Talk:Iran/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

Consensus surrounding the name of Iran

@

Rwenonah
: and myself, we have to vote on what needs to be included in the introduction. I ask all of you to consider this: there are no references that support the notion Iran is an Islamic Republic. Conversely, there should be no references that support the notion Iran was once known as Persia. Many of the arguments that forwarded in favour of the notion that Iran is synonymous (i.e. known as) with Persia are fuelled by a patriotic/nationalist motive to establish a point that is hardly politically correct. Holland vs the Nederlands argument is similar, however the former term is still in use because it is popularly known as such. News articles refer to either country names and they co-exist alongside each other.

The same is not true for Iran because Iran according to historical sources has it that its folk have always referred to their country as Arayanam-vej, which morphed to Eran and to recent times now called Iran. On the Western side, Greek sources referred to this country as Persia, in reference to

Persian people rather than Iranian peoples
. Wikipedia isn't about deciding whose side to take, but more about taking a heuristic point of view and ascertaining, based on all the sources inspected, as to the substance of a fact. I have given many sources which support the notion that the country is indeed called Iran, and on many news-outlets the same is true. The term Persia is only used in pre-1935 historical usage, cultural usage or in a literal/poetic usage. In the same sense that a country like Britain would be called Britannia in a poetic way; or America would be called Colombia in a poetic sense. These terms are not official, but are a way of contextualising the country through another channel.

The article Iran is closed because of this great divide, but it has been closed for good reason because this issue has been long neglected and now requires a hallmark consensus by which all of us take part in. Proposals I give now can be amended as reason requires. These proposals are:

  1. Any sources that support/contradict a fact within the introduction shall be removed. The introduction should not be a place where points, evidences and explanations should be declared; only points should be issued. Any evidence and explanation should be either in the respective sections or on another article.
  2. Currently, news articles typically assert a statement as 'Iran, before 1935 known as Persia'. I propose that we include similar wording which is not only historically neutral, but also politically neutral, culturally neutral and does not refer to what the people of Iran may utter as to the validity of the name of Iran.
  3. I also propose that we create a new section within the Iran article called Name. This is where we will explain why some people may still refer Iran as Persia and all sources that support or contradict this can remain in this section without tainting the entire article with the aforementioned argument, thus undermining its quality.

