Talk:Samanid Empire

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2018 and 19 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zoey.khan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello!

I think there is a mistake here; Samanid is different from Sassanid.

Samanids and Tajiks

It should be noted that the tajik identity was formed after the occupation of Central Asia by Turks. I.e. it is a privative(?)definition. It means persian speaking as opposed to turkish speaking. Since at the time of Samanids Central Asia was not occupied or controlled by Turkic tribes Tajik identity does not make sense. It was after the Samanids that turic tribes took control over the region.

   RE: Can You prove that? Bring some sources, please,. I would like to know my history.

Actually the Tajik identity was formed when the Persians from Iran migrated in mass to Central Asia during the Arab invasions, that is according to Iranologist Richard Nelson Frye. --Behnam 06:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is just a claim and highly questionable and debatable as ricahrd nelson frye is known to make outragoues claims like this one. It almost seems that Everything in Central asia has descended from Persian(iranians) when infact no scholars from afghanistan or tajikstan or in the region has verified or accepted this claim. The tajiks were first to migrate to what is now iran. Ironically Iranians come from what is now tajikistan and afghanistan. Also there are too many people here are reading the western version of central asia and afghanistan history and just tie it into the persian history because they speak the same language which is not true because persian is a western terminology and historically incorrect when reffering to DARI or afghansPashtun786 05:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Pashtun786

Pashtun Dombdar,

Tajik is a sononymus for Persian. Persians of central Asia use it to define Persians there. Tajiks are not turks, they are pure Indo-Europeans. People who live in Turkey or in areas where they make a minority like in Kurdistan people call them as well as Tajik. Some great Poets called themself as well as Tajiks like Saadi. Even in the Shahnama Soraab (i think it is Sorab) call himself as Tajik. Tajik was used for 2000 years ago to descibe Avestan speaking people by Indians. Even chinese´s and tibetans use this word till today to descibe all Persian people, including those in Iran and Aserbaidshan (Tats). But Pashtuns have turkish origine, at least all non-Kanlari-groups. Jaji= Jajra, Karokhil= Karo, Ghalzai/Ghilzai= Khilij, Abdali= Ebdali (indo-europeans of non-iranic origine from Sibiria and east mongolia who became very strong turkizised). And now add all sub-groups, too.

Dari is the language of Iran, Tajikistan and Persian Afghans while Awghans/Aoghans speak Pashto, a SOUTH-EASTERN iranian language. That means there is no relation to the avestan (bactrian-sogdian-Parsi->Kambuji people). Awghans->Ashvakans! first vedic speaking people who became as well mixed by drawidas and later had developed an own stock of the indo-aryan language, of course not intentionally.

Parsi is Parsi. It differ just in it´s dialects. Btw, our dialect is known as Parsi e/Palawi e Khorassani!! to understand that you have to see who parthians were and who are their descends today-->Tajiks!! Of seven tribes three tribes settled in modern Afghanistan. Now accept it or get die by your facist mentality. best regards

--84.59.13.115 18:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Koh-Damani

"PERSIAN AFGHANS" wrong, first of all the real scholars will never say that afghans or tajik are "PERSIAN" this is an incorrect Western usage when reffering to these people. Theres an old saying never believe anything that you hear. Also have you seen any afghan historian has accepted any of these articles? or did you hear from your own family saying that they are persian? NO. These articles are written and referenced by iranians, jews, british, americans. How come afghans never write there own articles instead foreigners are doing it for us who have no clue of the language or the culture. Pashtun786 06:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Pashtun786

