Talk:Iran/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

RfC about the use of "Persia" and "Iran" in historic contexts

Should Persia be used instead of Iran in reference to pre-1935 history? Genealogizer (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC) [User subsequently blocked as a sock]

Survey

• Support - Persia was the proper name of the country in English until the Shah changed it in 1935, and thus, using Persia in reference to pre-1935 events is consistent with the way similar name changes (i.e. Constantinople, Bombay, Danzig) are handled on Wikipedia. Genealogizer (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support Yes, though I will add that I think it is odd that Persia redirects to Iran. For example, the Constantinople article does not redirect to Istanbul. The Istanbul has a summary of the history, but links to the main article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Did you seriously write 'support' for your own survey/question, Genealogizer? Or perhaps you forgot to write from your IPs this time? [1][2] Also, before anyone supports/opposes, they might wanna take a look here [3]. As you can see, through this long discussion, this user has done zero edits to Iranian-related articles, (with all due respect) has little to no knowledge about the topic, and refuses to accept anything else but his own POV (which he puts above the work of academic scholars), which often results in him using ad hominem. Both Iran and Persia can be used, since major scholars tend to often use 'Iran' as well (which he has already been told before). This is coming from a person who has done most contributions to Iranian-related articles. EDIT: This is also the billionth time he has used comparisons to other countries/cities, which hold no ground at all, which he has not only been told by me, but by other users as well. Basically his only form for argument is by mentioning silly comparisons over and over. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like Ad Hominem. Which major scholars should I check out? Genealogizer's argument seems pretty solid. AntiVan (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Not written in the best tone I'll admit that, but it's more like the truth spilled out by a frustrated user than ad hominem. Regarding the scholar thing, you can check it out in the link I put up above. I'd advise you to read the whole discussion in the link, then you'll get what I mean. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I waded through that whole discussion and didn't find it illuminating. If there is a substantial body of recognised NPOV scholars publishing in English on the history of what is now called Iran who don't use Persia in discussions of pre-1935 events that would be a solid argument to make. I can't see that there is. I can't find any Wikipedia policy on this, but based on my quick reading of History of Thailand it seems like the convention is to use old names. AntiVan (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• "If there is a substantial body of recognised NPOV scholars publishing in English on the history of what is now called Iran who don't use Persia in discussions of pre-1935 events that would be a solid argument to make."
  

Well, there are several major scholars who uses Iran in pre-1935 events. I assume you didn't see some of the prominent scholars I mentioned in my example in that link?--HistoryofIran (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Accusing me of sockpuppetry? Nice. And yes, your comment was an ad hominem attack. Historians that are native English speakers are more likely to use Persia in a historical context, although some do use Iran. And just because you keep insisting that my comparisons hold no ground doesn't mean they actually hold no ground. Your insistence that Iran is actually the historical name of the country, while true in the Persian language, is not true in English, the language this Wiki is written in. In an English-language context, Persia is the historical name for the country now officially known as Iran, regardless of what the situation is in the Persian language. Also, in the discussion you linked to, you made numerous grammatical errors which make me question if you are proficient enough in English to be a good judge of this. Genealogizer (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

You say a lot of stuff, but do you have anything to prove that it is right? Nope.

• "Also, in the discussion you linked to, you made numerous grammatical errors which make me question if you are proficient enough in English to be a good judge of this. "
  

Ladies and gentlemen, do I really have to say more about this user? Apparently, because I made a minor grammatical ero- sorry I mean "numerous grammatical errors", I have no right to take part in this. I mean, screw all those hundreds of articles I have created and expanded! Genealogizer's word is right. Anyways, by using that logic, you shouldn't come anywhere close to Iranian-related topics at all because you have absolutely zero knowledge about it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Genealogizer", a new user with some 400 ~ edits in total, has been pursuing a cross-article WP:FORUMSHOP - WP:WAR - WP:DIS agenda for some time now. He asked for basically the exact same thing which he's asking here right now as well, on 20 May 2017. This RfC was declined and closed some days later, on 15 June 2017. Now, less than 10 days after that, he has already made a new RfC, basically opting for the exact same thing. I might add that he started to play this "game" way before all this; on 29 October 2016 he changed the word "Iran" to "Persia". On 19 June 2017 and 23 June 2017, which is like, literally a few days after his previous Persia/Iran RfC was closed, he attempted to make the same changes by the means of edit warring on the "Qajar dynasty" page. On 5 June 2017, he once again, without any consensus whatsoever, changed the word "Iran" to "Persia", this time on the "Alexander L. Georgia" page. Now, on 24 June 2017, 1 day after creating this RfC, he made the same dogmatic changes on the "Name of Iran" page. "Genealogizer" apparantly believes that repeating the same sentences in a dogmatic manner, over and over, will make him reach his desired point. Pretty much a clear cut WP:TENDENTIOUS editorial pattern, in my opinion.

Especially the fact that he's trying to continue with the same thing even after being rebuffed on numerous occassions, is something that is really beyond me. Take a look at the thousands of other "users" with similar single purpose concerns, and please tell me otherwise. Anyhow, combine all that I mentioned above with his WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:FORUM-like edit summaries, that, by the way, clearly tell something additional about "Genealogizers" notes on the matter (I understand that you may prefer Iran to Persia for nationalistic reasons, but please, don't rewrite history". "The only reason that English-speakers call Persia Iran today is because some Persian officials of the 1930s thought that it sounded similar to Aryan and admired Hitler.", and you've got yourself a pretty decent WP:NOTHERE case. He needs to understand ASAP that, even though "perhaps" in good faith, that this is absolutely not the right way to edit properly on this place.

Lastly, I might note that its interesting to see how Piotrus, a user who's active on Wiki for about 14 years, has presented the similar concerns about "Genealogizer" in the very recent past.[4][5]. In fact, it seems that "Genealogizer" has been pursueing the same disruptive pattern ever since the time he "landed" on Wiki.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] - LouisAragon (talk) 03:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• "Accusing me of sockpuppetry? Nice."

I'm also pretty certain myself that those IPs are yours. Given that they 1) show up every single when you're starting to hang by a thin rope, 2) have the exact same proficiency in English, 3) have the exact same stance you have, 4) sign their comments the same way, and 4) basically parrot that what you have been saying in all these weeks, word for word verbatim.[14][15]-[16][17] - LouisAragon (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

This is an RfC on historical naming issues, not a referendum on me.

Also, This is indeed me, when I forgot to sign in twice. You will, however, notice that I did not cast a duplicate vote. I have nothing to do with this IP. If you don't believe me, feel free to open a sockpuppet investigation. Genealogizer (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Now that we've gotten the personal attacks out of the way, using Persia for pre-1935 events would be consistent with the style on Wikipedia, which is to use whichever name was current in English at the time. Some scholars do differently, for example, there are 110k Google Scholar results for "Ottoman Istanbul", and many of the city's inhabitants called it "Istanbul" well before 1930. However, it was still called Constantinople in English at the time, and thus is referred to as "Constantinople" in articles about Ottoman history. Persia/Iran is a nearly identical case. Some scholars do retroactively apply Iran to pre-1935 events, and many Persians of the time did call the country Iran. However, it was known in English as Persia until 1935, and thus, that convention should be followed here. Genealogizer (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Ignoring the un-WP:CIVIL comments about various users' motives (a user can have a dubious motive but still have a sound argument), and noting that there does not seem to be a Wikipedia policy on the matter. I think our practice should be to follow the conventions on either:

• Wikipedia - I can't think of a quick way to check all the history articles where an exyonym been changed. I note Genealogizer suggests a few, I also had a look at History of Thailand where they seem to use Siam rather than Thailand for ancient events. My guess is that this is the most common approach.
• Contemporary historians writing in English. - I used Google Scholar to look for 2016/2017 papers on Medieval Persia (138 results) and Medieval Iran (68 results). So it seems like either is fine, but 'Persia' is more common. I chose 'medieval' as a search term this is what Genealogizer used in the thread HistoryOfIran directed me to, but the ratio is similar if you use 'ancient'.

On balance, I support the proposal. AntiVan (talk) 04:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Opposed — Per this.
  An extremely misdirected and unnecessary use.
  —Rye-96 (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose IMO, we should be using the local term that was current, not the Western one, which may be inaccurate. (I'd say the same about Istanbul v Constantiople.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Except that's not how Wikipedia does it. We use the term that was current in English at the time. There's nothing inaccurate about exonyms. Genealogizer (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Who gets to say that? It's definitely not like that in all cases. Also, you might want to remember what this user said to you recently [18]. Furthermore, as I said earlier, many prominent scholars have no problem in using Iran pre-1935, and I wouldn't be surprised if the name in the following years would become the complete-go-to-go choice. I've mentioned a few of those scholars in the link above, and heck, if someone wants me to, I can link them all here along with other scholars, I have no problem. Basically there is nothing wrong with using Iran, which Genealogizer needs to understand. LouisAragon pretty much said the rest, and I'd advise anyone to read his comment before expressing his/her opinion here. Also AntiVan: I respect your opinion, but isn't that a bit of a narrow way to see it? I mean for example if you write 'Safavid/Sasanian Iran or Safavid/Sasanian Persia (the most famous dynasties in Iranian history) it shows that Iran is the winner.