As always, all content should be non-partisan and impartial. Thoughts? Vormeph (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Vormeph: Before anything, you need to explain about your references (the references in section Iran vs. Persia, number (7)). Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Please stop dragging your ridiculous argument into every section. Bromley86 (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm for a cut-down version of what HistoryofIran said in the Lead: formerly known as Persia (full version - formerly known as Persia in the Western world. That would not need citing, as it's unlikely to be challenged. The Body should probably reference the Persian expats, but I can see both sides of that argument.
On a related note, I'd also appreciate a little input (with respect, not from Vormeph) in the Talk:Iran#AKA_Persia_refs section, where Aidepikiwnirotide is advocating the use of sources that do not confirm the statement they're meant to support. Bromley86 (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually, ethic minorities apparently consider the term Iran "hegemonic", according to the sources I've presented above, presumably as it implies an "Aryan" national identity, which is not embraced by
Rwenonah (talk
) 13:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@Bromley86: Don't forget that "all sections of this talk page should be considered" and you are not permitted to scatter the discussion in several separate sections. Meanwhile, you need to rely on references instead of "Personal Baseless Opinions". I greatly respect to all Iranian ethnicities, but "Persia" here should not be translated, since it's a "proper noun" as we don't translate "Iran" as well. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
We certainly do translate proper nouns. English Wikipedia has an article on "Germany", even though the German name for the country is "Deuschland". Maproom (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
A common notion has been advanced by @
Rwenonah: that the body of text contested be rewritten as formerly known as Persia without citations. Disregarding historical/nationalistic and cultural arguments, I think this notion is the most practical option at the present time as it also includes my support. Vormeph (talk
) 15:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Vormeph I only rely on references. what does without citation mean?!!! In that case, we cannot rely on only some personal baseless opinions! you say this, because you don't have enough references to prove your claims. Once again, wikipedia is a collection of references, you can either publish a book and then cite it in wikipedia or rely on current references. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@Aidepikiwnirotide: The introduction shouldn't contain references to a point. It is for this reason it was also proposed that we create a section called Name which not only has the bespoken points, but also references and explanations to them. Since you are so adamant on this issue and quite knowledgeable, it might be wise to accept this notion and in return you can handle the content within the Name section in collaboration with other editors. If you can do that, then we can end this debate once and for all because right now no one has editor access to the Iran article because of the rift between you and @Bromley86:. It's a pity that you have no shame on this matter, and only more of your recalcitrant editing will make this harder to resolve. Vormeph (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@Vormeph: Don't ratify rule, please! ("The introduction shouldn't contain references to a point" !!!). rather, it's better to justify "your references", where the questions has been left open. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Can someone make an edit request to fix the lead...as of now we have horrible spacing and reference overload in the first sentences...makes the article look non reliable (as in a
    WP:LEADCITE-- Moxy (talk
    ) 16:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@Moxy: In my opinion, one of the problem is to "create several sections" for scattering the discussion by Bromley86 and Vormeph maybe to prevent achieving a reliable result. To be sure about the situation, please only read everything that has been written by Vormeph, where their sentences are antithesis of his previous phrases in each section. he offers some unreliable references and then says there is no need for citation and all references should be removed! and so on. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Can you explain more on why we would not follow our basic guidelines on this lead problem? I am not sure if you have been through a GA our FA review....but source overkill in the lead is one of the most undesirable things we fix during thoses process. What is the problem with moving them to the "Etymology" section....were we could quote sources like number 13. The opening sentence has a huge
WP:LEADCLUTTER problem and the source only make it worst. Think of our readers ...not other editors. Dont see how editwaring to make the article harder to read is a good thing. -- Moxy (talk
) 16:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@Moxy: But my question is that what is the problem of current version of Iran article? and what is the purpose of some users to remove all justified and explained references? (please see history of discussion) The are many important questions here that still have been left open, e.g. I've not still gotten a logical answer about Google Map, when you are looking for Persia Geographical Region, it shows you Current Iran Map which means Persia = Iran and last book which mentions "Iran, traditionally known as Persia", (where traditionally means typically). And finally, consensus doesn't mean forcing a user to accept a wrong opinion! but also what determines the result is "references". I suggest you to see one the unreliable references that mentioned above by Vormeph in section Iran_vs._Persia (You can see this reference HERE) where I asked some important questions about this reference but didn't get any answer. What does discussion mean? forcing a user to accept a wrong idea? Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
"Traditionally" does not mean "typically", and the source you have cited does not say it does. It uses the word "typically" in presenting its definition. Maproom (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok so no reason not to follow our guidelines on the matter at hand. I will be bold for you guys and fix things up a bit when page is unlocked as per all the suggestions above in other talks. Not sure why this is so hard....will just explain the current usage on names and add Russell, Malcolm (21 August 2014). The Middle East and South Asia 2014. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 63–.
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources..... --Moxy (talk
) 19:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@Moxy: Concerning Google Map, it is not including five current references in current Iran article, but also it has been used for more explanation (i.e. both Persia and Iran imply the same country) but we cannot say Google Map as a common tools to find countries, cities, regions etc is not reliable, because in this case, we'll accept that Google Map misinforms people worldwide !!! Anyway, I remind you my another reference (following book),Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). Iran (Middle East: Region in Transition) where, it mentions that "Iran, traditionally known as Persia", (where traditionally means typically). Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
A notion has been proposed that we amend the introduction. Editing the controversial line to formerly known as Persia and moving the references to the Etymology or a new Name section would be desired. But for now, the Etymology section would suffice. Are we in agreement by factor of majority to edit the article thus? Aidepikwnirotide is hardly contributing and quite frankly his behaviour is bordering on trolling. My input so far:
YES Rename the introduction so that it reads Iran, formerly known as Persia, officially the "Islamic Republic of Iran".
Comments: References that were in place should be temporarily moved to the Etymology section where they will be processed later once the article's protection status is lifted. 18:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vormeph (talk • contribs)
@Vormeph: I don't know what is your purpose to repeat again your previous repeated phrases above without your signature! Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I refer all users to THIS NEW SECTION created by Bromley86 where some other users like Niteshift36 agree that "Iran also known as Persia" is correct. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, you seem to have problems with English comprehension. The full statement by Niteshift36 says exactly the opposite of what you think:
"If the "also known as..." is correct, I'm certain that we can find a better source than Google maps. If we can't, that should tell us something."[1]
I.e. He's (a) not taking a position on the veracity of the AKA statement, (b) however, if true, he thinks we should be able to find a better source than Google maps and (c) if we can't, then that doesn't bode well for the veracity of the AKA statement.
Also, a request for input from the RSN is a perfectly normal thing to do when two people have a disagreement about the reliability of a source. You seem to think things should be handled in one massive wall of text, whereas I'm quite happy to break large problems into smaller ones and then fix those individually. Bromley86 (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@
McGeddon:,@Mjroots: Hello, I've another reference that I'd like to add this book to Iran article, (entitled Women's Costume of the Near and Middle East) where it mentions that "Iran equally today still known as Persia"[1] Women's Costume of the Near and Middle East Aidepikiwnirotide (talk
) 21:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


