Talk:List of monarchs of Persia

Untitled

Mozaffarids needs to be added. I'll get around to it soon one day--Zereshk 04:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So glad to find this site. Now I can teach my children some Persian history. Many thanks. Mina msimon@onetel.net

Justification for BCE/CE in this article

I have thought it over and as per User:Sunray and User:Slrubenstein's suggestion, I have also read the Wikipedia Manual of Style and it is my belief that BCE/CE is justified in this article since none of the Iranian rulers and empires (including the Elamites) have ever been Christian. To impose 'BC/AD' terminology in this article (and other Iranian history related articles) is, IMHO, POV. I do not wish to initiate a revert war, and I would prefer that the issue be taken to consensus or mediation if other users have a problem with this. SouthernComfort 05:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

• I just don't feel BC is pov, nor do I see where BCE is any improvement over BC. However, too many people find BCE offensive, mainly because of its initial use by Soviets, so probably better to leave it as BC like it has traditionally been for centuries.

Resistance to this change is really widespread, quite recently I saw a news article on Google about this very issue raging in Australia, and the uproar was great enough to stop the new-fangled initials from appearing in government schoolbooks. So rest assured, it isn't only myself who would object to the use of BCE and CE over BC and AD. May I ask, why do you feel so strongly in favor of BCE as to take it as far as mediation ? Codex Sinaiticus 05:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia policy clearly states that both are acceptable. Secondly, while you argue that 'BCE/CE' is offensive to some people (Christians, for example), I find the imposition of 'BC/AD' Christian terminology upon articles having absolutely nothing to do with Christianity or Christian civilisation offensive. Ancient Iranian history has never been tied in with Christiantiy, and this history should not have to be subject to this imposition of religious terminology. I have no desire to change Christian articles as well as articles dealing with European and Christian civilisation.

But since Wikipedia allows both terminologies, and with the increasing usage of BCE/CE in academic circles (I cannot comment on Australia or the U.K.) in North America and the non-Christian world, why is this such a huge problem? I believe my arguments to be reasonable, and it would be much appreciated if Christian POV terms (and from an Iranian perspective, BC/AD is extremely POV, especially considering Iranian civilisation long predates Christianity) are not imposed upon these Iranian history related articles. SouthernComfort 06:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I just now saw that wikipedia has a vote page on this, I just cast the 85th vote in favor of BC, as opposed to 72 so far for BCE. It could be argued that BCE is every bit as pov, because it is the one preferred by a doctrine very much like a religion - Marxism. But the name of the traditional Calendar that reckons this year as "2005" is called Anno Domini, and it is simply not practical for a minority of people to change the name of the Calendar everyone else has always used. Yes, Anno Domini means Year of the Lord, meaning Jesus; but as long as the years are dated from 1 AD, you may as well use the correct name for this Calendar. You could try dating your years from some other year if you think this is religious POV bias, as long as you clearly indicate what system you are using; for instance, you might feel the Zoroastrian or Hegira years are more appropriate for an article about Iran than years dated from the "Christian Era." Codex Sinaiticus 06:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Please see the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which allows for both terminologies, which again, are already becoming the de facto standard in academia. I don't see the Marxist connection, since religious theologians have been some of the strongest proponents of this terminology (see Common Era). SouthernComfort 06:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

As long as both terminologies are allowed, I don't think it's wise to change an article from one format to another. Use the format you prefer on your own addititons and let other users do the same. I suspect most readers don't care either way. Edit warring on something which there is no clear consensus is just a waste of time. Fornadan 08:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I will not allow Christian POV terms to dominate this article - let them impose BC/AD on Christian and Christian history related articles, but I will not allow them to do so here. Each time they revert, I will revert as well, while complying with the 3RR rule, and I will not be bullied into submission just because users from the U.K. or Australia find BCE/CE unacceptable due to North American origins. SouthernComfort 08:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Please don't take this as an attack upon you. I just want to point out that edit warring over this page will not lead to anything. Even if you should "win", you'll waste a lot of your own time in the process. Such a far reaching decision as adopting CE/BCE will not, and should not, be taken on this page. As long as the debate continues I think it's better to accept status quo. Fornadan 12:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The status is that BCE/CE is acceptable and it is up to the author(s) to ensure consistency in an article. The policy is quoted below (see bold text) for your reference. Sunray 18:42, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