Also, apologies for my rash tone earlier. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

There was no such thing as Iran before 1935, in the English language, and many prominent scholars prefer Persia in historical contexts. Also, Sassanid gets more Google hits than Sasanian. Also, you forgot to try "Achaemenid", because it doesn't suit your goals. Genealogizer (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Well there is now - it's the present that matters. Can you please mention these many prominent scholars that prefer (yes, prefer) Persia in historical contexts? I am eagerly waiting. Also, wasn't it you that preferred to use Google searches (and even uploaded pictures of those results) as some way to prove that you were right not so long ago? [19] But when it backfires it apparently isn't as reliable anymore, since Sassanid has more hits than Sasanian.. that's funny. Furthermore, I didn't write Achaemenid because I myself use Persia when editing Achaemenid articles, but yeah.. it doesn't suit my goals :).. From the Parthian period and onwards I use Iran. --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally does not retroactively apply present-day toponyms to historical entities and events. We use the name that was current in English at the time of the event. Google searches haven't remotely backfired, in fact, once again they support my position. Yes, there are more results for "Sasanian Iran", than there are for "Sasanian Persia", but there are more results for "Sassanid Persia" than there are for "Sassanid Iran" or either version with "Sasanian". As far as prominent scholars that prefer Persia in historical contexts? Here you go! Genealogizer (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

We don't use 'Sassanid' though, there is a reason it got changed, so that's not really a good point. So much for your "many prominent scholars" that "prefer" Persia in historical contexts; The first source is not even by a person who is an expert in Iranian studies, let alone a prominent scholar. He's not even a historian nowadays, but a lawyer. The second source is by a journalist (not a "prominent scholar"), whose not an expert in Iranian studies either. The third one is finally a proper source, but it uses Iran more or less just as much as well, a term which according to you isn't used by many scholars pre-1935. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use Sassanid because for some reason, WP:UCN was ignored. Most people that know of it know it as Sassanid Empire. There are nearly twice as many Google searches for Sassanid as there are for Sasanian. And also, ad hominem attacks on the authors of my sources don't help your cause. There is absolutely no reason to use Iran for pre-1935 Persia IN ENGLISH. Yes, Persians may have called it Iran in Persian before that, but this is the English Wikipedia, and thus it only matter what name was current in English at the time. Your only real arguments so far have been "Persians called it Iran for a long time" (this is irrelevant, Bengalis called Calcutta "Kolkata" for centuries, but it is called "Calcutta" in pre-2001 contexts in English Wikipedia), and that "some scholars retroactively apply Iran to pre-1935 Persia", which also doesn't matter, because many historians also retroactively call Ottoman Constantinople "Istanbul", but Wikipedia doesn't. Genealogizer (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

This seems more like a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT to me. Nothing was wrong about the move, you might wanna read the RM of the article. How is that an ad hominem attack against the authors? I'm sorry but do you know what the word means? So much for having a great proficiency in English. And last but not least you are repeating your comparisons for the 57th time. I think we're done here. Come back when you actually have something valid to say please. PS. I never said "Persians called it Iran for a long time", that's something you're making up :). Not to mention I (and many others) have made several arguments which you clearly have ignored. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

You're trying to discredit my sources based on who wrote them. That's an ad hominem attack. Genealogizer (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I simply said the truth. Learning which source is reliable and which isn't is something you learn in Kindergarten. HistoryofIran (talk)

My sources are plenty reliable. In the end, it basically comes down to whether we retroactively apply the current name (Iran) to history before the name was changed, or if we stick with the name used at the time. Although some scholars do retroactively apply the modern name, that is not the convention on Wikipedia. Look at any place that had an official name change, and you will see. And no, Peking/Beijing doesn't count, because that was a change in romanization of the same name, not a change in the name itself. Genealogizer (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Nope. HistoryofIran (talk)

Look at Siam or Burma. Those names are used for pre-name-change history, whereas the modern names Thailand and Myanmar are used for the modern countries and post-name-change history. We should do the same here. Genealogizer (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Not really. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

If you want to treat this differently than other renamed countries, you better have a damned good reason to do so. Also, here an article by a professor that uses Persia for pre-1935 events, only using Iran in reference to the 1978 revolution. Genealogizer (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I do, and so do others, but you ignore all these other opinions and think that you know better than others. It has just got kinda silly at this point. Yes indeed, a blog in historyofislam.com seems like the perfect and most reliable source when talking about Iran, and Prof. Dr. Nazeer Ahmed is a very prominent scholar indeed. You know what? Forget all those "prominent" scholars I mentioned earlier that uses Iran, Prof. Dr. Nazeer Ahmed is the man we should listen to. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

You're main argument is that some scholars use Iran for pre-1935 Persia. The same is true with other renamed places as well. Wikipedia tends to stick to the name that was current at the time. Genealogizer (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I've never said some, I said many/loads - that's a huge difference. You do know that I am talking about actual scholars and not random bloggers like "Prof. Dr. Nazeer Ahmed"? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Many of them also use Persia as well, note more than 3k Google Scholar results for "Qajar Persia" in the last 4 years alone.Genealogizer (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Your point? Qajar Iran has more results than that. In the end there is nothing wrong with using Iran, which you need to understand. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It may not be incorrect to use Iran, but it is more correct to use Persia, given that that is how Wikipedia handles other name changes. (i.e. Burma/Myanmar, Bombay/Mumbai, Siam/Thailand). Genealogizer (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Nah, that's your opinion tbh. If Iran is popular amongst scholars there is no problem in using it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

What I meant is that it is more correct to follow the usual style on Wikipedia, which is using whichever name was historical at the time. Genealogizer (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

'We follow not lead' - Pincrete (who still hasn't answered me), so using Iran is just fine. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment, please note Genealogizer's canvassing of user:RGloucester[20], basing his choice of notification on this edit. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

If you think I'm canvassing or otherwise engaging in prohibited behavior, you're more than welcome to take me to the administrator's noticeboard. Genealogizer (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, I will. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support in general - Persia is the common name for the country in English for historical periods. I don't know whether 1935 is the changepoint, but there is sufficient evidence presented that in medieval and earlier periods, the country is referred to as Persia in English. My understanding of policy is that this is simply a variant on commonname, the consequence of which is that there is a tendency on WP to use the historical name, largely because there is a tendency for academics/scholars/writers to avoid a-historical names such as Istanbul, Gdansk etc. People who don't like this will have to persuade writers, academics, students etc to stop using "Persia' to describe the historical period, not persuade WP to stop using it, we follow not lead. I put 'in general' because there may be individual instances when the switch to explaining the use of the historical name isn't worth the complication of doing so.Pincrete (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC) … … … … … ps, there is an inordinate amount of mud-slinging on this page, mostly in one direction. Apart from being very boring to have to read, it tends to work against people when they resort to PAs. Pincrete (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete: Well, many of these writers, academics, students etc use Iran as well (by a large margin). That shouldn't really be ignored, and thus you can't really compare it to cities like Istanbul etc. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Some do, some don't, same for Istanbul/Constantinople. Byzantine Constantinople is never called Istanbul, but I've seen scholars apply it to Ottoman Constantinople. However, the city was officially known in English as Constantinople until 1930, just like Iran was officially known in English as Persia until 1935. Genealogizer (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you please show some proof of several prominent scholars (not bloggers) that apply Istanbul to Ottoman Constantinople in the same amount as scholars do to Iran? I am eagerly waiting. Even if they did, it's still another story, as Iran was the actual name of the country, like Constantinople was the actual name of the city. Anyways the final point is that Iran is just as popular when it comes to usage pre-1935 (which there is no denying to, meine freund). --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Here are Google Scholar results for "Ottoman Istanbul". Iran was not the actual name of the country in English before 1935, regardless of the situation in Persian. The actual name of the country in English was Persia until 1935, and the native name of Ottoman Constantinople was actually "Kostantiniyye", not "Constantinople" or "Istanbul". "Iran" may be nearly as common as "Persia" for pre-1935 usage, but using "Persia" in historical contexts would make more sense in the context of Wikipedia, given that it doesn't retroactively apply "Myanmar", "Mumbai", or "Thailand", either. Genealogizer (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I was asking for some scholars who were prominent contributers to Ottoman historiography, but aight. Also it's not 'nearly as common', it's pretty much the same, and in some instances even more. It would make more sense according to you to use Persia, but this is in the end a subjective thing. There is nothing wrong with using Iran if it's so widespread amongst scholars. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Iran and Persia are pretty much tied for the early modern period. Persia is slightly dominant for the medieval period, and is overwhelmingly dominant for the pre-Islamic period. While it may not be incorrect to retroactively apply Iran, Wikipedia should be consistent with which names we use for which periods, thus we should pick one to use for early modern (i.e. Pre-1935) Persia/Iran. Using Persia would be consistent with the way similar name changes are handled on wikipedia.

• "Iran and Persia are pretty much tied for the early modern period. Persia is slightly dominant for the medieval period, and is overwhelmingly dominant for the pre-Islamic period."
  

Not really, but hey, you're at least beginning to acknowledge that Iran is actually used by scholars, we're getting there. It only took 2 months of constant writing to make that happen. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, really, and I never disputed that some scholars do use Iran. However, pre-1935 Iran is commonly known as Persia, which was the official name in English at the time, and Wikipedia is aimed at a general audience. Virtually every English-language history textbook calls pre-1935 Iran Persia.Genealogizer (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Splendid, then there is nothing wrong with using Iran since it's just as popular, and even more popular in some instances. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Really tired of Genealogizer's unsupported statements.

• "Persia was the proper name of the country in English until the Shah changed it in 1935.."
  

I see no evidence as of this day, that supports this opinion.

• "There was no such thing as Iran before 1935, in the English language, and many prominent scholars prefer Persia in historical contexts."
  

Clearly this is a false statement. Example:Medieval Iran and its neighbours - Volume 1, Vladimir Minorsky - 1931. I will assume I do not need to explain who Minorsky is!

• "Virtually every English-language history textbook calls pre-1935 Iran Persia."
  

Another unsupported opinion.
Whereas, I found 1,538 usages of the word "Iran" in English in journals published before 1934. I found numerous books, reports, journals, and encyclopaedias using "Iran" before 1934.
History books, clearly not all:

Civilization of the Eastern Irānians in Ancient Times, Wilhelm Geiger, ‎Darab-Dastur Peshotan Sanjānā - 1886

The World's History: Oceania, Eastern Asia and the Indian Ocean, Hans Ferdinand Helmolt, ‎Viscount James Bryce Bryce - 1904, "The system of colonisation, which alone promised permanent results, seems to have been prosecuted all the more vigorously from Eastern Iran.."