I know this discussion is 8 years old but i thought i would for people that might read this. You guys are both somewhat right and wrong. The Samainds themselves were from the area we would call "Tajkistan" today and the area has been historically inhabbited by a people called "Tajiks." Richard Frye's statement is wrong since a huge migration of Persians into central asia would have not been possible since the Arabs advanced eastwards into Afghanistan and Central Asia. The Ummayd empire ruled the vast land of Iran all the way to Pakistan so it wouldn't exactly make sense for them to migrate into an area also invaded by Arabs. Secondly, i think the Samanids were more or less just Sodighans who got persianized and adopted Farsi as state language, as you know very well that Farsi was the lingua franca and court language at the time. Also, the word Tajik was revived ruing the soviet rule and was not accepted at first by the majority of Persians from Afghanistan and Tajikistan as the word originally had a negative connation to it. Akmal94 (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Pahlavi literature

is this where 9th-century Pahlavi literature comes from? Jonathan Tweet 23:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

the last Samanid King ruled till 1005

Dear Arian,

Wikipedia is not a site or a book like Puta Khazana or sth like that. The last Samanid King ruled till 1005. That their rule took so long i do not need britanicca or sth. ...i have read the books about them!! I have movies about them!!! I have old texts about them written by arabs!!! PLZ do not hide their full ruling date!! WIKIPEDIA IS NOT MADE BY PASHTUNES WHO DOES NOT KNOW SAMANIDS IN AFGHANISTAN!!!

Ps:Dqiqi was writing for the shanameh in the court of the samanids but he died to early so firdowsi wrote for them further the book but they didn´t want it so he wrote the shahname for sulatn mahmud till his death!!! by the way before daqiqi and firdowsi the shahname was written by another persian from merv unfortunatley i have forgotten his life.

and 1+1 is not zero even when the samanids had ruled from 875 or whatever it don´t make 102 years!! it would be very good to visit midnight schools, my tip to you!! education is the most important thing today, don´t forget it!! ...it won´t hurt..even you are a pashtune ;)

User:Tajik-Professor, first keep your Personal Attacks away, you are already aware of wikipedia rules. Here is not like other forum website. Secondly, you cannot remove a well-sourced information. The Britannica source is completely reliable, and you could not even provide a single source for what you wrote. Any unsourced information can be reverted.Ariana310 20:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

does this (819–999) make 102 years??--Tajik-Professor 15:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not. I changed the date of their ruling, and I forgot to change the number of years they ruled. If you can provide a reliable source for what you say (819 - 1005), then you can obviously change it in the article, without any problem.Ariana310 15:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Title

"Samanid empire" is not a popular term in English books or academic articles (compare Samanids or Samanid dynasty with "Samanid empire). This page should move back to Samanids. Alefbe (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the page. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute. How many sources do you need? ("samanid+empire"&btnG=Search+Books 1). Every empire starts from a "dynasty" so counting "google hits" does not help. For example look at the book The Cambridge history of Iran which is an academic source and it uses both Empire and dynasty. I think the page should be moved to "Samanid empire".--Xashaiar (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

For the title, "Samanids" or "samanid dynasty" is much more common in academic sources (compared to "Samanid empire"). For the content of the page, the issue is that empire is a very vague word. The Samanid state wasn't an empire by its standard definition. I was a semi-independent Emirate which was nominally under Abbasid Caliphate. Alefbe (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I am the academic source and I explained what the point is. Do not chat.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Xashaiar: please spare us the bizarre assertions that you are an "academic source".

Likewise the "counting 'google hits' does not help" when you are doing precisely the same thing.

FWIW,... Alefbe is correct. The Samanids were a semi-autonomous vassal state of the Caliphate. Although they ran their own (federal) government, they paid a tithe to the Abbasids who gave the Samanids the right to rule and whose support the Samanids depended upon.

The edit warring is disruptive. So settle it on talk. There is no need to call the Samanids an empire, and doing so is misleading. So just simply don't do that. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

1. never ever pronounce my name that's very bad for your health. 2. Stop following my edits, you may find better things to do. 3. I proved to everybody on this planet that your logic is 0-order logic which is dead now. Because: My statement was A. The word empire and dynasty have been used and is not "what we invented". B. I explained what I mean. 4. I am correct because I disagree with the "master of copy and pase=Full stop". live with it.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that is not how things work around here. We do not "live with" what you, Xashaiar, decree should or should not be done.

Your newest assertion that "I [Xashaiar] am correct because I disagree" is just more grandstanding. We are not obliged to pay any more heed to it than your previous assertion that you are an "academic source".