You are mistaken in reading BC/AD as being Christian terminology anymore. That is their etymology, but no longer their meaning. Indeed, many (most even) do not even know what they originally stood for. They are just normal date conventions, nothing more. Just as referring to June is no longer seen as honouring Juno, or living in St Paul's or St Alban's or Pennsylvania is not taken as having any particular respect for St Paul, St Alban or William Penn. This is a storm in a teacup. We should just leave things as they are (which is also as our (world-wide) readers would expect). Please do not bring religion into this argument - it has no place here. It's just a question of using common terms for common ideas. Kind regard, jguk 11:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I have no idea what the state of academia is in the U.K. or Australia, but here in North America, BCE/CE is the academic standard, most especially in regards to ancient history and Near Eastern studies (and has also taken hold in Iran). To impose BC/AD terminology upon ancient Iranian history is offensive. If this chronology had anything to do with Christian history, then your argument would be much more acceptable. But in this case, you are imposing your Christian POV upon non-Christian chronologies. I do not understand what your problem is here. If you are against BCE/CE because it is prevalent in North America, that is not acceptable. If you are against BCE/CE because it will 'confuse' people, that also is not acceptable as usage of BCE/CE is very common throughout the English-speaking world and any Google search will prove that there are just as many sites adhering to BCE/CE as there are adhering to BC/AD.

And I will bring religion into this argument because religion has exactly everything to do with this. To impose 'BC/AD' upon this chronology (and ancient history articles in general) is to say that the average reader accepts that Jesus is the Christ and Lord and Saviour and God of All That Is and Ever Shall Be. This is grossly offensive and if you think non-Christians aren't offended by this, you are not very well informed. BCE/CE was initiated precisely to aid in ecumenical efforts between Jewish and Christian scholars and theologians and for decades has become the de facto academic standard. 'BC/AD' are heavily loaded terms, strongly tied in with Christian faith and revelation, which is precisely why its usage is declining everywhere.

I am not interested in Christian articles or Christian history - I have total zero interest in attempting to adapt Christian or European or Greco-Roman historical articles to BCE/CE. However, most Iranian history articles adhere to BCE/CE, and I am absolutely intent on ensuring that all Iran-related adhere to BCE/CE 100%, which will not be difficult, to allow for fluidity between articles. I do not want a revert war, but I will not back down from this. My arguments are valid and reasonable and the issue is simple: BC/AD terminology in this article (and all Iranian articles) is inappropriate. Please kindly cease and desist your POV efforts and allow this chronology adhere to academic standards. SouthernComfort 12:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are discussing standards in academia (or more specifically views within US academia). WP is a worldwide online encyclopaedia designed for all. It is not for academia - it is for everyone. It is for that reason that worldwide norms that are important. WP's success is built upon its being open to all - it would be a disaster if we were to become an extension of US academia. Kind regards, jguk 13:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Academia both the United States and Canada generally adhere to the BCE/CE standard, so it is certainly not just the United States. Most (but not all) of the opposition towards BCE/CE seems to be coming from the U.K. and Australia, for whatever reason, and I don't feel like speculating as to why. I've made my argument and I won't be backing down from it. I have the right to adapt the BCE/CE standard to this chronology, as it has absolutely nothing to do with Christian history and imposing 'BC/AD' is entirely inappropriate. SouthernComfort 13:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

SouthernComfort has made his case well. If he is the primary author of an article, he should decide what date formats are best given the content of the article. In this case where it is a non-Christian topic in a non-Christian region of the world, BC/AD makes no sense. It would be disrespectful to use this form. Sunray 15:16, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

• I don't think Southern Comfort has made his case at all for stirring up this hornets' nest (for that is indeed what he is doing, over the heated opposition of most on this page, including myself). There is nothing disrespectful about it, and he is not the primary author of this article. BCE is disrespectful to the primary authors of the Gregorian Calendar that we have agreed to use as a standard. But while its use is tolerated on some articles, other articles like ancient Greece and Iran just don't look right with this BCE splashed all over them. The way 'US academia' works today is five guys sitting in a closet will make a 'decision' like this, then seek to force it on everyone else by claiming they are the "majority standard" and nobody better disagree with them. Much the way 'Soviet academia' used to work. I'm sorry, but the rest of the world does not want to work that way.

Wikipedia policy on dates and numbers

Wikipedia policy is quite clear on use of Eras in articles:

Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, 1 BC–AD 1 or 1 BCE–1 CE.

It is up to the author(s) of an article to determine the dating system(s) to be used and there must be consistency with each article. In this case, for a non-Christian topic in a non-Christian region of the world, BCE/CE makes the most sense. Sunray 15:54, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

Unfortunately more misguided comments from Sunray. BC/AD no longer has any Christian connotations - just as "June" no longer has any connotations of worshipping Juno. BC/AD is the worldwide stadard. We should prefer it over something dreamt up and mostly used by US academia, jguk 16:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

What is your source for the statement that "BC/AD no longer has any Christian connotations?" I've seen a great deal of evidence to the contrary. In fact, BCE/CE was developed by Christian and Jewish scholars to avoid Christian connotations. Common Era is a "religiously neutral" term as the Wikipedia article makes clear.