Section V. Religions of India and Iran. Section V. Religions of the Iranians, Percy Stafford Allen, ‎John de Monins Johnson - 1908

Encyclopedia:

The New International Encyclopædia - Volume 10 - Page 747;"The overthrow of this house by the Arab Mohammedan invasion in the seventh century changed the history of Iran..",1911

Government report:

Report on Economic and Commercial Conditions in Iran - Great Britain. Dept. of Overseas Trade - 1922

What is clear is that Persia and Iran were used interchangeably. In no way has Genealogizer presented any information that proves any of these statements:

• "Persia was the proper name of the country in English until the Shah changed it in 1935.."
• "There was no such thing as Iran before 1935, in the English language, and many prominent scholars prefer Persia in historical contexts."
• "Virtually every English-language history textbook calls pre-1935 Iran Persia."
  

A simple google/jstor search proves these statements to be preposterous. Minorsky uses the word Iran in 1931, an Encyclopedia from 1911, a British government report from 1922 uses the word "Iran". I am unconvinced by continued grandiose statements with no evidence, which are easily refuted by 10 minutes of research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I reviewed Kansas Bear's assertion that it was used in The New International Encyclopædia.[21] Iran is mentioned on 4 pages; one of the limited previews says "Iran ... the native name for Persia". Persia is mentioned on 28 pages. There are no false positives arising from Iranian/Persian. "Iranian" is more popular (11 pages) and might give some insight into the use of Iran in this Encyclopaedia: 2/3 of the previews relate to linguistics (the third is the entry for Iranian itself). "Government of Iran", 2 pages; "Government of Persia", 11 pages.

So this contemporaneous Encyclopaedia (1930 in my link) is overwhelmingly using Persia. Bromley86 (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I never disputed that Iran was rarely used in English before 1935, I'm disputing that it was widely used. It wasn't, and didn't overtake Persia until 1963 Some scholarly or governmental sources call the emperor of Japan during WWII the Showa Emperor, but our page on him is at the most common name, Hirohito. And yes, the country was officially known as Persia in English until 1935, otherwise the Shah wouldn't have needed to officially proclaim that the name was Iran in English.

We should consistently use Persia pre-1935 and consistently Iran after, just like we consistently use Danzig between 1308-1945 and Gdansk before 1308 or after 1945. Genealogizer (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree.

• "I never disputed that Iran was rarely used in English before 1935..."

Really?

• "There was no such thing as Iran before 1935, in the English language..."

LOL.

• "I'm disputing that it was widely used."

From British Newspaper Archive, search for Iran:

• 1700-1749 (96)
• 1750-1799 (2,954)
• 1800-1849 (66,509)
• 1850-1899 (464,208)
• 1900-1929 (245,747)

A search of the Library of Congress newspaper 1789-1929, gives 397806 results for "Iran".

This does not appear "rare" to me and clearly the word "Iran" did exist before 1935, despite nonsense statements.

• "We should consistently use Persia pre-1935.."

Not when an academic like Minorsky is using the term "Iran" in 1931! We are done here. When you ignore a leading academic, a British government report written in 1922, and continue to make outrageously silly comments, "Virtually every English-language history textbook calls pre-1935 Iran Persia", there is no reason to continue this charade. The British newspaper archive search and Library of Congress newspaper archive search clearly shows that Iran was a commonly used term in everyday English language.--Kansas Bear (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Genealogizer's argument is flawed. Google search does not indicate word usage within the English language. Ignores the leading academic using Iran in 1931(Minorsky), a British government report using Iran in 1922 and British and American newspaper searches. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually look at some of the British Newspaper Archive and LoC results - many of them are clearly misinterpretations of other words (such as iron or Frau (in German-language newspapers)). Also, in the LoC Newspapers database, Persia gets 12,086,479 results from the same time period -30 times as many as Iran, even including all the other words misinterpreted by the computer as Iran. Genealogizer (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, please note that the Minorsky book that contains "Iran" in the title was originally published in 1982, as a compilation of journal articles from decades before the publication - it was not titled by Minorsky or used in his lifetime. Genealogizer (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support (Summoned by bot) Duh. IDC whether or not he is using socks, SPI is thataway. The Iranians refer to themselves as "Persians", sit next to the "Persian Gulf", and speak Farsi. Pre 1935 its Persia, post its Iran.L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose.I think that's impossible to find out which source - form the time period before 1935 - used the local name (Iran ) and which one used Persia . I mean it is quite possible for an English source to use a Persian language publication ( like Shahnameh ) that regularly and frequently uses the word Iran and we can not check all of the sources one by one .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I mean as an example if we are going to write an article about JOSEPH CHAMPION that translated a part of Shahnemeh in 1785 in Wikipedia , do we have to change all times that he used Iran in his text ? Just because the date was before 1935 ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment. If we decide to go with a certain naming convention, that would override the naming convention of the sources, except in the case of direct quote. So not a big problem. The big problem would be the opposite situation, where we reflected the naming used in a source, as the article would then read Iran ... Persia ... Iran ... Persia, etc, instead of Persia ... Persia ... Iran ... Iran, or just straight Iran. Bromley86 (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

That is time and energy consuming to first determine if the article is going to discuss a matter that is before 1935 , and use Persia and if it is after 1935 then use Iran . If the article is dominantly using Iranian (and/or Indian ) sources that always use the Iran in any time , we shall use the dominant form of Iran [in citations ] . If in a single article we are talking about both periods of before and after 1935 , we have to divide the article in two part and use two from for corresponding time period . Meanwhile desperately looking not to mix Persian ethnicity with Persia as a nation (Persian is itself an ambiguous term ) ! In a single article of Iranian cuisine , changing the article with this guideline needs hours of serious editing . What is the problem with present usage of the terms as interchangeable ? Everyone can use any from that he/she thinks is better for the article : so simple , so easy ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, given the amount of effort Genealogizer has put into this, I don't think you'll need to worry about finding someone to do the work :) . The real question is, what is better. I wasn't sure exactly what your point was about dominant sources: does it apply here?. Bromley86 (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about my English ; that's not my best point ! :) . By "Dominant sources " I wanted to say if an English source , Before or after 1935 , uses Persian language sources ( and/or Indian texts ) , in that text the term Iran would be mechanically dominant to the term Persia . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support. My understanding is that, in English, it was commonly referred to as Persia before the 1935 change. It may have been commonly referred to as Persia after the change, but that presents a neat, and official, cut-off. A brief bit of research pulled up the preface to A History of Iran by Michael Axworthy (2008). In it he says "My practice is to use both terms, but with a preference for Iran when dealing with the period after 1935, and for Persia for the preceeding centuries, when it was the word used for the country by English speakers".[22] Works for me. Bromley86 (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• "The Iranians refer to themselves as "Persians", sit next to the "Persian Gulf", and speak Farsi. "

Nope, we don't at all. It is named the 'Persian Gulf' because it's below the Fars (Persia) province. Also, not all Iranians speak Farsi. No offense, but you might wanna do some research before you come up with such statements. Also, is it just me or there are a lot of people who come with their opinions without even taking a proper look at the discussion? Not to mention some of them aren't even interested in taking part further in the discussion after coming with their...interesting opinions (Antivan and Pincrete cough). I'm gonna say it again, a huge chunk of academic sources nowadays use Iran pre-1935, thus there is nothing wrong with using it at all, it's all about a persons preference at this point. Imo that should be up to the people who actually contribute to Iranian-related articles, when they are editing whether they wanna use Iran or Persia, not a person who has spent all his time in Wikipedia requesting the names of articles to be moved because he likes that name better than the other. I have nothing more to say (inb4 denial of a simple fact and the same irrelevant comparisons for the 1000th time).

• "The big problem would be the opposite situation, where we reflected the naming used in a source, as the article would then read Iran ... Persia ... Iran ... Persia, etc, instead of Persia ... Persia ... Iran ... Iran, or just straight Iran. "

I disagree, you're making it sound a lot more problematic/confusing than it in reality is. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I doubt you do really disagree. I was responding to what I saw as an implication that we should reflect precisely what the source we're currently using for a point says, which would be extremely messy and disruptive. Both of the alternatives under consideration here are vastly superior (although we're on opposite sides of which is better). Bromley86 (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

HistoryofIran is making an error in claiming that the term Persia refers to Fars province in English. Although Persia is etymologically derived from Fars, it is the traditional English name for the entire country, and was only changed by a dictator's decree. And no, your suggestion that we let the editors choose whichever they would prefer for each instance is not a good idea, as it would lead to lots of random changing back-and-forth. Many sources prefer Persia for pre-1935 events, and that is the most consistent with the way other similar name changes are handled. Also, ad hominem attacks against me don't strengthen your argument. Genealogizer (talk) 03:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

How am I making an error? Fars literally means Persia, are you gonna deny that as well? You don't think it's a good idea because you have done zero edits to Iranian-related articles which you claim to be an expert of.

• "Many sources prefer Persia for pre-1935 events"

Gonna ask for the 3-4th time now; what sources? I have been eagerly waiting for those "prominent sources" of yours for quite some time. Imho I really don't think we should listen to a person talking about sources when he literally thinks that historyofislam.com is a reliable source.

"Also, ad hominem attacks against me don't strengthen your argument."

Wouldn't really call that an ad hominem attack. I don't need to strengthen my argument either. Also, funny coming from you talking about ad hominem attacks I understand that you may prefer Iran to Persia for nationalistic reasons, but please, don't rewrite history".