References

  1. ISBN 978-0700715602
    . Iran equally today still known as Persia

Moving forward

Clearly there is currently no consensus to change the lead either way .....thus the status quo should be our default until the RfC above is over

WP:STATUSQUO (note rfc needs to be fixed to give options and reworded a bit). We should also move any good sources from the lead to the the body (as per our guidelines)....there we need to see what is best to say. I have no opinion on the RfC as the lead no matter what it says should and will be explained in the body of the article. I see there is a sourcing problem ....we need scholarly publications that go in to details about the topic at hand, not just a passing mention of the naming of the land. ...like [1][2][3][4][5][6] then expand the proper section(s). Any suggestion on text to use to inform our readers based on publications on the topic? --Moxy (talk
) 21:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@
Rwenonah: and @Bromley86: your input here would be most-appreciated. Vormeph (talk
) 07:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
YES Rename the introduction so that it reads: "Iran, formerly known as Persia, officially the Islamic Republic of Iran."
Comments: I'd previously made the argument that it should be IRoI, commonly known as Iran, previously known as Persia, as that's the form on higher editor-population articles like
UK
. Still think that's better, but I'd happily accept I, P, IRoI if that's the decision.
References that were in place should be removed. The 4 original ones do not support the assertion (we have cross-aisle, for want of a better term, support for this now that Rwenonah has commented.[2] The most recent add has been boldly made, reverted (as it doesn't support the statement) and then repeatedly added back in; that one should be removed too, pending discussion and agreement (which, IMO, will not be forthcoming).
All that said, I'll accept them all being shifted if that gets the article unlocked quicker, and we can just remove them from the Body after. The new Lead will cease to be controversial, so will not require cites. Bromley86 (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@Vormeph: Please don't repeat again and respect references! otherwise it's not possible to move forward. I remind you the last reference [7] where it says that "Iran equally today still known as Persia" (and please have a look at yourself references!) Once again, I greatly respect all great Iranian ethnicities, but "Persia" here is a "proper noun" and should not be translated as we don't translate "Iran" when we say "Iranian" (that means Aryans) (Do you think all Iranian ethnicities are Aryan!) Thus, I emphasis that we shouldn't translate both Persian and Iranian since they are both proper noun. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@
McGeddon:,@Mjroots
:
I've got half a mind to close many of the discussions here. It would be useful if all editors use the RFC above to thrash the issue out. Once consensus is reached, the article can be unlocked. Mjroots (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Works for me. Could you leave the AKA Persia refs section open though, at least for a day or so, as I'm about to try to get Aidepikiwnirotide to comment there, so we can at least put to bed the 4 original, incorrect, cites used in the Lead? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I just added two other references (1. [8] (title: "Video Games Around the World (MIT Press)") published by MIT publisher in a modern topic, where mentions " Iran, commonly known as Persia " and 2. [9] (title: "The Art and Architecture of Persia") which mentions "Iran— also traditionally and commonly known as Persia in the West") Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