BC/AD is no longer the standard in academia (not even in the U.K). Wikipedia has always observed academic standards in its formats and style. As previously stated, BCE/CE is considered acceptable by the Manual of Style. Southern Comfort, one of the authors of this article, has presented a strong rationale for using BCE/CE. You need to remain NPOV on this Jguk. Sunray 17:52, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

Unless he did so as an anon, SouthernComfort has not edited this article (except changing BC -> BCE) Fornadan 18:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

While most of his edits were to change BCE/CE (a fairly formidible task of editing in itself), he did make other edits to the text, which were obliterated with Jguk's first revert. Sunray 18:50, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

Cease your harassment. SouthernComfort 17:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

What harassment? jguk 17:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Repeated reverts without sound rationale along with continual harangues on talk pages would qualify as harassment, IMO. Sunray 17:52, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

CE and BCE

I favor CE/BCE over AD/BC because it promotes ecumenical standards.

Organizations using BCE/CE:

1. The History Channel [1]
2. Jewish Virtual Library [2]
3. PBS [3]
4. The Israeli Government [4]
5. Johns Hopkins University [5]
6. Columbia University [6]
7. Fordham University [7]
8. University of California Davis [8]
9. US Naval Observatory [9]
10. Weber State University [10]
11. San Diego State University [11]
12. Judaism Online [12]
13. Iran Chamber Society [13], since this page is about the history of Iran.
14. Christian Travel Study Programs [14]
15. Ask Asia [15]
16. The National Library of Medicine [16]
17. NASA [17]
18. The University of Victoria [18]
19. The US Library of Congress [19]
20. California Academy of Sciences [20]
21. UCLA National Center for World History in Schools [21] explicitly mentioning their preference.
22. University of Haifa, Israel [22]
23. The Smithsonian Institution Center for Education [23]
24. American Jewish Historical Society [24]
25. Danforth Mennonite Church [25]
26. The Royal Ontario Museum [26]
27. Religious Tolerance.org (the Internet's highest volume site on religious subjects) [27]

Style Guides:

1. Ostracon [28]
2. American Journal of Philology [29]
3. Nova Southeastern University [30]
4. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha [31]
5. Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus [32]
6. Topia The Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies [33]
7. The Anglican Episcopal Diocese of Maryland [34]
8. The Chicago Manual of Style (see ninth question) [35]

I think we should be using it too.--Zereshk 19:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Nice compilation! I've added some links. Sunray 22:03, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

Many of those can be disputed (NASA, for example) – they may say in some places that they want BCE/BC but people just simply use BC/AD. Anyone can list opposing links to those that use BC/AD (Encarta and Encyclopedia Britannica for a start, with whom we have a lot more in common with) but the bottom line is that we do not have a BC/AD/BCE/CE policy other than to maintain the original author's choice. violet/riga (t) 15:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Original usage of BC/AD

This article originally used BC/AD and not BCE/CE. We do not have a policy to use BCE/CE and to change it from one to another is not really appropriate. I suggest people continue to discuss this rather than perpetuate a revert war. violet/riga (t) 14:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Violet, we do have a policy, quoted above, that states that BCE/CE is acceptable and that their must be consistency throughout the article. SouthernComfort as a author of the article, states in his justification (above):

"To impose 'BC/AD' terminology in this article (and other Iranian history related articles) is, IMHO, POV. I do not wish to initiate a revert war, and I would prefer that the issue be taken to consensus or mediation if other users have a problem with this.

I think that this is exactly the situation where BCE/CE is justified. It is a non-Christian subject, written about a non-Christian region, contributed to by a non-Christian author. Out of courtesy non-authors should not jump in and engage in revert war over this. If other authors do have a concern about this, they should attempt to get consensus. Meanwhile, I think it is incumbent on members of the Wikipedia community to support authors who have something to contribute to a particular article. Jguk is not one of the authors of this article. When he blunders in and reverts what SoutherComfort is doing we lose edits other than BCE/CE. I will rv and I trust you will discuss this on the talk page. Sunray 15:54, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