You don't understand anything I'm saying, or more likely, you're being willfully obtuse because you disagree with me.". --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Persia is etymologically derived from Fars, but it doesn't mean Fars. It is the traditional name in Western languages for the country that is officailly known as Iran. Look at Bromley86's comment for a good source. Genealogizer (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

It still means Fars though. And no, I want sources from you, where are those prominent sources that you have mentioned several times? Please show them to us. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean Fars, anymore than Yunanistan (Turkish name for Greece) means Ionia. Similarly, Portugal is derived from "Portus Cale", the Latin name for Oporto, but it refers to the whole country and not just the city. Genealogizer (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It still literally means Fars/Pars though, but whatever. Where are those prominent sources of yours? HistoryofIran (talk)

It literally means "Iran", even if it is etymologically derived from "Fars". As Bromley86 pointed out, "A brief bit of research pulled up the preface to A History of Iran by Michael Axworthy (2008). In it he says "My practice is to use both terms, but with a preference for Iran when dealing with the period after 1935, and for Persia for the preceeding centuries, when it was the word used for the country by English speakers".[23]" Genealogizer (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It still means Fars though. Yeah, Bromley linked what Axworthy prefers, and other scholars have different opinions, your point? I am still waiting for those so called 'many prominent sources' you yourself have mentioned several times. And no, reddit doesn't qualify as a reliable source if you were thinking about that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't mean Fars, anymore than Puerto Rico still refers to the city of San Juan. Genealogizer (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It still means Fars though. Also it is clear that you are avoiding my question regarding those so called "many prominent sources", not to mention you consider a blog in historyofislam.com a "prominent source", which gives us a pretty good picture where you get your information from. At this rate I wouldn't be surprised if you went to 4chan for information. HistoryofIran (talk)

No, it doesn't mean Fars. It is derived from Fars, but that's not what it means, just like "China" refers to the country, and not the Qin Dynasty. And Axworthy is a reliable source. Genealogizer (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

It still means Fars though. Cheers, even my nan can see that, your point? Still doesn't change the fact that those so called 'many prominent sources' you have mentioned several times were simply a lie. You really don't know how to identify a reliable source, do you? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment. HistoryofIran Kansas Bear referred to the British Newspaper Archive a while ago. He cited the results of a search for Iran:

• 1700-1749 (96)
• 1750-1799 (2,954)
• 1800-1849 (66,509)
• 1850-1899 (464,208)
• 1900-1929 (245,747)

I did the search and got different results, although they're materially the same. The key point is the large number of mentions in 1850-1899, a period significantly before the Shah's 1935 request. Open and shut, one would have thought. However, if you click on that date range, you'll notice that not a single mention on the first page of results refers to Iran the country, they're all Gaelic, or typos/transcriptionos of Iron.

So I did a different search. I tried "Government of Iran", but the Search function seems to have trouble with short words like "of". So I tried "Iranian Government" and "Persian Governement", again just scanning the first page of results to make sure we weren't getting unexpected returns; it all looked kosher. Also looked for "Iranian Shah" and Persian Shah (couldn't use "of"). Also searched using capital. Looked at embassy: didn't bother adding to the table, but that was overwhelmingly Persian too.

Results:

Date	Iranian Government	Persian Government	Iranian Shah	Persian Shah	Iranian capital	Persian capital
1800-1849	1	1,166	0	32	0	221
1850-1899	3	11,411	0	255	3	1,236
1900-1949	1,106	9,635	0	69	180	865
1950-1999	150	1,484	0	4	4	79

That's a landslide (BTW, don't take the 1950-1999 too seriously, as the archive seems to effectively end sometime prior to 1960). It appears to have been significantly more likely to have been called Persia than Iran in the British press.

If you drill down into the 1900-1949 date range, you'll see a significant drop in the use of "Persian" in the 1920-1929 and later ranges.[24], which perhaps supports Genealogizer's contention. Not precisely, as it's a decade or so earlier than expected, but perhaps the change started prior to the Shah's request? I'd suggest that, for the purposes of WP, we can ignore that minor date discrepancy, assuming we do go with the Persia/Iran split style. Bromley86 (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

In the same vein, I thought I'd have a look at the Library of Congress. Kansas Bear said "A search of the Library of Congress newspaper 1789-1929, gives 397806 results for "Iran."" A quick glance at the search results shows something very odd is happening (just look at the red highlighting). Looking at the first result shows that the software is picking up "Frau" from German-language newspapers, and that German-language papers count for all but 2 of the first page results. In the 2 English ones, one is "Van" and the other seems to be a false positive hit. So those results KB gives are suspect. Note that the archive ends in 1924, so it's reall very useful for determining whether it was Iran or Persia that was used in the the pre-request period, but can't be used to see what happened after. Results for other searches:

"government of iran" - 0[25]

"government of persia" - 1,465[26]

"shah of iran" - 51[27]

"shah of persia" - 15,903[28]

"iranian government" - 12[29]

"persian government" - 3,098[30]

Note that there are some false positives, especially in terms of the actual phrase Shah of Iran/Persia being in the papers, but even the false positives that I saw included the actual words Shah and Iran/Persia. There were a lot more problems with "Iranian government": an unscientific review of the results gave me zero actual mentions of Iranian and Government, whereas finding Persia and Government in those results was easy.

I think we can conclusively conclude that historically newspapers in the two most significant English language countries of the time were overwhelmingly more likely to use Persia than Iran in a political context prior to 1924 (as that's as far as the US archive goes). This does not solve the argument that academics may have called it Iran back then, however, as they will not have existed in a cultural bubble, it makes it highly unlikely that they did. Bromley86 (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Question about the image cleanup template

@Moxy: Pardon me, but since you are the one who placed the image cleanup template in the article, would you please be so kind as to elaborate on what needs to be done? I just finished some relatively minor cleanup of images (moving them to the appropriate sections, and making certain they don't stray outside them too much). Is there more that needs to be done? (Anyone else have an opinion?) —DocWatson42 (talk) [22:44, 12 June 2017‎]

Bump. I just reorganized the images in the "Culture" section. Every other section looks good to me (I use browser windows that are 1600 pixels wide). Any comments before I remove the image cleanup template? (@Rye-96: You seem to be active here.) If not I'll do that in a week or two.—DocWatson42 (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Moxy and DocWatson42:
Give me some time. I'm working on it.
I'm gonna add some references to why these images are chosen and why they are noteworthy.
—Rye-96 (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood, but there's no need to reference, or even justify, images. Obviously, if other editors disagree with their inclusion, then you'd discuss it.

Broadly, all looks good to me. I'd shrink the Iranian provinces map in Regions, provinces and cities to about 60-70%, but I'm not sure that's possible. And the Geography section looks a little messy (c.f. Architecture and Religion). I'd lose a couple of them, and regularise the sizes (heights), as far as possible. Bromley86 (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Please note that I'm not arguing for or against any images—I'm just wondering if the cleanup template itself is (still) justified. —DocWatson42 (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bromley86: What is it about the Geography section that would make it look messy? What parts do you think should be lost?
The image gallery looks alright to me, since it covers regions from all around the country and shows the geographic diversity. Similar collections exist in other country articles as well.
I think the problem is with the descriptions and sizes.
@DocWatson42: It can remain, since people might argue about the very short descriptions under a lot of the images that have been used in the article. That's currently what I'm trying to fix.
—Rye-96 (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rye-96. Re. messy. When I last posted, I'd looked at the article and the Geography section stood out as having more pics than text, and those pics at the bottom of the section weren't like those in Architecture and Religion, where it looks a lot neater.

However, I've since had a look at other country articles:

India (featured) - no pics below section.

United States (Good Article) - no pics below section.

Turkey (Good Article) - no pics below section.

Then again, New Zealand (Good Article) - single line of 4 pics below section.

So I'd either remove them all, or trim to the <=4 pics that best cover it, with my preference for the former. Bromley86 (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bromley86: Well, Germany (FA), Switzerland (GA), and Philippines (GA) have the gallery too, while China (GA) and Madagascar (FA) also use several images inside the section (but not within a gallery).
How about keeping the gallery and instead expand the text and give more information regarding each one of the images?
They would represent the country's vast geographic diversity, and are quite informative for being World Heritage and National Heritage sites (Lut, Alendan, and the Caspian forests) and worldwide rare natural sites (the canyon, the badab, and the Martian Mountains).
—Rye-96 (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Ha, always the way, isn't it! I was deliberately stacking my examples with ones that supported a position, but it seems that galleries are perfectly acceptable. I'd note that 2/4 are showing seasons/climate, and 2/4 are showing the varied geography/landscapes, and 3/4 restrict it to 4 (Philippines has 6). Germany & Switzerland look cleverer to me, but then I do appreciate a story.

The key is that they all use some sort of image wrapper to keep them neatly in place (either "gallery mode" or "Multiple image"). I'd choose 1 desert, 1 mountain, Hormuz, and 1 other, although YMMV.

No need to expand the text, unless exceptional (e.g. in the Philippines the Taal Volcano is the smallest active volcano).

Other images to consider: Damavand[31][32] (highest volcano in Asia, highest peak in the ME, snow contrast to desert pic); Arasbaran forest[33][34] (UNESCO, woodland contrast to desert/mountain pics). Bromley86 (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bromley86: What we're discussing changes as one uses a different platform to view the site. What you consider neat might appear awkward in another viewer's sight. But it's alright, we will stick to the foursome version, except I think Maklavan would be a better choice to represent the Caspian forests, and Damavand is already included within an imagebox above the gallery.
—Rye-96 (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

True. I'm currently using a 15.6" laptop, and the old 10-pic version didn't display well. The new 4-pic does,although the Damavand pic in the text was messing with it a little. I've edited to just swap the position of the two inline images, which fixes the problem. I checked on my phone, and it's displaying your galley perfectly (vertically, rather than horizontally). Bromley86 (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Demographics

Add this official/gov study to Demographics. [35] it's official stats and the source is in Persian. if you are not sure about this study, please ask iranian editors about it. The translation: 1) The majority of Iranian population are Persians. Per national survey 1996, 73-75% of Iranian population are Persians. Azeris are 15-17%, Turkmens 2.1%, Kurds 5-5.3%, Arabs 3%, Balochs 2%. 2) 99% Muslim, 0.13% Christian, Jews, Zoroastrians and the others less than 0.05%. 95% of Muslims are Shia and 5% are Sunni. --89.165.41.241 (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2017

Add this official/gov study to Demographics. [36] it's official/legit stats and the source is in Persian. if you are not sure about this study, please ask iranian editors about it. The translation: 1) The majority of Iranian population are Persians. Per national survey 1996, 73-75% of Iranian population are Persians. Azeris are 15-17%, Turkmens 2.1%, Kurds 5-5.3%, Arabs 3%, Balochs 2%. 2) 99% Muslim, 0.13% Christian, Jews, Zoroastrians and the others less than 0.05%. 95% of Muslims are Shia and 5% are Sunni. --188.158.85.216 (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done. It's 1996, whereas the Factbook used in the article is 2012, and the census used is 2011. Bromley86 (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

National Anthem

The national anthem that is already in the article is for previous regime.(its called shahanshahe ma) which means our king.So but as you put Mehre Khavaran which is the new one you should whether change the description or the file.Simsala111 (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Grammar mistake

I found a grammar mistake in first paragraph of this article. In First paragraph and in 7th line we have: "country that has both a Caspian Sea and Indian Ocean coastline. Iran has been of geostrategic importance because of its". Article "a" before "Caspian Sea" is not needed and I think correct text would be: "country that has both Caspian Sea and Indian Ocean coastline. Iran has been of geostrategic importance because of its". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotoodi (talk • contribs) 12:24, 24 March 2014‎ (UTC) time stamping In ictu oculi (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Fix the messed up syntax in bold red in the middle of the entry.

