuss the matter of removing the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Then enlighten us. You are clearly in favour of this article. You defend that this article is the correct one, right? Flamarande (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I defended it. 12 others have defended it. More than 3 years of consensus defended it. The Farsi Wiki defended it. Wiki 1.0 defended it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

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

So in your (Una Smith) opinion we should turn 'Persian Empire' into a dab page, right? Flamarande (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. I think Persian Empire (disambiguation) should be moved to the page name Persian Empire. What other articles should exist, that concern any form of "Persian Empire", is of no concern to me. See, I do not care about the details of the content dispute going on here, only that the dab page occupy the ambiguous page name. I do care that there is an ongoing content dispute, and I think the best remedy includes neither side of the content dispute getting control of the contested page name. I note that at the moment Iranian Empire is a redirect to Achaemenid Empire, which in light of the arguments here seems peculiar. --Una Smith (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Now Iranian Empire is a redirect to History of Iran. --Una Smith (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Persian Empire and Persian empire should also redirect to History of Iran. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"I do not care about the details of the content dispute" Which is why your comments have nothing to do with our policy or anything else. You cannot randomly come in and make claims without any proof. You think that a contested issue over the content means that a page shouldn't exist. That is not what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia makes it very clear that there are more than enough sources describing a Persian Empire that was more than one country so a page on the Persian Empire that matches every other language Wiki is necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, you and others are fighting over article existence; I am talking about page name. They are not the same. --Una Smith (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You obviously never paid attention to the Macedonia page naming dispute at ArbCom which verified that a page's name is part of the content dispute. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for revealing yourself Una. Everyone knows that 1. content fork does not mean what it is being used and 2. It is perfectly acceptable to have pages devoted to highly notable terms with overlap on other articles. This article follows WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. As has been proved many, many times, the History of Iran covers a significant amount of time before the Persian Empire, a lot of information after the Persian Empire, and the Persian Empire covers a lot that was -not- Iran. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

now would be a good time to remember why you are even here. You first came here because you were wikistalking Folantin. You did not have the first clue about Persia or the Persian Empire. You have since spent an epic amount of effort to make life difficult for the people trying to fix this long-standing problem and you have made some hilariously confused statements about Persia. By now you have absorbed enough basics to make halfway coherent statements about the question, but now you just can't back down and keep this alive out of spite. Perhaps editors on this page who are here because of their interest in Persia should just decide to leave good enough alone, close this RfC and move on. --dab (𒁳) 08:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was wikistalking, hence why I appear at all of the Persian Empire pages and the rest where the many disputes the above people are involved in which would constitute "wikistalking". Or, it could be that I built up the 18th century page and Folantin tried to involve it in her edit war to push her interpretation of the term to try and use that as evidence, and then she started claiming that since the page didn't exist it couldn't be linked. That tipped me off that she was edit warring and pushing something that was wrong. As I stated, the Persian Empire did exist in the 18th century, and the individual I labeled long ago as a Persian Emperor was one. Dbachmann, your claim is factually wrong and a personal attack. And I did not have the first clue about Persia? Even Wizardman said that I was 100% right. Even Warrior says I am right. The facts are truly against you. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, who's "her"? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, why meat? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What? And oh yes, the 18th century page, which claimed: "1722: Afghans conquered Iran, ending the Safavid dynasty." Except the Safavids survived until 1736. --Folantin (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Except you never proved that with diffs or the rest. Plus, your edit warring was over use of the Persian Empire. Funny how you ignored all consensus based processes and instead attack other editors. That is the very definition of battleground. Combined with your edit warring on this page over the same term, there is definitely major problematic behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Funny how you ignored all consensus based processes and instead attack other editors." Yes! --Akhilleus (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Soltan Hosein "His reign saw the downfall of the Safavid dynasty, which had ruled Persia since the beginning of the 16th century." Mir Mahmud Hotaki "Mir Mahmud Hotaki (1697? — April 22, 1725) was a leader of the ethnic Afghans who overthrew the Safavid dynasty to become Shah of Persia in 1722" The dynasty's rule was ended. That is rather clear from all of the sources and on Wiki. Your revisionist history is interesting. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

See Tahmasp II and Abbas III, both Safavid shahs de jure. Abbas wasn't deposed until 1736. "[I]nstead attack other editors." Your first edit to this page was an attack on me. Before that, the atmosphere was collegial. Anyway, enough of this. The RFAR has already dealt with these matters. --Folantin (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The original wording said -Persian Empire-. Were they a dynasty of the Persian Empire while someone else kicked them out of the country? And the RfAr closed non-prejudicial at 3/3 with 6 members not responding, which means that it can easily be rerequested. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• By the way, my first comment was - "Roman Empire and History of Italy. Italy is a territory. Rome is an Empire. The Persian Empire was made up of many, many dynasties with some being Afghani. Afghanistan is -not- Iran. It is its own territory. I find it amusing that Folantin decries that "Persian Empire" is seen as a "synonym for Iran", when she has been edit warring to push such a claim. However, that is what happens when you have such people that are here only to cause disruptions. A block should probably allow for people who actually care about Wikipedia to put a page in place. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)"

You were edit warring, and you edit warred other pages to promote your edit war on this page. Pointing out directly obvious problematic behavior is not an attack. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, no, I wasn't "edit warring". We've been through this time and time again. We've just spent two weeks on an RFAR which went nowhere and was hardly a ringing endorsement of your behaviour. Enough. --Folantin (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

18:50, 21 August 2009, 16:03, 21 August 2009. Two reverts, two different pages, after the standard Bold, Revert, Discuss took place. There was no discussion before you reverted. Thus, you violated the Edit Warring policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Consequences

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