Violet, let me add to what Sunray wrote: Contrary to what you suggest we do have a policy: BCE and CE are entirely acceptable at Wikipedia (see our manual of style). It is true that BC and AD are also acceptable, but there is no question that BCE and CE are also acceptable. You suggest that we should use BC and AD because this was what was used in the original version of the article. In fact, it is your argument that is not a policy and has no support in any policy (if you think I am wrong, please find the policy that says this). If we followed you reasoning as if it were policy, we would have to revert all articles to their original versions. Every article is the result of an accumulation of changes over time, in many cases so transforming the article that nothing is left of the original! But this is the whole point of a wiki encyclopedia: it is being edited and changed all the time. The reason BCE and CE are improvements over BC and AD is because these kings were not Christian and did not rule a Christian kingdom. If this is not an apporpriate place to use BCE and CE, what is? Are you arguing that BCE and CE should never be used? (And with all due respect, please don't go back to the "original" argument. Surely you do not think that we should go back to [36] because every subsequent change diverged from the original?) Slrubenstein | Talk 16:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

SouthernComfort is an author on this page, not the original one. We should respect the original usage as per standard policy. It is bad form to change it. Further, I disagree with the Christian connotations you see in BC/AD. violet/riga (t) 16:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I respect your arguments but maintain mine. I will not continue to revert but am worried about people forcing their views on articles. Do note that you should not change them just because you think it is appropriate – the policy proposal did not gather anything like consensus (with the opposers in plurality) and I hope that this is the only article that this will happen on. violet/riga (t) 16:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Your courteous approach is appreciated. While opposers to the policy change were in the majority, if you read their reasons, many simply wanted to maintain the current policy. Others preferred to find a *technical* solution. I think that SouthernComfort is acting in a responsible way, applying the policy, discussing what he is doing and what he is doing makes sense. Of all of us talking about this article, Southern Comfort and Zereshk are the ones who are actually contributing to the article and they both have indicated a preference for BCE/CE. Sunray 16:57, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

BCE/CE were invented out a bias against Western history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajwest1983 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style policy change proposal

A possible compromise vote has begun at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Eras. Please read through potential changes to the Manual of Style and vote on your preferred version. violet/riga (t) 21:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Apology to Southern Comfort

• Hi, I just want to apologize to Southern Comfort for what I just wrote in the message line stub about him not being a major contributor. I just took a quick look at his contribution list and see you are quite involved with Iran pages for some time and evidently speaks fluent Farsi. I just hadn't seen you here until 5-19, or in Medes until 5-21, so I assumed that you came in with the crowd of BCE supporters. I don't have anything against you itellectually ir otherwise, and hope we will work together in the future without hard feelings notwithstanding this BC / BCE dispute. Codex Sinaiticus 11:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

SouthernComfort's strong editing track record on these pages is the main reason why I think he should be suported. He and several other authors of these articles think that BCE/CE notation makes sense for these articles. BTW, I think that the view that there is a "crowd of BCE" supporters that flooded these pages is not the whole picture. The problem began when Jguk began systematically reverting SouthernComfort's edits. Having encountered Jguk's POV previously on Talk: Common Era (much before the current policy debates), I steped in to support SouthernComfort. Now there is a crowd. Sunray 16:10, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Apology accepted and much appreciated. Misunderstandings are common and there are no hard feelings whatsoever. SouthernComfort 13:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Elamites as Persians

Perhaps this is the wrong time to add to the mess and confusion, but, in the interests of scholarship: I think it's wrong to list the Elamites as a Persian empire. They didn't speak an Indo-European language; they weren't Zoroastrian; they were possibly matrilineal.

They influenced the Persians, sure. They were the route by which Mesopotamian culture entered the Iran plateau. Once they were conquered by the Persians, they became the scribes and bureaucrats of empire. (I understand that most of the clay tablets unearthed at Persepolis have been written in Elamite.) Seems to me that this is analogous to the relationship between the Greeks and the Romans. The Romans adopted much of Greek culture, adapted the Greek alphabet, and prized Greeks as tutors for their children. But that doesn't make the Greeks Romans. We commonly speak of Graeco-Roman civilization. Perhaps there's a case to be made for the term Elamo-Persian civilization. But I don't think it makes any scholarly sense to describe the Elamites as Persians, or Greeks as Romans.

It makes nationalistic sense to various Iranian central governments, which have been promoting nationalism and national pride by stressing the achievements of the Elamite, Achaemenid, and Sassanid civilizations. I'm old enough to remember Mohammed Reza Shah's grandiose self-coronation at Persepolis. But I don't think we have to parrot the government line at Wikipedia.

I imagine that a couple of my distinguished opponents will leap in here claiming that I'm prejudiced against Persians, that I'm a pan-Arab nationalist, that I want to dismember Persia, etc. etc. No, I'm just a SCHOLAR. I don't like seeing what happened -- which is usually complicated and ambiguous -- simplified and distorted to make a political point.