And, "I [Xashaiar] proved to everybody on this planet that your logic is 0-order logic which is dead now" is incoherent. Besides, you have not even responded to anything that has been said. Indeed, all you did was strike out my comment.

As always, you have the option of either A) participating in this discussion in order to make the article better, or B) leaving voluntarily

Not options are C) asserting that "I [Xashaiar] am the academic source", D) "I [Xashaiar] am correct", E) striking out the comments of others.

Take your pick. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You say "Sorry, that is not how things work around here." I agree but I am not sure if I should say it or you. The point of my first comment here was: It is not acceptable to change every instance of empire to dynasty. This change had been done by the user in more than 5 other pages. And his/her "supplement" is to remove maps! The options here are either "you stop following my edits" Or "read my comments and edit summaries more carefully". So here is what the user above does not accept: "Following some academic sources, it is OK to use "samanid empire" at some instances in the article". Simple. BTW how/why/when did you come to this page?--Xashaiar (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Xashaiar is right. Empire and dynasty are not mutually exclusive. more than 300+ hits in google books (not google) [1] should be sufficient to mention both. This is not a place for WP:OR. We follow WP:RS sources and if 300+ books have Samanid empire, then it is more than enough to call them an empire. The Abbassids at this time were under control of Buyids themselves and were just head figures and then the Seljuqs came and again Abbassids were head figures. But this is not a discussion forum. We simply state WP:RS sources and cambridge history of Iran and 300+ hits call it an empire and it does not contradict it being a dynasty. Sassanid dynasty, Sassanid empire are both used and both terms are correct. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• When is the last time an emperor paid tribute to another emperor, or paid even lip service to another? Certainly it's far from the norm. Yes, the Samanids were semi-autonomous, but in what way were they even an empire? The Samanids never called themselves caliph, or shahanshah, or anything nearly resembling that... They generally are considered "governors" of "governorates", as per al-Hibri in New Cambridge History of Islam, Vol. 1, pg. 304. Michael Bonner refers to it as an "emirate", in New Cambridge History of Islam, Vol. 1, p.343 as well.

• Also, a few more things: 1) Dynasties =/= empires. Kingdoms have dynasties, too... 2) "Empire" is Euro-centric anyway. 3) Did the Samanids oversee a set of subservient rulers of smaller polities (e.g., kingdoms) who paid tribute to them? This is nearly universal in empires. 4) The Samanids **literally** printed the names of the Caliphs in their coins... (NCHoI, Vol.1, p.345).

• Also, acc. Edinburgh History of the Islamic Empires, Samanids are not included... Their status as an empire is so much more ambiguous compared to those of others, such as the Fatimids or the Almoravids... There seems to be some kind of ideological impetus polluting the simple fact that empire is inaccurate to describe the Samanids. --Islamic Studies PhD student, UCLA.

Nobody has said anything about empire and dynasty being mutually exclusive. Accordingly, Xashaiar doesn't have anything to be "right" about. Least of all when he has himself rejected hit counting as a means to determine frequency.

Alefbe has made his case about the term "empire" being inapplicable to an entity that is dependent on another. Xashaiar may either address that point in an appropriate manner, or he may prefer to yield the field. Those are his options. He may not assert that "I [Xashaiar] am the academic source", or assert that "I [Xashaiar] am correct", or strike out other people's comments, or be a belligerent bully.