These edits from 4/30/2014 (Current: "nearby regions wich would last for many centuries onwards." Correction: "nearby regions which would last for many centuries onwards." Current: "Iran reached it's greatests extent since" Correction: "Iran reached its greatests extent since " ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foreverchang (talk • contribs) 01:38, 1 May 2014‎ (UTC) Timestamping In ictu oculi (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Social Media and Women's Empowerment

Women livong in Arian have encountered various challenges and obstacles socially, politically, economically, and psychologically that have affected character and integrity. In Iran today we see women’s rights activists have very little opportunity to voice their opinions. Although academics and lifelong learning is deemed valuable in Iran historically and religiously, there is legislation aimed to undermine women’s social and legal progress. An example is women’s rights to an education in Iran. The right to an education is increasingly viewed as a basic human right worldwide but it monitored and regulated in Iran. We see education is strongly correlated to economic growth and political stability. It nurtures awareness, liberation, critical thinking, and success.

The rise of independent women’s rights activists is due to developments in technologies and increasing participation in digital spaces. The reform movement in Iran in the 1990’s encouraged secular thought and feminist thinking. This challenged Iran’s traditional structure by raising self-awareness of social issues, notably women’s rights issues. The emergence of social media has been a great tool to abolish pre-conceived notions of Iranian Women and have gave them a platform to reach out to the world. The media shapes the worlds opinion by deciding what and what not to broadcast. Social media has aided the empowerment of women by attracting global recognition. It gives a voice to the most marginalized groups in society and energizes activists to spread information and create discussions around the world, instantly. Social issues can no longer be hidden from the world by the Iranian government because public scrutiny forces their actions into light, and holds them accountable for wrongful discourse. Bloggers continue to demand social justice and refuse to be silent, knowing there is a possibility of harassment or jail time. Love to tone Feminism and activism pose a direct threat to the current power balances in Iran. Media of all forms is a great way to raise important questions and start conversations about women’s lack of rights in Iran. Communication technologies including Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. creates a stage for awareness and participation. Digital and social media is a very powerful tool and one of the most effective ways to advocate for women’s rights. The future gains of these technology platforms are endless. We can note that technology presents its own challenges in itself, because it is difficult to regulate and is quickly revolving. Women contributing equally to society will have an immense impact on socio-economic, social, and political development. Women being allowed to participate in society will not only benefit women, but all Iranian citizens; and on a bigger scope, the world.

Timestamping entire section to let archive pick up In ictu oculi (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Can someone put in an anthem

something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk2GYvhwUno Timestamping old section In ictu oculi (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Trimming the Intro Section

I feel like the intro is far longer and more detailed than it should be, especially the emphasis on contemporary events and assessments of Iran. If one looks at most featured country articles (Germany, Canada, etc.) the intros are not usually so detailed.Zurkhardo (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Tend to agree. First, "also known as Persia" is factually incorrect, "Persia" is a historical obsolete name, same as Siam for Thailand. The accompanying reference says: "“Iran” and “Persia” are synonymous" The former has always been used by the Iranian speaking peoples themselves, while the latter has served as the international name of the country in various languages". The key point is "has served", meaning it was in the past and is now obsolete. I tried to rectify this by moving "Persia" to the second paragraph ("Historically known as Persia, Iran is home to one of the world's oldest civilizations"), but at some point previous version was restored. Also, @LouisAragon: mentioning the Republic of Artsakh among bordering countries is non-standard, in articles on countries we tend to mention only UN-recognized sovereign countries and that's what other major encyclopedias do. E.g. Georgia doesn't say it borders Abkhazia. Brandmeister^talk 07:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Brandmeister:

"Persia" is a historical obsolete name"

It remains very commonly used in modern-day academia, as well as a self-designation amongst Iranians, to refer to the country of Iran. Though the main official name after 1935 has been "Iran" (i.e. the original endonym used since times immemorial), "Persia", (the historic exonym), remains commonly used, and hence of much importance. It deserves top billing. Just because you proclaim it to be "obsolete", doesn't mean it is.

"(...) mentioning the Republic of Artsakh among bordering countries is non-standard, in articles on countries we tend to mention only UN-recognized sovereign countries and that's what other major encyclopedias do."

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Though its perhaps not the standard, there's no such rule that says that it needs to be excluded. As a matter of fact, its stated in the lede of the Armenia page as well that it borders the de facto Republic of Artsakh. In my opinion, in order to seal the matter, a RfC should be conducted about this on Talk:List of states with limited recognition or Talk:Republic of Artsakh. Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

We mention bordering countries also in accordance with what most maps show. Artsakh, as a self-proclaimed country with no United Nations recognition, is not labelled on most geographical maps, so this is WP:UNDUE. Also, as it is a disputed territory, mentioning it among bordering countries is WP:POV-ish. Artsakh is only recognized by three other self-proclaimed non-UN countries (Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria). Brandmeister^talk 11:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of Persia from the lede. It is an archaic and obsolete name. I would just put it in the etymology section. And more importantly, Persian has to be removed from the demonym section, because of both the same reason mentioned above and the fact that Persian (at least in modern terminology) refers to a specific ethnicity (and listing it as a demonym for the entire population is just wrong).
@Brandmeister: I see no problem with listing Artsakh as a bordering state, because a de facto independent note is already added before it. But considering your very specific profile, I can understand where the stress is coming from. You should wait until you get a collective agreement before removing it again. You can't get away with it by simply leaving a comment here.
—Rye-96 (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok with Persia. When it comes to Artsakh, I actually waited for two days for any feedback. Iran itself doesn't diplomatically recognize the Artsakh Republic, so there's no international border to speak of. It's roughly the same as stating that Spain is bordered by Catalonia. @Rye-96: How about putting Artsakh as a note after the Republic of Azerbaijan, something like this: the Republic of Azerbaijan? Brandmeister^talk 18:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

For the record. Even though Brandmeister conveniently labeled it as "per talk", there was nothing agreed about his edit here on the talk page. In total, Brandmeister has made three attempts to get the information about Artsakh removed and/or hidden (17 August 2017, 11 September 2017, and 20 September 2017). Given that he never reached a consensus for these edits, and has tried to remove it on three separate occassions, I'd say this is outright WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, incl. per WP:WAR and WP:CRUSH. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

There were five days to address my last proposal above and you did not do that despite the ongoing discussion, only coming to revert the proposed change. I think an RFC is needed. Brandmeister^talk 19:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• "There were five days to address my last proposal (...)"

Wake up call; Wikipedia has no deadlines. Two users disagreed with you, so even if there was a deadline (which there isn't) you still wouldn't have a WP:CON.

• "I think an RFC is needed"

What a splendid suggestion. Btw, look what user "LouisAragon' wrote on 13 September 2017, some 7 days before you: "In my opinion, in order to seal the matter, a RfC should be conducted about this on Talk:List of states with limited recognition or Talk:Republic of Artsakh."

Given that the Armenia article also has the de facto Republic of Artsakh listed in the lede, you're welcome to open a RfC on either one of those talk pages. Opening it here will stand as an attempt to WP:GAME the system. Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see you just opened it @ Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#RfC_on_unrecognized_bordering_countries. That's completely fine as well of course. Thanks. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Persia is an alternate title for the article. It should stay in the lede, though perhaps it should be formerly known as Persia rather than also known as Persia. (the other editing option, of having a separate article on "Persia" referring to the region historically, is very unlikely to be supported). As far as including Republic of Artsakh, after my copy-editing I don't feel a need to have an opinion on the matter. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

As a side note, Persian Empire is in terrible shape as an article, and could use any of your improvements. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Persia

Is there a particular reason that Persia redirects here? Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

See my comment above. Persian Empire is too incomplete an article(/disambiguation page) for me to support a redirect there, and I'm not sure where else it would redirect to. 1935 isn't *that* long ago. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty surprised, so we don't currently have a well developed article on historical Persia? I'm only asking because it confused the hell out of me when I first searched for Persia and ended up at Iran - I was expected Xerxes and I got Islamic Republic Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

There are pages like Achaemenid Empire and Safavid dynasty. History of Iran could possibly work as well, but that feels like an easter egg. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Right, it's just a question of finding them. The link to Achaemenid Empire is in the lede but you would have to know what you are looking for as the lede doesn't identify Persia by name - I looked at Persian Empire and I agree it is pretty much a stub at this point - will add it to my to do list. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Persia is the alternative English name (and more widely western (and even Hebrew (though probably non-Greek - from Pars) as it came from the Greek - land of the Persians) for Iran - and was used exclusively in the west up until 1935 when the Shah asked that the native Iranian term be used - see Name of Iran. Persia and Iran are fully interchangeable, though when referring to Iran, in a state context, it is polite to refer to the country under the name they request - Iran. This is similar to Burma->Myanmar. The redirect makes sense - particularly older English sources will use Persia exclusively.Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is particular and strong reasons why Persia redirects here. The international name of Iran was Persia until 1935 and Iranian demonym/natioanlity was Persian regardless of ethnicity. So Iran = Persia and Iranian = Persian. After 1935, the native name "Iran" replaced the Persia, and Persian become a term for Persian-speaking groups (many non-Persian Iranians still identify as Persian too) and the identity of Iranians before 1935. You want an article about Ancient Persia? There is Ancient Greece, so feel free to create one.188.158.113.224 (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