Keep the Elamites in the list, if you want, but add a note, or a caveat, or something. Zora 03:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Elam is definitely a part of Persian history, as much as Khuzestan is a part of Iran. Codex Sinaiticus 04:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Codex, please check out Talk:Khuzestan and Talk:Ahvaz if you're curious about where the above comments from Zora came from. I leave it to you to come to your own conclusions. SouthernComfort 09:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Change needed when this article becomes unlocked

The dates for Cambyses II are wrong - he ruled to 521 BCE (or BC if you prefer). This is a reminder for a time when the dispute gets resolved and the article is unlocked. BeavisSanchez 06:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Protecting of this page is out of line

Violet/riga has protected this page. It has been well-established that an Admin who is involved in a editing dispute does not protect the page or pages concerned. Not only that, but to protect it on the revert that subscribes the Admin's own well-established POV is also contrary to policy.

Yes, it's all very convenient, isn't it? SouthernComfort 15:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is no need for protecting this page. What is needed is for the discussion to continue on this talk page. We have a dispute over interpretation of policy. Authors of this and other pages on Iran/Persia have indicated a preference for using BCE/CE notation. Some other authors do not agree, some are making up their minds about it. Meanwhile various discussions are on-going about establishing new policy. In the meantime we have the existing policies and some people are learning how they work. Please unprotect this page. Sunray 13:35, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand my position on the topic or the reason pages are protected. Edit wars should not continue and this has therefore been protected. violet/riga (t) 14:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

So you disagree with me on my second point. How about my first point? Sunray 15:04, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

I am suggesting that you get an unbiased admin to protect this page. If another admin protects the page s/he should determine which version should be protected and state reasons for the protection. I've stated reasons why I do not think it should be protected. Sunray 15:29, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're wrong about the reasons for protection - it certainly should be as it's a blatant edit war that has gone on for days. I am an unbiased admin and you may wish to read m:wrong version. violet/riga (t) 17:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Your alleged impartiality is questionable considering what has transpired over at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:SouthernComfort. SouthernComfort 18:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how that changes anything, though I'm glad you've agreed that you are pushing your on POV without caring about the consequences. violet/riga (t) 22:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

How am I imposing my POV on anyone when most editors concur with my POV? If I was going around to all the Latvian or Baltic history articles and imposing BCE/CE then your argument would hold up much better. But I haven't done anything like that and I don't plan to since I have zero interest in European Christian civilisation, nor do I agree that imposing BCE/CE upon those articles would be appropriate if most editors there disagreed. However, here you and Jguk (especially Jguk above all others) are out of line, especially when most editors in these subjects prefer BCE/CE. You always evade this discussion when it comes to this point. You have accused me of many things right from the very start despite the fact that if Jguk never began his reversion campaign we wouldn't even be discussing this right now. I don't know whether these attitudes stem from a distinct lack of respect for eastern cultures or if there is some ideological reason for your opposition to BCE/CE (perhaps due to the American origins) or even religious reasons - I don't know.

But it is not right when I, as a respectable editor, make well-intentioned changes in order to adhere to academic standards, and then I am vehemently attacked and bullied by those who oppose any mention of BCE/CE so stridently. I knew you opposed BCE/CE but I never imagined you would end up harboring such irrational antagonism towards me. Jguk is one absurdist character, but that several others, including admins (most of whom are not even connected to these articles) would back up and defend him without even bothering to listen to editorial consensus within these articles or even to accept my arguments as reasonable considering I have only dealt with Iranian articles or to be willing to accept the possibility that perhaps I am acting out of good faith and intentions - this is something else. SouthernComfort 22:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Why do I feel that I'm banging my head against a wall with you? Let me explain again my position. I am not opposed to the use of BCE/CE. With me so far? All I have done is object to you changing lots of them to your (self-admitted) POV when people are objecting to it. This article used BC/AD long before the 19th of May when you went around a changed numerous articles to something that you believe in. Fair enough, nothing wrong with that as I know you did it in good faith. But then someone objected. And then other people objected. This change (including at this article) does not have consensus because there are as many objectors as there are supporters. Yes, I can understand your claim that the actual contributors should have weight, but that is something that is also not supported by policy.