Moreover, custom interpretations of Wikipedia policies don't wash, least of all when WP:CIVIL is routinely violated. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if Xashiyar violated civil, but are you sure you have not violated WP:civil ? I urge everyone here including Xashaiar not to violate WP:civil and be more friendly. And also for Alefbe not to remove WP:RS sources [2]. All it is required for Wikipedia is 1 WP:RS source but we have 300+ in google books for Samanids that call them an empire, so obviously it should be in the body, infoboxes and possibly the title. Note Sassanid empire and dynasty both have lots of academic books as well:[3][4]. For consistency's sake, we need to follow the same guidelines for Samanids as for Ghaznavids, Sassanids and etc. who have also been dynasties and empires. I see the title of the Sassanids in Wikipedia is Sassanid empire, but the title of Samanids and Ghaznavids lacks the word empire. Safavids article is called a dynasty, but they have also been called Safavid Iranian empire/Persian empire and etc. There is no harm in adding empire to the tile of these empires for their entry, but possibly a uniform title is the best and I think Safavids, Samanids, Buyids and Ghaznavids should also have an added empire in their title.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is about the title of the page and also this edit by Wayiran which has replaced the most common name with a less common name in the infobox and also has included some factual errors (like mentioning Buyids as a successor, instead of Kara-Khanids). None of the links that you provided and nothing in your argument justify replacing Samanid dynasty with Samanid empire in the introduction and the infobox. In his effort to defend Wayiran's edit, Xashaiar has blindly restored it without even correcting apparent mistakes (like mentioning Buyids instead of KaraKhanids), and you are defending that erroneous edit. I should say that I'm quite disappointed by your way of addressing this issue. Alefbe (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I am just trying to be neutral and I think we can solve this through friendly diologue and I have urged Xashiyar to be calm as well. From what I understand, you are claiming there is a contradiction between dynasty and empire or that dynasty is more common than empire. The first claim is not true and the second does not justify keeping dynasty when empire has more than 300+ google book hits. The Samanids were both. The justification for infobox in my opinion is that the term empire is more significant than dynasty. You can be a dynasty but not an empire. But you can't be an empire without being dynasty. If X has a black belt in a martial art, then there is no reason to put red belt. The readers will automatically know it is a dynasty when empire is mentioned, but they won't know if it is an empire (which it is), if dynasty is mentioned. So given empire is more signifcant, and there is many sources that call them an empire, I think empire is better for the info-box and even title. Empire implies dynasty but dynasty does not imply empire, where as empire has been used by more than 300+ google books. The replacement of Samaanids is generally thought to be Ghaznavids but Karakhanids might have taken some territories as well. You are correct and I have edited the infobox to correct that section.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The infobox and the first sentence of the introduction and the title of page should be consistent with most common name in English texts and the way it is usually addressed in Encyclopedias. "Samanids" and "Samanid dynasty" are more common in English books and Academic articles. Also, for Encyclopedias, you can check Encyclopedia of Islam or general encyclopedias (like Britannica). Alefbe (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no general precedence, but Cambridge history of Iran would have more weight than britannica or even Encyclopedia of Islam. As I explained an empire is dynasty by default. But a dynasty is not necessarily an empire. "Chon sad amad navad ham pisheh maast", so I do not see any harm mentioning them as an empire and it follows academic guidelines. You are claiming dynasty is more common, but there is no contradiction between dynasty and empire. Every empire is also a dynasty.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge history of Iran hasn't used "Samanid empire" as a title of a chapter. Alefbe (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Amir is just another word for Monarchy here, but it is the Arabic word.

No it's not. At that time, Amir was the title of a governor which was nominally under Caliphate. Alefbe (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Samanids ruled as monarchs. The Caliph was no more than a figure head and that is why Samanids are called an empire as well. Cambridge history of Iran does not need to use it as a title of a chapter. As long as it has used it, it is sufficient to denote the Samanids as an empire throughout any such article.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Their title was Amir and they didn't consider themselves as sovereign monarchs (though they enjoyed practical independence). None of them called themselves Shah or anything meaning king. Alefbe (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think we have poets referring to them as Shah..just like Ghaznavid king was called Sultan Mahmud...but title and actual governance is two different matter. Queen of England is a "queen" but not really...--Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere (specially after edits like this, based on arguments which are IMO irrelevant to the title of the page and the infobox). I think we should ask opinion of others (but not from a small circle of Iranian Wikipedians). Alefbe (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the first page of the chapter on Samanids (in the Cambridge history of Iran). Even Frye (who has used the term "Samanid empire" once) has not used this term in the title of that chapter or its lead (also see this for the usage of various terms in that chapter). Alefbe (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You are violating WP:OR by making it seem like dynasty contradicts an empire. Every empire is a dynasty, so the usage of empire does not invalidate it as a dynasty. But empire is a more significant word and it has been used by Frye among others. Since empire is more significant, it should be in the title box. And title of Chapter is of no consequence, what matters is that empire is the most significant term and it has been used by Frye and 300+ more books. And it already contains the definition of a dynasty within it. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You are factually incorrect, Nepaheshgar. Dynasties don't have to be empires. Dynasties can be emirates, sultanates, kingdoms, etc. Most reputable academic sources don't speak of the dynasties of the Iranian intermezzo as full fledged empires, for a number of reasons. Neither Cambridge History of Iran, nor Cambridge History of Islam Vol. 1, nor Edinburgh History of Islamic Empires. --Danmusa562 Danmusa562 (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