OK Ancient Persia, thanks all. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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/20170808034040/http://www.stalbertgazette.com/article/GB/20110420/CP01/304209937/-1/sag0806/iranian-lawmakers-warn-ahmadinejad-to-back-intelligence-chief-as to http://www.stalbertgazette.com/article/GB/20110420/CP01/304209937/-1/sag0806/iranian-lawmakers-warn-ahmadinejad-to-back-intelligence-chief-as
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.examiner.co.uk/lifestyle/restaurant-review-apadana-huddersfield-4884705
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080424001859/http://www.hamsaweb.org/crime/4.html to http://www.hamsaweb.org/crime/4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Demonstrations 2017-2018

This article makes no mention of the ongoing unrest in Iran and the growing hostility, particularly among the young, to the Islamic Republic. Jan 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.48.80 (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Attempt at clarification

@Peter Dunkan: First of all, this source never says that "makes the final decisions on the amount of transparency in elections." Don't push it again into to the article. Secondly, NON of the sources say he owns a "private financial empire", so don't push it, too. More points; Don't canvass to get help by others, involved editors will naturally see the changes to the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Stop unilaterally removing massive amount of well-sourced content; Even the Iranian source explicitly states Khamenei issues election guidelines. With regard to Setad, consensus: "private_financial_empire"_and_poor_rich/gap. Per sources, accounts are secret even to the Iranian parliament, and it is controlled ONLY by Khamenei.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Medieval period

According to Steven R. Ward, "Mongol violence and depredations killed up to three-fourths of the population of the Iranian Plateau, possibly 10 to 15 million people. Some historians have estimated that Iran's population did not again reach its pre-Mongol levels until the mid-20th century."

we need more sources that agrees with Steven R. Ward. this will help keep the article as authentic as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeWuzPhoenicians (talk • contribs) 04:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The Iranian Plateau? That is not identical to modern Iran. "From the Caspian in the northwest to Baluchistan in the south-east, the Iranian Plateau extends for close to 2,000 km. It encompasses the greater part of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan west of the Indus River on an area roughly outlined by the quadrangle formed by the cities of Tabriz, Shiraz, Peshawar and Quetta containing some 3,700,000 square kilometres (1,400,000 sq mi). " Dimadick (talk) 10:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Iran corrections

The head of prison administration is Dr. Asghar Jahangir. As of December 2014, The prison population including pre-trial detainees and remand prisoners, is 225,624 prisoners. The prison population rate per 100,000 inmates is 287. The pre-trial detainees and remand prisoners is 25.1%. The female percent of prisoners is 3.1%. The percent of juveniles, minors and young prisoners is 0.5%. The foreign percent of the prisoners is 2.9%. The number of establishments or institutions are 253. The official capacity of prison system in Iran is 140,000. The occupancy level base on official capacity is 161.2%. A study showed an outbreak of shigellosis due to shigella flexeri seretype 3a in an Iran prison. The prison had many reports of Gastrointestinal, which is an illness. A study was conducted to see where who was affected and how they were affected. They started with a questionnaire to interview the patients and there were things like age, height, gender and what you ate in last 2 days. The outbreak occurred on June 16 to 17, 2017. Out of 5,000 inmates, about 701 experienced the illness and severe diarrhea. Of those 701 inmates, about 327 fit the data for actually having it and was caused by shigella. The contamination of vegetables by this illness, was due to washing the vegetables with contaminated water or handing the vegetables by injected workers of vendors. This could have been avoided by washing it good with clean water and or sterilizing it. Many inmates have severe symptoms from it, ranging from bloody stools to severe headaches. Patrick crim (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 April 2018

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Geology of Iran section?

We are geologists and would like to add a section on the geology of Iran to the entry "Iran". Subsections would include "A) Geologic evolution of Iran: summary; B) Plate tectonic setting; C) Major geologic provinces (from SW to NE)" plus a figure or two. Does anyone see a problem with doing this? Or would it be better to add a new entry "Geology of Iran". Thanks for the advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyzzy2 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2018

95.156.234.150 (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

hi i have edit request about iran population least iran population number is : 82/050/120 i hope page getting update soon !

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2018

Elsewhere wikipedia says that there are about 400,000 Bahá'is in Iran, yet in the "religion" part of the Iran article, they are not mentioned while religions with smaller populations are mentioned. They are also not included in the pie chart with other religions, even though the ones mentioned have less population that the Bahá'ís, who total 0.5 % of the population. Hclasalle (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. (In this case, you definitely will need to cite a reliable source.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2018

Varieties of Kurdish is widely spoken > Varieties of Kurdish are widely spoken 174.26.200.81 (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Simplexity22 (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2018

112.215.172.213 (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

NGO confusion

There seems to be some confusion about what Iranian organizations are called NGOs in English, perhaps even in Persian, as shown by the claim that the Municipality of Isfahan is an NGO (which i corrected) and perhaps by the articles https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/سازمان_مردم‌نهاد and https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/غیردولتی (which are both, perhaps incorrectly, translated as NGO by Google Translator), of which the latter is an orphan at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5703768. I don't understand any Persian, but all of this looks pretty chaotic. --Espoo (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2018

Please add Bahai faith to the list of major religions in Iran. How can Bahai faith be missed on the list when the faith started in Iran in 1863. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith the code to add: Siavashakrami (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

According to the page which is not a reliable source Bahai is not a recognized religion in Iran but instead something that they frequently persecute. It still probably should be mentioned somewhere on the page... assuming it hasn't been already. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 20:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Hhkohh (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

NPOV of saying Iran is totalitarian

The infobox claims that Iran is de facto a "Theocratic-republican totalitarian unitary presidential republic subject to a Supreme Leader" That doesn't seem very NPOV at all. North Korea, by contrast is listed as a "Unitary one-party socialist republic". The North Korean government has much more control over people's lives and political expression than does the government of Iran, and yet the word totalitarian is not used. Unless you can demonstrate how the Iranian government objectively fits one of the widely recognized definitions of totalitarianism and countries like China and North Korea do not, this should be changed.--UshankaCzar (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

"doesn't seem very NPOV at all" isn't an argument. Nor is the WP:OSE argument (the classification China (at least post-Mao) is probably debatable, North Korea seems like an oversight). Sources, e.g. [37], describe Iran as totalitarian - even a model form of Islamist (or more broadly - religious) - totalitarian. Icewhiz (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Even the Wikipedia page on OSE acknowledges that OSE arguments are not inherently invalid, precedent and standardization are important in an encyclopedia. You acknowledge that labelling China as totalitarian is a debatable move, I would simply say that the same thing is true of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The article you cited makes a number of problematic statements like "the president has virtually no political power" and that there is a "No-party political system" that simply do not reflect the nuance of the Iranian political system. Is Iran a liberal democracy? absolutely not, but I think that a description like "Theocratic-republican unitary presidential republic subject to a Supreme Leader" does a good job of capturing a consensus description of the Iranian regime.--UshankaCzar (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Nothing problematic in saying that the titular president is effectively powerless (as well as being pre approved by a body controlled by the Supreme Leader). A system that allows voting for pre-approved (and very close politically) candidates who themselves wield little actual power in relation to the Supreme Leader - is still totalitarian in respects to the SL (who is appointed for life - not even a sham election for SL after his appointment).Icewhiz (talk) 06:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I could give you a lot of evidence that Iran's president is not "effectively powerless", but since I really don't have time to do that. I'll just leave some links and you can draw your own conclusions. Basically, yes Khamenei has more power than Rouhani, but he simply cannot govern the country without the help of the President as well as the Parliament. The Supreme leader cannot enact complex legislation or issue day-to-day directives to government agencies. Some hardliners close to Khamenei have threatened to abolish the Presidency many times, but they never do it, because they know that it would also destroy the legitimacy of the Supreme Leader. Also, Khamenei was elected, by the Assembly of Experts, where 13 members voted against him. I don't know when people started acting like any election that isn't a popular vote is not an election. History suggests otherwise. Again, I'm not defending the Iranian regime, which has done many awful things, but I think that there is sometimes a serious lack of effort to accurately explain the nuances of the Iranian political system.--UshankaCzar (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Many dictators are elected. It is the for life appointment (Khamenei) to leadership that makes them dictators - as well as the electors themselves, in this case, being a closed inner circle of the regime. Dictators have many helpers - no one can govern a country alone. The degree of control allotted to the president is entirely up to the Supreme Leader. The Supreme Leader pre-approves who can run (well - OK - to be precise - the Guardian Council composed of people appointed by Khamenei, and who Khamenei exerts control over) for president. The Supreme Leader may dismiss the president at any time (legally, not to speak of extralegal means). The Supreme Leader, most of the time, chooses not to get involved in the day to day minutia the president handles - a mere act of delegation. Icewhiz (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