In summary, you changed it, someone objected. That should've been the end until the discussions confirmed one way or the other. violet/riga (t) 11:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and discussing this issue with Jguk is impossible, no matter how hard one tries. It is an exercise in frustration and futility and so is this discussion. SouthernComfort 15:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

So can we agree to wait for the results of Wikipedia:Eras then? violet/riga (t) 15:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that protecting this page is an unusual step to take; however, I think that it was no worse than 1) Editing the page to insert BCE/BC without any discussion on the talk page first, 2) failure to leave the article in the status quo while the dispute is resolved on the talk page, 3) the article being reverted 33 times in 4 days. Hopefully we can use this time to come to a consensus rather than just changing the article back and forth between two versions. Trödel|talk 11:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Violet/riga's bias in this matter is well-documented. However, that is not the point. It is long-standing policy in Wikipedia that an administrator who is involved in a dispute is not the one to protect the page. I repeat my request to violet/riga: Please either unprotect this page or get another admin to maintain it. Sunray 16:04, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

I'm impartial and have not had biased involvement in this - I've been trying to sort the situation out and reverted to the accepted original version so that the discussions could take place. That was the best compromise and the only way the revert war might be stopped. Just because I'm not supporting your cause doesn't mean I'm biased. violet/riga (t) 16:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

As proof: I have reverted this article just twice (14:30 and 15:40 on 22 May 2005) while trying to promote discussions. My other edits include adding in edits lost during the revert war (22:18, 22 May 2005), fixing the section header levels (18:06, 24 May 2005) and protecting the article (21:42, 24 May 2005) and you think that shows a massive bias? I'm the one that's set up Wikipedia:Eras to fix this mess, which you have totally failed to realise might be the thing that allows you to have your way! violet/riga (t) 16:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

As I said in my third sentence. Administrators who are involved in a dispute should not be protecting the page. Are you going to deal with this or not? Sunray 23:13, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the content so I don't see that as involved enough to see what I did as wrong. So, no. violet/riga 08:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The page has been unprotected following a report of an illegal page protection. Sunray 09:37, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Change BC/AD to BCE/CE

As some of you know I have vehemently opposed the introduction of BCE/CE on the Jesus talk page(archive 16). However, when I was asked to comment on the discussion here I had to chuckle because the Kings of Persia just seemed like the ideal article where BCE/CE would be used since middle eastern history is the type of content where I would have expected BCE/CE to be used.

Since the style guide says both are acceptable I think that because the editors currently involved in the edit war have not contributed substantive edits to this article prior to the current Edit disputes (from what I can tell on the history[37], it appears that the edits are solely to make a point either by changing the article to BCE/CE or by reverting that change back to the BC/AD over and over (I admire User:Zereshk for continuing to make useful edits during the current dispute). Personally, I think the compromise on the Jesus page (and the current style guidance) to avoid the use of AD/CE all together where possible, is a reasonable accomodation to the offense take by both sides of the debate.

While the ideal situation would be to have "BC" mean Before Common or Before Christ - whatever the reader wants it to be. And then avoid using AD/CE if possible means that their will be minimal offense while still providing clear understandable dates. The same is true by using 10th Century instead of 10th Century AD or 10th Century CE.

It is, however, not unreasonable to make the small change to include BC/BCE where the readers of the articles would likely take offense at the exclusive use of BC/AD for several reasons:

1. it is only three characters;
2. we should all be spending more time adding substantively to projects instead of waring over an issue that inflames passions; and
3. no one is happy with it (thus it is likely the most neutral of the options).

I urge the continued reliance on the editors of each article to set the appropriate standard based on the article content. However, both sides should refrain from wondering around wikipedia looking for opportunities to switch from BC/AD to BCE/CE or from BCE/CE to BC/AD. Trödel|talk 03:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you're somewhat missing the point. BC/AD are perfectly neutral and are understood by all. I have always seen BC/AD used when discussing Persian kings - there's really no problem there, it's always been customary so to do in the English-speaking world. Let's think of the readers and use terms they prefer and use themselves, jguk 05:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not arguing that BC/AD are not neutral - I personally think that they are. However, some find offense at their use and read it to be non-neutral. It is reasonable, therefore, to use both BC/BCE where the editors determine that the subject matter is such that BCE is used frequently enough in outside literature to warrant it's inclusion here. The last I saw vote to move to BCE/CE was failing on a approximately 80-95 vote; however, that is barely a 55% majority for keeping AD/BC exlusively. The No vote would need almost 90 more votes without a singly more yes vote to get anywhere near a reasonable consensus; therefore, some sort of compromise should be proposed that could gather consensus and be used.