excuse me can someone please move the picture of a samanid king nasr ii which is covering a part of the text!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethyx (talk • contribs) 18:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone in here are tajiks or pro-persians that are writing this history

Most of the information must be verified and accepted by a large scholarly society in afghanistan and historians that are neutral about the subject, other than that apparently everything on here is written favoring an iranian view as everyone on here including the editor is a tajik wannabe persian which in most people's opinion is not the same. 76.103.37.61 (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Pashtun786

Why afghans? how are they considered neutral in this matter? Give sources to counter the facts given by Persians if you can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazratemahmood (talk • contribs) 11:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Samanid trading with Europe

This article does not mention the Samanids trading with Europe

The History of Bukhara by Narshakhi (trans. Richard N. Frye), Page 143 mentions the following:

"...The Samanids were involved in trading with Europe, as thousands of Samanid coins that have been found in the Baltic and Scandinavian countries testify. Trades, agriculture and slave trading were the economic basis of Samanid State...", - I have reworded it. I will be adding it with proper citation.

Lineage of the Samanids

The article claims "To legitimize the dynasty, the Samanids claimed to be descendants of Bahram Chobin,[9]".. this is somewhat inaccurate. In the book, 'The History of Bukhara' by Narshakhi (Trans. by Richard Nelson Frye), there's an entire chapter called "An account of the house of Saman and their lineage", Here' it says (roughly) "Saman Khuda was one of the descendant of Bahram Chobin", in other words, they didn't simply claim it, they were infact descendants of Bahram Chobin as recorded in their lineage. I will be adding it with proper citation. -- Source: The History of Bukhara by Narshakhi (Trans. Richard Nelson Frye), Pg 79, Chapter XXVI. --Theotherguy1 (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

To IP: 91.200.216.10, you are writing repeatedly that Samanids were not descendants of Bahram Chobin, rather they simply claimed it. This is not true. The article as it stands is properly cited. Please do not remove/make changes. --Theotherguy1 (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

removed two sentences

During the Samanid period the Tajik nation was formed in Central Asia. The Samanid Empire is considered as the first Tajik state.

I have removed these from the text from the article, being of spurious nature. This is exactly what the official Soviet ethno-nationalist propaganda machine of Tajikistan pumped out, and as such does not belong in a NPOV encyclopaedia.

This is not only contentious but unvalidated. Please do not restore these passages to the article without proper scholarly citations directly making these claims. --Jhelyam (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikify

Is there a particular reason why most of the references (Notes) do not have dates or publishers given, let alone if there are different editions? It should also have a bibliography to supplement the script of the Notes. If these are article titles they should have the Journal, and issue and volume information, shouldn't it? Isn't the idea of providing information so that someone else can find it and use it too? Stevenmitchell (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Fact and Historical Source

in all historical source samanids empire certainly is persian.and verb of tajik were made ​​in later years.samanids named Themselves padishahe iran (king of persia).So if tajik's want are related themselves to the samanids,Because to build identity for their history and their newly establishment country,this identity building shouldn't effected on fact and history. if this post have misspelling excuse me Because my english is some weak.Ali Historian (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Ali Historian