No, the Supreme Leader cannot simply dismiss the president at any time, extra-legally or otherwise, the only president of Iran to be dismissed was Abolhassan Banisadr, and that was after he was impeached. It says quite clearly in article 110 of the Iranian constitution that the Iranian president can only be dismissed "after either the Supreme Court has issued a ruling convicting him of deviating from his legal duties, or the Islamic Consultative Assembly, based on Article 89, has cast a vote against his competence". As the sources I posted have mentioned, each Iranian president sets a domestic and economic agenda that is enacted through legislative and executive action. The Parliament, has the only power to propose legislation, ratify treaties and create a budget. The Supreme leader does not have these powers, nor has he ever had them, constitutionally or otherwise. How can it be delegation, if he has never had such powers to begin with? In fact, when Khamenei first became Supreme Leader, the President, Akbar Rafsanjani was arguably as powerful if not more powerful than him. Its also not entirely clear if Khamenei has complete control over the Guardian council, half of its members are appointed by the head of the judiciary and confirmed by the parliament. From what we do know about the council's function, there are frequent debates and disagreements within it; Khamenei does not simply tell them what to do. Also the council's head, Ayatollah Jannati is a politically influential elder cleric in his own right, with what some would say is more religious legitimacy than Khamenei, who wasn’t an Ayatollah at all until being elected leader in 1989 and only became a Grand Ayatollah in 1994. The fact that Khamenei does not have a great deal of seniority or charismatic authority over the Iranian clergy is yet another reason why he does not have absolute power. Just because a leader is elected once to rule for life also does not inherently make them an all-powerful ruler, see the King of Cambodia for example--UshankaCzar (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

After digging in a few source and definitions, I will not contest the totalitarian label in our own voice as it seems that the very limited permitted speech ahd very limited choice/presentation of different Islamic revolutionary factions may suffice to avoid the label by some definitions. However, Iran is undemocratic and authoritarian per any serious source.Icewhiz (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I accept your use of the Democracy Index 2017 as a source for labelling Iran undemocratic. But I would like to reiterate that I don't think Michael Totten's article is a very good, or even useful source here. As I mentioned before, there is no evidence that the Supreme Leader hand picks candidates in Parliament, Experts or Presidential elections. There are situations where he's ordered candidates reinstated after the fact, but there is not a lot of evidence that he has a direct role in the usual vetting process.--UshankaCzar (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Choosing to delegate or stay out of inconsequential affairs is not a significant factor. Icewhiz (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The factor in question here is accuracy. The Supreme Leader isn't delegating the power to vet candidates because he doesn't have that power. Who is a candidate for elections is very consequential, yet we know the Supreme Leader is only involved in rare circumstances. I'm saying that we shouldnt have a source that is inaccurate.--UshankaCzar (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

One might argue that since the vetting process is controlled by a very closed clique which is close to the SL, and who themselves are at risk should they make decisions counter to the SL's views, that the vetters make acceptable decisions, in line of the SL's wishes, without any need for his intervention.Icewhiz (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

LEGISLATURE

Edit box

Iran is the one theocracy with legislature

Upper house Assembly of experts for leadership Guardian council of constitution Government Expediency Discernment council

Lower Assembly of Islamic Consultation

5.75.7.16 (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Languages.

The current version of the CIA World Factbook doesn't give percentages for languages and ethnicities (as stated as a reference for languages). --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, percentages exist in the archived version [38] SharabSalam (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hadith of Persian Men

Can someone please add this topic in the text? Thanks! --Omiran (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no need of historical demonyms

There is no need of historical demonyms because the articles are about the current countries, and not about the historical. Sashko1999 (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sashko1999: I agree since not all of Iran is Persian and it's not only Iran who speak Persian or were Persians regardless of that the original homeland of Persians was part of the current Iran. The article isn't about the historical Iran. We don't for example use the demonyms Assyrian for current Syria just because that would be misleading. I dont know why your edit got reverted and why who reverted your edit didnt argue with you or gave a valid argument in the edit summary. I personally don't think that "says who?" Is an appropriate response or explanation of why was your edit reverted--SharabSalam (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, we discuss here about the changing of the links of some demonyms, if you want you can vote and support my claims, I gave some explanations about them on my talk page, if you want, you can read them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sashko1999#The_DEMONYM_refers_to_all_citizens_of_one_country,_and_the_ETHNONYM_refers_to_people_of_a_particular_ethnic_group Sashko1999 (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2019

This article is missing Zand, Afshar, Qajar and Pahlavi dynasties as part of the Iran history. These are in between Safavid and Islamic Republic. This article should also show the Lion&Sun flag (Shiro-Khorshid) as that flag has been the longest standing symbol and flag for Iran and it is still considered by Many Iranian across the world and within Iran. Beachd80 (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Women

I think the terrible oppression of Iranian women deserves a mention in the lede, similar to that of Saudi Arabia. VwM.Mwv (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi VwM.Mwv, when you want to add any information please use a reliable source and don't put a conclusion that you get from different sources like for example A and B means C that's not accepted in Wikipedia. You need to put what the sources say and not what you concluded. Have a nice day--SharabSalam (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Here you go. [39] VwM.Mwv (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

info box

assembly of experts should be in legislature they choose the supreme leader and the government type is a strong authoritarian 5.75.127.206 (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Official name only in Farsi or also in regional languages?

Should we only use Farsi for the infobox and lead, or also include regional languages such as Azeri and Kurdish? I have started a discussion here as it would be good to be consistent. If we use Hebrew and Arabic for Israel, it would make sense to include at least Azeri and Kurdish here (or to decide to only go for the official language). To avoid splitting the discussion, I suggest discussing at the discussion under the link above. Jeppiz (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Azerbaijan or the Republic of Azerbaijan?

Which should it be? I know Iran has a region called Azerbaijan, but due to the context and for consistency purposes, it has to be simply Azerbaijan. Furthermore, if the Republic of Azerbaijan was used, then Armenia should be changed to the Republic of Armenia, Turkmenistan to the Republic of Turkmenistan, and Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan/Pakistan. That would maintain the consistency in the lede. Moreover, I doubt anyone would be confused by seeing Azerbaijan, as it's even linked to the Republic's wiki article. --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Kingerikthesecond, you said Furthermore, if the Republic of Azerbaijan was used, then Armenia should be changed to the Republic of Armenia, Turkmenistan to the Republic of Turkmenistan, This is a rule that you created from your mind? what's wrong with making it republic of Azerbaijan? just Azerbaijan because Azerbaijan is a special case!. Azerbaijan is a large region that is in Iran and in the republic of Azerbaijan so making it Azerbaijan alone would be confusing to some but Republic of Azerbaijan is much better--SharabSalam (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

And BTW youre edit warring. Please note that this behaviour might get you blocked.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes edit warring is good for opening up discussions on the talk page. Anyways, I doubt many people would be confused, like you said in an edit summary, as Azerbaijan is linked to the Republic's wiki article, so readers who think it's the Region would know that it's the Republic that's being stated instead. But hey, if this really is a special case, then I'll pull myself out. --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring and breaking 3RR is never good to start a discussion. I will have to report you t admins if you didn't self-revert your revert because obviously you are pushing a POV.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kingerikthesecond:, Your self-revert was a good idea, since you were engaged in edit warring against several editors. Just to make it clear, There is not a region named "Armenia", Turkmenistan" or "Afghanistan" in Iran, therefore, no risk of confusion for the readers with these countries. But, there is a historical region in Iran named "Azerbaijan", which is different from the Republic of Azerbaijan, therefore, this should be clearly showed in the article in order to avoid any risk of confusion. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

misleading (languages)

The reference to the languages in the beginning is somehow misleading because 99% of people in Iran can speak Persian. I think that should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.225.231.117 (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent revision

@MehrdadFR: I see you reverted many of my edits earlier today. All of these edits are approximately one month old, and have been unanimously accepted until now. They have to do with the authoritarian nature of the Shah's regime, the totalitarian nature of Iran's current Islamic regime, the Shah's reforms known as the White Revolution, and the current women's rights record in Iran. All my edits are backed up by reliable sources, and are reiterated in related articles (e.g. the above & Iranian Revolution). Please seek consensus for your edits. M . M 12:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Your edits are pure WP:FRINGE garbage, contrary even to the mainstream views of Western-based scholars of Iranian studies. --MehrdadFR (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

You'd still need consensus before removing as the content is disputed. --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I reverted to pre edit war version. Page protection requested. Please stop it, discuss on the talk and achieve WP:CONSENSUS. MehrdadFR, you better read WP:CIVIL and desist from attacking other editors like you did above. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I just reverted because MehrdadFR removed disputed content without gaining consensus first. I'm sorry for any disturbances this might have caused. --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: - you reverted to a version from 31 Jan - the article was WP:STABLE for 6 weeks. prior to MehrdadFR showing up after a 1 year wikiBreak and reverting this back. Some of the content has merit - e.g. Women's rights in Iran is both widely covered and the subject of rather serious protests (e.g. My Stealthy Freedom) in Iran. Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Need to review some of the content attributed to horrible sources....but yes a bit much was removed.... but it did need some consolidation..... was a bit long-winded.--Moxy (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: As i explained, i reverted to pre edit war version. I agree that i may have removed some legit content, but there were many unreliable sources cited in the article and removing them one by one was not an option. The page is now fully protected on my demand to fuel the discussion here on the talk page rather than with edit-warring. @Moxy: : agreed. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The women rights content was sourced to a report [40] from Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security which seems like a good source (and it seems quite easy to locate more sources). There was also a YouTube film from a panel at a conference (without a link) - which while should be avoided (text is better than video) - isn't horrible (and is anyway supported by another citation). Rights under the Shah were attributed to this Taylor & Francis book which seems OK. The nature of the Islamic Republic was likewise sourced to reputable books. Which sources in particular are we objecting to as "horrible"?Icewhiz (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

There's no any kind of "serious protest", in fact, WP:RS say "there has been no demonstration, protest or dissent against dress-code in the real world in Iran". Media circus fueled by the US state media, Sheryl Sandberg and other "philanthropists" do not change it. This article had a stable LEAD for several years, until a recent deterioration of the relations between Iran and the United States, when PR editors started to spread their POV. One fine example is a statement about "undemocratic regime" by Michael Totten, a pity activist funded by Azerbaijan, the American Jewish Committee and the Lebanese pro-Saudi March 14 alliance. Looks more like an agitprop rather than an encyclopedic article. --MehrdadFR (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

