Talk:Iran

Please consider reading the archived discussions for this article before asking any questions on this talk page or initiating any new debate.

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)

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)

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.

Can someone put in an anthem

something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk2GYvhwUno

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]

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)

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 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".[21] 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".[22]" Genealogizer (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The lead section

Please remove these bullshits from the lead section, it contains controversial topics such as sponsoring of terrorism (this is a US claim and the article should not be written from a US point of view). The article should be reverted to the last stable revision and any controversy change should be made with a consensus on the talk page. 46.225.123.94 (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)