The references supporting Tajik and the word Tajik should stay within the article. I do not see a problem allowing referenced information stating Persian as well. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The latest "source" from AllEmpires.com is not published and therefore does not pass Wikipedia's reliable sources requirements. I have added two university sources that state the Samanids were Tajik. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Tajik" is technically wrong, because it is an exonym which was established much later. The correct expression in here would be "Persian". The Encyclopaedia of Islam (article by Clifford Edmund Bosworth) writes: SAMANIDS, a Persian dynasty which ruled in Transoxania and then in Khurasan also, at first as subordinate governors of the Tahirids [q. v. ] and then later autonomous, virtually independent rulers (204-395/819-1005). --Lysozym (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I personally do not have a preference, for Persian or Tajik. It would appear that the original "Persian"[5] was changed to "Tajik" and later when I caught someone changing it, simply reverted it back without checking. However, of the 5 references for "Persian", the "Islam after Communism" doesn't even mention "Persian" and the other 4 references I am currently checking. There are 3 references that state Tajik Samanids. If you can bring enough sources to indicate that the 3 "Tajik" references are a minority, I would agree to changing it to "Persian". --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Islam is authoritative. See also the Cambridge History of Islam: [6] --Lysozym (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not me you have to convince, it is the multitude of anon IPs that will revert you. You can change it Lysozym, I do not have a problem with "Persian". --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Persian or Tajik, both the same word for the same people. --88.69.9.31 (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

While searching for the editor that plagiarized part of a book and added it to this article, I found this edit[7] by Scythian1, where he changes the ethnicity to "Tajik". You might ask his opinion on his talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Concern over plagiarism

The Cultural and Religious efforts section appears to have been copied word-for-word from "History of Afghanistan"[8] and "History of Iran"[9]. I will attempt to re-write the section without changing the "gist" of the section. Any concerns can be posted here. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Weren't Samanids of Parthian stock?

• Saman Khuda => Bahram Chobin => Bahram Gushnasp => House of Mihran => Seven Parthian clans
• Saman Khuda was a Dehqan. Was this title common for all Iranians or just Persians? --Wario-Man (talk) 06:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Wario-Man: It's disputed, some sources state that it's not for sure if they really were descendants of Bahram Chobin, who had become a famous figure mythological-like figure in Khorasan and Transoxiana. But if they were descendants of Bahram Chobin, they had surely been Persianized at that time. By this time, Dehqan was mostly used by Persians and eastern Iranians such as Sogdians, the inhabitants of Khuttal, etc. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Thanks for the info. So an "Iranian" dynasty is more accurate than Persian and Parthian due to their origin and culture? --Wario-Man (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Wario-Man: I would say that both Persian and Iranian is correct, but I prefer myself to use Iranian in this case. Some scholars prefer to use 'Tajik', ie Persianized eastern Iranians. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Current 3rd paragraph of the lead

• The Samanid Empire is part of the Iranian Intermezzo, which saw the creation of a Persianate culture and identity that brought Iranian speech and traditions into the fold of the Islamic world. This would lead to the formation of the Turko-Persian culture.

Compare it with cited source (link to the book page). I think current text does not summarize cited source very well. Plus shouldn't we add more details to it per source and move it to Culture, Legacy, or a new section? --Wario-Man (talk) 04:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran, Kansas Bear, LouisAragon, and Wikaviani: Your thoughts on this? --Wario-Man (talk) 09:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

For my part, i would agree with your proposal to summarize the source in a better way, but i think that this quote is quite relevant in the lead. Let's wait to have more opinions from the other editors you pinged.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe the source is referencing, "This would lead to the formation of the Turko-Persian culture".

As for the previous sentence it can be referenced by Medieval Central Asia and the Persianate World, A.C.S. Peacock, D.G. Tor, page xix. As for moving into the body of the article; this information should already be in the body of the article, since it is in the lead of the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Currently both Turco-Persian and Persianate are only in the lead and there is no other mention or additional info about them in the body of article. We can expand Samanid_Empire#Cultural_and_religious_efforts by adding relevant info about them. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, per MOS:LEAD, Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Then please do it. I'm not good enough in copy-editing. Also consider the source mentioned by Kansas Bear. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it as soon as i have enough time. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to find an access to the two sources, the one already cited in the article and the one provided by Kansas Bear above, but i was not able to find a free access on the web, if you guys have one, please post the url here. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

My first comment includes a link to Google Books and cited page of that book. For the other source, seems Kansas Bear has access to it, so contact him. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I hope this link works.[10] --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

How about this one?[11] --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, i added a section about Iranian Intermezzo in the body of the article, feel free to correct me if it sounds not good according to you. Now we need to deal with the lead's sentence that was quoted above by Wario-Man, should it stay in the lead ? be removed ? or just reworded ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Ismaili somoni dushanbe.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

"History of Iran" template, seriously?