I also agree that pushing the BCE/CE on targeted articles immediately after the well publicised vote fails is not a consensus building activity, but instead further divides opinions and causes editors to hold tighter to the status quo (For example, my view that BC/AD are neutral because they are used in the common vernacular without any reference to their latin/abbreviated meanings). Trödel|talk 11:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Clearly you don't read current academic literature, where BCE/CE are standard. Why base your standard on outdated books? Zora 10:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• BC and AD are still standard in plenty of places, whereas BCE / CE were born yesterday. Much of my resistance and suspicion is from the fact that the CE supporters are SO urgently anxious to 'jump the gun' and declare their preference a fait accomplis 'standard' and 'consensus', and everyone else 'outdated', with only a minority of support achieved. Now what does that remind you of? Codex Sinaiticus 14:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Trödel has made some constructive observations and comments. In particular, I think he is right that Middle Eastern history is the type of content where [one would expect] BCE/CE to be used. I don't think that Codex's perception that "CE supporters" jumped the gun is accurate. I was alerted to this matter when Jguk began reverting SouthernComfort's changes to BCE/CE. I was aware of problems with Jguk on this issue on the Common Era pages going back to well before the Jesus page controversy. I read SouthernComfort's rationale for BCE/CE and decided that it was worthy of support. In the discussion User:Zereshk and several other current authors of articles on Persia agreed with the change to BCE/CE. Codex did not agree. Jguk continued with his reverts. We tried to work it out on the talk pages of several of the articles, to no avail. Jguk maintained his POV and will likely continue to do so until an arbitration case bans him from editing these articles (which may never happen). He has shown himself unable to uphold fundamental principles of Wikipedia relating to consensus and good faith in this matter.

In my opinion, there is no way that Wikipedia can achieve a neutral point of view and use BC/AD notation in the articles on Persia and other Middle Eastern subjects. However, if the Wiki gods don't favour this, it won't happen. I don't think that a "compromise" is the answer, but I do implore all who edit these pages to work towards achieving these fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Personally, I haven't done a revert for over 8 hours. :-) Peace. Sunray 15:56, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

My mistake re the agreement from Zereshk and some of the other regular editors - they did chime in as Sunray describes. In my defense it was late and I forgot to check the history names against the talk page discussion above. I do find it interesting that the regular editors did not do a single revert on the article page (that I could tell).

I do think that this experience here argues that the best approach being considered at Wikipedia:Eras is to discuss on the talk page first. Here, where the change was made and then discussed, seemed to inflame the existing passions. Trödel|talk 16:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that seems true. However, it does seem that people are now begining to get a grip. Either that or they are just plain tuckered out. Now, if we could just get the omnipotent overlord to relax her grip on the protect button... :-)

Certainly when I have been looking at the history of ancient Persian kings in the past, I know I have always seen BC/AD - I really don't see what the dispute is - they are very common date markers, with no meaning other than date markers. I just wish people didn't read meaning into them that does not exist and then decide they take offence at that meaning they are reading into them, jguk 19:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

This unnecessary change in historical terminology is an absurd stunt by self-hating busybodies. As an atheist, I find the proposal to make unnecessary changes to the English language far more offensive than two sets of initials that happen to have Christian origins. The fact that the new initials also refers to Christianity just makes the whole thing a bad joke. Luwilt (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Protection

I've removed the protection, as it was placed on the page in violation of policy. Any sign of edit-warring, and it will be replaced. i don't intend to get involved in this article, but I'd just comment that, if those who argue that the changes to the dating system are trivial, and that people who make such changes are being unwarrantedly sensitive, could show their superiority to such oversensitivity and triviality by not reverting, matters would be a good deal less fraught. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

"[I]t was placed on the page in violation of policy" – incorrect.

"Any sign of edit-warring, and it will be replaced." – correct.

violet/riga (t) 09:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Illegal page protection for responses. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Zand dynasty

There are discrepancies (see: Iranian Monarchy) within the Zand dynasty section, usually date differeneces of a year, but one ruler (apart from 1779 troubles) are missing there:

• Seydmorad Khan 1787-1789

The list over there jumps from Jafar to Loft-Ali in 1789.

Maybe someone in the know can sort this out.

Str1977 15:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Ghorid Dynasty

The Ghorid Dynasty of Herat and Ghor that destroyed the Ghaznavid kingdom is totally missing. -80.171.43.73 13:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Ghorids dont fall into Iran's chain of dynasties. But then again, I can be wrong.--Zereshk 19:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Mystery kings of the Sassanids

I noticed that someone added a couple of kings to the last years of the 6th century -- Bistam & Hormzd V -- for whom I can find no mention in the primary sources (namely the Armenian historian Sebeos & Theophylact Simocatta). Can someone verify that these shadowy personages actually existed? Or are these evidence of some long-forgotten hoax? -- llywrch 03:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Direct your question to User:Amir85. He is the resident scholar in this area.--Zereshk 04:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

