Talk:India–Iran relations

Untitled

I understand this article is about current international relations between the Republics of Iran and India? In this case, the lengthy "History" section needs to be reduced dramatically as patently off topic to the article scope. dab (𒁳) 15:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I second that and all this common indo iranian heritage is balloney.We all have a common heritage in Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.8.198.65 (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol, its actually largely true you ignoramus. Even a superficial student of Indian history such as Nehru acknowledged that 'no other nation has influenced India more than the Iranians'. And, considering there are lengthy histories for relations between India and other countries, it is only appropriate that we have a lengthy history of the socio-cultural contacts between the Indian subcontinent and Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.187.41 (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

potential resource

Sanctions dodge: India to pay gold for Iran oil, China may follow edited 25 January, 2012, 06:36 RT (TV network); "India has reportedly agreed to pay Tehran in gold for the oil it buys, in a move aimed at protecting Delhi from US-sanctions targeting countries who trade with Iran."

See Sanctions against Iran. 99.181.135.113 (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This is about relations between MODERN day India and Iran/Persia, not about ancient peoples of West Asia and South Asian peoples beyond the Indus

Why can't there be room for both? Other articles about foreign relations discuss ancient and pre-modern links. For example, the article on China-India relations talks about the spread of Buddhism and other ideas during the ancient period, referencing the Mahabharata and Han Dynasty historical records. The article on France-United Kingdom relations even goes as far back as the Neolithic period. I don't see any reason why all time periods can't be covered. --124.119.126.206 (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

If Religion can be included in this article, then so should Culture- of which the two nations share much of- from language ( Persian was the official language of the Delhi Sultanate, Mughal India and even after) to cuisine, etc. Modern India and Iran did not just drop off from the sky- they evolved over thousands of years to be what they are today and to have the relations they have today--- this needs to be taken into account. Also, like the BBC poll showing Iranians' views of India, Indians' view of Iran ( if there is a BBC poll for this) needs to be shown too. Geopolitixx (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Nonsensical self-formulated synthesis, in a similar fashion like your addition on Indian campaign of Alexander the Great. The fact that the upper classes spoke Persian since the Delhi Sultanate has nothing to do with this article. The Delhi Sultanate was of Turko-Afghan origin, and the successive Mughal Empire was of Turko-Mongol origin. It's like mentioning that "oh, because the upper classes in Al-Andalus (Spain) spoke Arabic during Muslim rule, therefore in the article about Saudi Arabia-Spain relations this should be covered. After all Arabic originated in Arabia, right?". Total nonsense.

Also this article (incl. talk page) continues to reek of heavy sockpuppetry. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The use of Persian in India can certainly be mentioned. I don't think the origins of any rulers makes any difference. Persian nobles, writers and sufis have come to India throughout the last millennium. Persian has been an official language in many Indian states almost until the Indian independence, and Persian words are pervasive Urdu and Hindi. It is not merely an upper class thing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Your condescending words do not affect me, LouisAragon. By the way, i have not "self-formulated" anything in the article of Indian Campaign of Alexander. I had cited the sources clearly and each of the lines in the paragraph that you removed were a direct quote from the sources mentioned. Go through the sources again. Secondly, you obviously have no idea about Persian language's influence in India. Urdu, which originated in the region around Delhi uses the Persian script (Nastaliq form, etc.). Urdu, for people who KNOW what they are talking about is basically same as Hindi but in the Persian script with Persian words used intermittently.In contrast, i have never come across Spanish being written in the Arabic script. This is highly off-topic but in rebuttal to your point where you wrote-"It's like mentioning that "oh, because the upper classes in Al-Andalus (Spain) spoke Arabic during Muslim rule, therefore in the article about Saudi Arabia-Spain relations this should be covered. After all Arabic originated in Arabia, right?". Total nonsense." One of my points here was that because of usage of Persian as an official language since medieval India, the modern people of India and Iran can relate to each other on a higher level through common childhood stories- Laila-Majnu,etc., common words in their vocabularies, similar day to day cultural practices,etc. Geopolitixx (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/iran-detains-indian-tanker-carrying-oil-wants-undertaking-406155. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Supposed disagreements

@Wiki id2: I have moved here the new text you have added:

Another disagreement is Iran's consistent support of Pakistan on Kashmir, affirmed by Iran's Supreme Leader and India's backing of Baloch militants which both Pakistan and Iran jointly co-operate against.

References

This edit, like several others you have been adding in various places, fails the Wikipedia's verifiablity and no original research tests.

• The first point, "Iran's consitent support of Pakistan" is clearly WP:OR. There is no mention of supporting Pakistan in the source. Neither does the source say that it is "consistent". Rather, it makes it a point that it was a one-off and probably an inadvertent mistake by an aide. The source doesn't support your content.
• The second point, neither of the two sources says that India is "backing" Baloch militants, whatever "backing" means. The first article talks about Modi highlighting the human rights violations in Balochistan and the second article (an op-ed) talks about potential consequences of granting asylum to Brahamdagh Bugti. The asylum has not yet been granted and neither has Iran complained about it. This seems to be an instance of WP:CRYSTAL.

More generally, you need to make it a point to give full citations. See HELP:Citations. You also need to make sure that you don't cite op-eds (opinion columns). Opinions columns are, as the name implies, "opinions" and they have to be stated as opinions in Wikipedia and attributed to their authors by WP:In-text attribution. You can't treat them as if they are "facts". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

India and iran in ancient relation

Why this has no history of this relations section but only current relation section? 2404:8000:1027:85F6:80BA:1BC0:833E:D985 (talk) 07:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC) Yeah this is cursed images of pahlavi era iran and newly born india. What the f---?! Why india is sorted first after iran? Yeah thus page is only discuss on current relations since india independence while iran is pahlavi dynasty. Well the see also section proves this well about what are histories of relation between india and persia available in this pahe. 2404:8000:1027:85F6:80BA:1BC0:833E:D985 (talk) 07:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Embassy of India, Tehran.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Shah

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi is labeled Shah of Iran in all texts. I have not encountered a text that calls him Emperor of Iran to date. Farah Pahlavi also should be called Queen of Iran. Aminabzz (talk) 11:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Translation

While the Persian translation of "India-Iran relations" is "روابط هند و ایران", but please note that the English text is written with respect to the Latin alphabetical order (India before Iran). So I think the Persian text also should be written with respect to the Persian alphabetical order: "روابط ایران و هند". Aminabzz (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)