William O. Beeman in his book The Great Satan vs. the Mad Mullahs: How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other (University of Chicago Press, ISBN 9780226041476) states that "...contrary to American belief, women in the Islamic Republic were better off in many respects than they were under the Pahlavi regime. Moreover, their condition has continued to improve. Women have always had a strong role in Iranian life. Their prominent and often decisive participation in public political movements has been especially noteworthy. Brave and often ruthlessly pragmatic, women have been more than willing to take to the streets in a good public cause throughout modern Iranian history. The Islamic Republic has made a special point of emphasizing women's equality in education, employment, and politics as a matter of national pride. Although women have served in the Iranian legislature and as government ministers since the 1950s, there are more women in the current parliament than ever served under the Pahlavi regime. Iranian women may actually be in the vanguard in the Islamic World". He also adds that "stereotypes of Iranian women promulgated in the West are hopelessly out of date". Scholarly views and all statistical data clearly contradict Neo-Orientalist stereotypes and propaganda, previously inserted in the WP:LEAD. --MehrdadFR (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: The women right content which was Iran is consistently ranked among the world's bottom countries in terms of women's rights is not supported by the given sources its pure WP:SYNTH I was involved when VwM.Mwv added it I reverted the edit because it was unsourced firstly and I was asking for sources. VwM.Mwv added again the paragraph with the sources you mentioned and I couldn't keep wasting my time to discuss this so I let it go(I thought someone else will come across and reword it or fix it)--SharabSalam (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@VwM.Mwv: - please provide quotes from each source you added supporting the content you added. Icewhiz (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@MehrdadFR: In addition to the already cited sources, I would urge you to take a look at this report [41] by Human Rights Watch: "Women’s rights are severely restricted in Iran, to the point where women are even forbidden from watching men’s sports in stadiums."; "Women confront serious discrimination on issues such as marriage, divorce, and child custody."; "Moreover, married women can’t even leave the country without their husband’s permission." Then we have yet another report [42] by Amnesty International covering the arbitrary arrests of women's rights lawyers and activists in Iran. There's also a long Wikipedia section on Iran's mandatory hijab laws. I am talking about intrinsically valuable human individuals, not pawns on a board game. Please deeply consider not only the factual, but also moral, implications of denying this by writing it off as "Jewish", "Zionist", "United States", and "Saudi Arabian" (edit: oh, and I almost forgot, "neo-Orientalist") "propaganda". M . M 16:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam and Icewhiz: I haven't seen a single reliable index rank women's rights in Iran above 140th out of ca 180-190 countries. But If you want to, I could change the sentence to Organizations including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have strongly criticized Iran's women's rights record. per the sources above. M . M 16:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't need to look at some pity reports, I live in Iran, speak Persian language and known our laws, so I can confirm that claim regarding "needing husband's permission" to leave the country is a blunt lie. In fact, men are discriminated because they can not leave the country until finishing military service, while women can. Not to mention mehriye and so on. Virtually all claims by such reports can be easily debunked either by law itself, or available scholarly articles. Clothing laws exists in most countries, and Iranian laws apply for both men and women, still I can not found any claim about "Iran's mandatory trousers", or lets say "France's mandatory chest and private parts covering". It is funny how "mandatory" implies only for Iran, and only for women. Iranians found it as ridiculous. There are indeed few who would prefer Western dress code, but their number is more negligible than Femens in France. Neo-orientalism and Iranophobic propaganda are widely covered topics in academic literature, and there nothing wrong about mentioning it, especially considering Iranian sources are highly biased toward political enemies like Saudi Arabia and Israel. --MehrdadFR (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. Earlier, it was "Jewish propaganda", now it's "pity reports". For your information, I oppose every clothing law in every country as they violate the non-aggression principle. But this is not about my or your opinions, this is about solid facts. You can keep equating France's rather light clothing laws to Iran's more repressive ones, say it doesn't matter because only a "few" Iranian women oppose them, and deny that they're legally treated like their husbands' property (e.g. severe travel restrictions) on the basis that you "live in Iran" and "speak the Persian language". That does not make you a reliable source. M . M 17:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I never said "Jewish" propaganda, you're playing victimhood games. I clearly said that due to political rivalries between mentioned countries, non-academic sources are highly biased. It is irrelevant what you oppose or not, you can not make a POV regarding a whole country based on your own view. Hard to say that Iran's laws are more repressive since punishments are lighter and France also has mandatory maximums (anti-mask laws). Again, it's your own view. Only a clown can claim that women are "legally treated like their husbands' property", it's contrary to all facts. I already gave academic quotation regarding such fantasy claims, and if needed, I will add tens more. --MehrdadFR (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

To be specific, you wrote "American Jewish Committee", not just "Jewish". But I can't see how either that, Amnesty, or HRW can be described as being part of "political rivalries between mentioned countries", and therefore "non-academic sources". M . M 18:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@MehrdadFR: If you think that the statement about women's rights is not true even if it is sourced by reliable sources then don't delete it but put next to it the other side argument in order to serve balance policy of Wikipedia. If there is no reliable sources for your claims and you think it is not true then I advise you don't add anything because that's not going to damage the Iranian government or the Iranian people as much as it's going to damage Wikipedia's reliability among its fans who think it is a reliable source. Wikipedia itself says it is not a reliable source of information and that it's content is based on what newspapers and what the media says which is IMO mostly controlled by the Western world--SharabSalam (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Thank you. I must admit, I didn't think you'd be this balanced based on our previous interactions. I belive I owe you an apology. M . M 17:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam:, neither a statement of William O. Beeman is not for the WP:LEAD. An introduction should be based on pure facts, not even individual scholarly views, or balancing between two. There are specific sections and articles for such things. I'm 100% sure that other editors are aware of such policies, but some still play games because they favor WP:POV. As I can see introductions of the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia are pretty encyclopedic, without "apartheid" or "corporatocracy" claims/polemics, because they follow policies. --MehrdadFR (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• Note: User "MehrdadFR" has been blocked on no less than 6 occassions for edit-warring on sensitive Iran/West Asia-related topics. Curiously; all six blocks were the result of violating WP:3RR. He was also subjected to a topic ban in the recent past for being WP:TENDENTIOUS in the very same topic area.[43] Most of MehrdadFR's edits involve promoting the narrative of the current Iranian regime and downplaying everything else. Looking at the compelling evidence, in combination with the stuff he writes here on this talk page ("Your edits are pure WP:FRINGE garbage"), I'm wondering whether this user is actually here to build this encyclopedia. He has been given a lot of "second chances" over the past few years, to no avail it seems. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@LouisAragon:, so Ervand Abrahamian, Michael Axworthy, William O. Beeman are "promoting the narrative of the current Iranian regime"? :) All of these Western-based scholars, as well as many others, are full of criticism of Iran's government, but their objections are far from ridiculous remarks made here. --MehrdadFR (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Its your overal editorial pattern I'm talking about, which has been rampant so far. You know very well what I mean. As for William O. Beeman and his "work":[44]

The "Great Satan" vs. the "Mad Mullahs" is an embarrassment of polemic masquerading as a scholarly study. That Beeman is director of Middle East Studies at Brown University is another sad testament to the state of the field. (...) The worst aspect of The "Great Satan" vs. the "Mad Mullahs" is the moral equivalency underpinning the book. To Beeman, Washington's complaints about Tehran are no different than Tehran's rhetoric about Washington. But isn't it possible that U.S. concerns about Iran's terror sponsorship are real? Likewise, there is no U.S. corollary to Iran's "Death to America" rallies and threats to "wipe [Israel] off the map." Neither would many Iranians agree with Beeman's apologia of Supreme Leader Ayatollah ‘Ali Khamene'i as a moderate consensus builder; nor would Iranian women recognize his assertion that their rights have improved.

- LouisAragon (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@LouisAragon:, this quotation is from the Middle East Forum, a charlatan neo-conservative and Islamophobic source (as described by academic press), led by Daniel Pipes, a conspiracy theorist who claimed Barack Obama is "a hidden Muslim" and "Malcolm X follower", famous for statement that "western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples because they are not maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene". Perhaps you confused Wikipedia with Stormfront? --MehrdadFR (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

P. S. Scholarly reviews would be Abbas William Samii: Middle East Journal, Vol. 60, No. 2 (Spring, 2006), pp. 379-383; Amr G. E. Sabet: British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 34, No. 3, Iranian Intellectuals (1997-2007) (Dec. 2007), pp. 423-426; Nader Entessar: Middle East Studies Association Bulletin, Vol. 42, No. 1/2 (Summer/Winter 2008), pp. 152-153; M. Jamil Hanifi: Iranian Studies, Vol. 42, No. 2 (Apr., 2009), pp. 344-347; Scott Waalkes: The Historian, Vol. 73, No. 1 (spring 2011), pp. 211-212. The book received a general praise. So yes, I know very well what I'm dealing with here, as I did several months ago. I cite all existing reliable sources regarding to the subject, and then someone comes and remove 20k of referenced text with one edit. That's why I gave up any active editing. --MehrdadFR (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, those 23k were diff in My Stealthy Freedom objected by several editors due to the non-RS nature - and also involved Women's rights in Iran. @Drmies: challenged this to begin with and might have an opinion.Icewhiz (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that edit--yeah, I have an opinion on that, namely that MehrdadFR used the word "vandalism" unjustifiably and got into an edit war. I see now also that Mehrdad filed an SPI against one of the editors here, closed immediately because no evidence was presented--come on Mehrdad, you know better than that.

I gleaned over this page, which is kind of interesting. Valid points on both sides! It seems to me that the original phrasing ("Iran is at the bottom of the barrel") is probably too categorical (but this needs to be discussed with sources in hand; a YouTube video of a panel discussion isn't the worst of sources, but for this kind of statement we must do better. I don't know what the other source says). It also seems to me that using Pipes and people like that is highly questionable. A think-thank that publishes a journal that for the longest time refused to do peer review has no credibility, and then allowing peer review only from peer reviewers who are "not hostile to the United States and its allies" doesn't help much (it's the most ridiculous thing I can imagine a journal to say). On the other hand, claiming that Iran's government is not a "regime" is probably equally silly, and disregarding any non-academic sourcing as inherently biased is just wrong. Fun times! Drmies (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)