BC/AD in the article -- but BCE/CE in the "History of Iran" infobox

We should be consistent in era notations within an article, including any corresponding userboxes. I have requested before and will again, that we should make it Wikipedia policy to include "BC" for years prior to 1 CE, and "CE" for years following 1 BC. There are many advantages to this, which include:

• BC is less POV than AD (which claims Jesus is the Lord) [Some might say BC is also POV, but since no one is going to agree in consensus to remove AD/BC altogether, using only BC is much less POV]
• Both BC and CE are two-letter abbreviations (as opposed to BCE and CE)
• Both BC and CE go after the year (i.e. 50 BC and 50 CE), as opposed to AD which comes before the year
• Instead of users constantly fighting over era notations, which would never end, this would assure that both notations are used everywhere.
• It flows nicely in speech and in text

What does everyone think? I know I should be posting this at Wikipedia:Eras and I will be, but this is a good start. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 20:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC) The more often BC/AD is used the better, and to hell with consistency, which is just being used as a Trojan Horse to grind down opposition to this odious and unnecessary change. Luwilt (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Persia/Iran

Small point this one, but shouldn't the article be called something like 'List of Kings of Persia/Iran', or at least have a redirect so that anyone looking for 'List of Kings of Iran' gets re-directred to this page? Indisciplined 19:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Kings of Iran (now) redirects here. "Persia/Iran is UgLy. flammifer^talk 08:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If anything is "ugly", it is this article, a wasteland of redlinks, empty sections and Arabic script in header titles. This needs to be split up and completely reformatted. For one thing, all the Bronze Age stuff doesn't concern "Persia" at all and needs to be moved to the proper articles. The Pre-Islamic period should be treated separately, and the Islamic part should be merged into Muslim dynasties of Persia. --dab (𒁳) 13:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

In an effort to be "comprehensive" this page has just become unmanageable instead. I believe this page would be better if it focused on the rulers of ancient Persis in the strict sense rather than making a doomed attempt to include everyone who has ruled a piece of land within the modern borders of Iran. I therefore decided to be bold and remove most of the pre Achaemenid entries, there is already a List of rulers of Elam where that material would fit better. I removed as well almost all the empty sections between the Parthians and Sassanids, some of which were only very tangentially related to Persia. The medieval rulers should probably be moved into Muslim dynasties of Iran while the modern era shahs could be put into a List of heads of state of Iran together with the Supreme Leaders of the republic. Fornadan (t) 01:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the best comments I ever read in Persian related articles:

"In an effort to be "comprehensive" this page has just become unmanageable instead. I believe this page would be better if it focused on the rulers of ancient Persis in the strict sense rather than making a doomed attempt to include everyone who has ruled a piece of land within the modern borders of Iran." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Unknown Kings of Parthia

I tried to add an article on the unknown kings of Parthia, one of whom reigned four years and issued coins without a name on them. The powers that be declared it "patent Nonsense." How could it be patent nonsense when the guy existed, ruled a mighty empire, and issued coins and decrees?Ericl (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What Now?!?!?!?!?

The Supreme Leaders of the Islamic Republic

I added Khomeini and Khamanei, who are Shahs in all but name. Ericl (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

They are not Shahs, you do not have Shahs in a republic. They fought for the removal of the monarchy and Shahs, how can they be Shahs then? Warrior4321^talk 04:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

||List of kings of Persia (redirect from Rulers of Persia)|| it seems that rulers of persia redirects to list of kings... how are we to add rulers of persia that aren't kings... we have no other option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.114.229 (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Create redirects and disambiguation pages as appropriate. Lists of monarchs and heads of government are separate for other countries, as they should be. Luwilt (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Table's

Hello, I've been doing a project on Rulers of the world, and when I came to look at Persia it was a bit unpleasing to the eye, especially when comparing it to other such pages that list Kings or Emperors. I Think a good way to solve this problem would be to start putting all this information into tables, like on other such pages. I've started this process by doing it for the Early Elamite Kings and the Awan Dynasty. I urge all editor's who have free time to continue this process to improve the page.

Snakus Viper (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Portrait of Cyrus the Great.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Portrait of Cyrus the Great.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Revision Needed

Okay, this is ridiculous. The Mongols were never "Kings" of Persia... Neither were the Arabs or the Turks or even the Greeks. These were invaders, and it's just ridiculous having them on this page because it distorts our own accomplishments and dilutes our history. I'm sure if the Persian kings were alive today, they wouldn't like the idea of being clumped together with Mongols... For example, the Huns invaded and conquered Rome, but I'm sure they're not Roman "Kings". Anyway, this page needs a major revision. Invaders/occupiers should be removed. I'm sure you won't see our kings (which conquered Greece many times in history) on the Greek page of Kings.