@HistoryofIran, Kansas Bear, LouisAragon, and Wikaviani:, I hope you are all doing well and staying safe. As leading contributors of this article, I would like to draw your precious attention to one ambiguous template vigorously guarded by HistoryofIran, which is "History of Iran" template (suspicious coincidence, uhm). You guys talked so much of how this empire contributed to Turco-Persian tradition and made a lasting impact on Central Asia, but seem not to notice the above-mentioned template, which should not be there all alone. I thoroughly added a handful of history templates of the present-day countries, whose territories constituted a significant part of the Samanid Empire, but they were immediately deleted by HistoryofIran for "obvious" reasons. Apparently, I thought that the best compromise would've been using "history of Greater Iran" template (as you know the territory from Derbent in Dagestan to Pakistan, and from Khwarazm to Bahrein is considered Greater Iran) and to this end, I swapped the templates, but again, to no avail, thanks to the relevant user. HistoryofIran, know that this empire had a profound influence on all the people of Central Asia (Official Dushanbe even claims this Kingdom to be their own) and this impact is still clearly felt around (trust me, I travelled solo along the Silk Road). Therefore, my guess is that History of Greater Iran template should be used instead of the Iran one, because first of all, this State was centered more in Transoxiana, second, considering the reasons I have stated earlier, Samanid Empire cannot be solely claimed by present-day Iran. Thanks, --Visioncurve^{Haec lux solis, relinquentes senex mundi} 04:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Suspicious concidence? Vigorously guarded? Promoting for good old reasons? [12] Go on, keep casting aspersions and I see that I won't report you. Also, frankly I don't think anyone cares where you have been travelling. The template of History of Iran is much more well-constructed. Also, Greater Iran is a cultural sphere, I don't think we should go around throwing that into articles, especially considering it be used practically in any place in the Middle East, regardless its relevancy. Also, in case you didn't notice, the 4 templates you added were also filling out too much space in the article. Templates have nothing to do with a country "claiming" a certain dynasty. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems that discussing proper subjects with you is totally useless. Also, if you, instead of stating your opinion as an educated adult, write something like: "frankly I don't think anyone cares where you have been travelling", when it's clear as day that it was merely written to support the relevant fact (Iranian influence in Central Asia) and not for anything else, you should not take part in all this...--Visioncurve^{Haec lux solis, relinquentes senex mundi} 13:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Your supposed travelling experience does not make your argument more valid, nor does making immature attacks against me. Thankfully you're not the one to make that decision. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thankfully you are not either. --Visioncurve^{Haec lux solis, relinquentes senex mundi} 03:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

That made no sense. I'm not the one stating that x person shouldn't take part in this, lol. HistoryofIran (talk)

And with Visioncurve's latest comment, I think this discussion should be closed. Visioncurve has had ample opportunity to present their case, and instead have chosen to make this issue about HistoryofIran. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The only thing that made no sense was taking my cause once in a blue moon to the talk page of the article following your cheesy "advise", which is driving me up the wall. Initially, I was really hyped about having a healthy discussion among the people with knowledge in such areas as history and culture of Central Asia, Greater Iran, and etc, instead, I bumped into HistoryofIran's "frankly nobody cares... your immature attacks..." in no time, when it seems that the only immature person here is him. @Kansas Bear and Wikaviani:, many thanks for your prompt and honest response. I think it's just about time to wrap things up, I gotta hit the road. Good luck --Visioncurve^{Haec lux solis, relinquentes senex mundi} 05:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment : Greater Iran is a cultural sphere, thus, the History of Iran template sounds more relevant here, in my humble opinion. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment :I have seen no sources which would indicate a need to include the other templates. Also, personal experiences or opinions are useless. Wikipedia is written using reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Curious question, what is the use case of {{History of Greater Iran}} then? It seems just as applicable here as {{History of Iran}} to me, listing the various empires and dynasties encompassing the areas around modern-day Iran. If there isn't a case where the former should be used concurrently or in place of the latter, then an XfD may be in order. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The Preaching of Islam: A History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith

@Shaykswag: Page 179-180 in The Preaching of Islam: A History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith is about the Mongols, it doesn't mention anything about Islam/Zoroastrianism in the era of the Samanids, could you please add the correct page(s)? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Idk what you are talking about, its not about mongols its about the situation of Zoroastrians in Iran, Sir thomas walker arnold mentions that during the tenth century(which was when the Samanid Empire took it's intermediate era) al masudi reports fire temples and Zoroastrians who were present. Perhaps you'd pick a quote from those pages that you read and I'll quote the things I read in the section to clear the misconception.

@Shaykswag: Where did you get your source? On the very pages in [13] it talks about the Mongols. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Ohh I see now, we didn't get the same copy of the book. I got the Preaching of Islam from :[14] but anyway in your copy you can find it in page 161.

@Shaykswag: Majority of readers dont use Google play to access/read books like these, heck I can't even access it in my country. Please use the version I linked instead, as it seems to be the more common one. And please stop mentioning Fars in this article, it was never ruled by the Samanids. At their zenith they ruled as far as Kerman in southern Iran. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@History: Got it, ill stop mentioning fars and I'll link the other source instead of Google play.

Simjurids

• Stop deleting the text about the Simjurids, which directly refers to the reign of Ahmad ibn Ismail and is based on reliable sources.

Khorazmiy (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Stop adding information completely out of context to the paragraph(s) in question. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• • • The Simjurids were the governors of the Samanids in Khorasan, which is confirmed by reliable sources.Khorazmiy (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you not understand CONTEXT? Your response sounds like you do not have the required competency in English to edit this Wikipedia. Your next response will determine whether I need to contact an Admin.--Kansas Bear (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• • • Stop threatening me and breaking the rules of ethics. Simjur was the governor of Khorasan and contributed to the history of the Samanid state. This text is important for understanding the history of the Samanids. Another question is how to properly place this text in a section. I think that the text could be inserted into the section about the Samanid governors.Khorazmiy (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

How is a mere governor important for understanding the history of the Samanids? There were various prominent figures in the Samanid era, much more so than Simjur (also, the Simjurids were not the only ones to governor Samanid Khorasan). So why is he so important to add? And in random paragraphs a that? I'm not saying that Simjur or his family shouldnt be included here, but the way you're doing it is not it. Click here if you want to expand on the Simjurids. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• • • The Samanid state was a complex system in which the role of rulers changed throughout the 10th century. From the middle of the 10th century, the political role of governors and military leaders increased, which influenced the policy of viziers and Samanid emirs. In addition, some governors indicated their names on copper coins, which spoke of their power. So I think the paragraph about governors is very important.Khorazmiy (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Since Khorazmiy has chosen to ignore my concerns over context and casting aspersions, "breaking the rules of ethics", they have been reported to EdJohnston's talk page.Kansas Bear (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• • • • It is very strange that you ignored my answer about the proposal to put my text in a separate paragraph. Why do not you answer?Khorazmiy (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

It is even more strange that you ignored me.[15] I do not have time for editors that are here to ignore context and push a POV. Kansas Bear (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I propose to create a paragraph about the governors of the Samanid state, where I could include a text about the Simjurids. Do you disagree?Khorazmiy (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. I dont see the point of it. Sorry, but we’re not gonna create a whole new and random section just so you can add the Simjurids. See how other well written articles of kingdoms/empires are made. Again, if you want to expand on the Simjurids, there is a whole article dedicated to them. You’re also yet to answer on why the Simjurids are so vital to have. HistoryofIran (talk)

This question was directed to Kansas Bear. You can read in detail about the Simjurids in Encyclopedia Iranica and the monograph by L.Treadweel. Khorazmiy (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)