We need good sources about the topic.....not non related mention this in passing. I am concern here that cherry-picking is going to be problem forward. --Moxy (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@Mjroots: We have two Wikipedians (myself and @Bromley86: who are in favour of renaming the lead section Iran, formerly known as Persia, officially the Islamic Republic of Iran. References in that section should be moved to the Etymology section so that a more elaborate explanation as to the usage of Persia can be extended. It is kindly appreciated for other Wikipedians @Moxy: and @LjL: as well as @Aidepikiwnirotide:. As for you Aidepikiwnirotide (talk · contribs), I'm not asking for more explanations over which. A notion has been proposed and you must now either vote or abstain. So long as you continue rambling on about the Iran vs Persia predicament, this article will remain closed. C'est simple que cela. Vormeph (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@Mjroots: Instead of moving references to etymology section (that is very strange!), the best is to keep references in the lead and then expand it in etymology section. It seems very logical than removing references! Btw, I just added two other references above. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@Aidepikiwnirotide: I suggest you read this section so you understand our reasoning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_create_and_manage_a_good_lead_section#References_in_the_lead.3F Vormeph (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@Vormeph: I know well your purpose! instead, I refer you to recent references. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@
WP:LEDECITE. My preference is that the lede does not need references as all info in the lede is cited in the main body of the article. Mjroots (talk
) 12:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@Mjroots: OK, but do you know why there are several references there? to prove "Iran, also known as Persia". Firstly, I refer you to my recent references and then say that because there is no strong reason to change the current expression in current Iran article, as Moxy has mentioned previously, thus there is no need to change it (I rely on references). Instead, we can expand it in etymology section. You know well there are many wikipedia articles with such situation, because of disputed issues. I agree with you, but in a normal situation. but the problem now is that some users like Vormeph and Bromley86 want to force all users to accept their opinion! . And also in the other hand, some users attack any user who is not agreed with them (of course by IP Address) Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
No, I want to force you (and only because you've reverted my removal edit) to explain why you say the CIA Factbook, for example, supports the AKA Persia statement. It does not. Discussing with you is pointless if you won't engage. And, if you do (finally!), please reply in the relevant section. Bromley86 (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@Bromley86: Stop misleading please! I'm talking about my 3 recent references! (1. [10] (title: "Video Games Around the World (MIT Press)") published by MIT publisher in a modern topic, where mentions " Iran, commonly known as Persia " and 2. [11] (title: "The Art and Architecture of Persia") which mentions "Iran— also traditionally and commonly known as Persia in the West") and 3. [12] (title: "Women's Costume of the Near and Middle East") where it says that "Iran equally today still known as Persia") Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I am concerned your not hearing what others are saying about references...first I would like you to read the sources i added above and note how they go in to detail about the naming of the country. They are books about the topic at hand (two somewhat even support your view...and explain why modern and historical terms are used in context).....we do not consider books about video games or women's clothing to be definitive info about a country. Books that just have intros for a country is not the same as books that talk about the situation. That said source 13 is good. -- Moxy (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
    • :@Moxy: Let say, I want to move forward and finish as soon as possible, nut some users like Bromley86 and Vormeph don't permit to move forward ! Anyway, if I offer a historical book, you it's not a modern sense! if I offer a modern book (ref no [10]) you say it's not related to the name of a country ! if I suggest you see Google Map, you say it's not a common reference. Let also remember what was the main purpose of this discussion : Keeping the expression of "Iran, also known as Persia" ? thus, if in several references with different topics and content mentioned "Iran, commonly known as Persia" what do you conclude? Would you say your conclusion? Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
What your not showing is that many books that mention this in passing say the opposite of what your showing us.....thus we need sources that explain the situation...we need to link our readers to more info on the topic, not just regurgitating the same sentence in passing. We must provided sources that expand our readers knowledge of the topic at hand....Google maps does not do this...nor do books about video games or website that say less then we do. --Moxy (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ISBN 978-1-86064-675-1
    .
  2. ISBN 978-0-313-37509-5
    .
  3. ISBN 978-1-84885-830-5
    .
  4. ISBN 978-1-944092-02-3
    .
  5. ISBN 978-0-85771-092-5
    .
  6. ISBN 978-3-319-30485-4
    .
  7. ISBN 978-0700715602
    . Iran equally today still known as Persia
  8. ISBN 978-0262527163
    . Iran, commonly known as Persia
  9. ISBN 978-0789209207
    . Iran— also traditionally and commonly known as Persia in the West
  10. ISBN 978-0262527163
    . Iran, commonly known as Persia
  11. ISBN 978-0789209207
    . Iran— also traditionally and commonly known as Persia in the West
  12. ISBN 978-0700715602
    . Iran equally today still known as Persia

@Moxy: Don't bother trying to explain this to him. We've explained this plenty of times yet he continues his repetitive arguments. His comments borderline on trolling, therefore I've resorted to blanking him until he appeals to reason. If he wants to vote on certain topics that's his business, at at any rate a grip on consensus is about to be reached. @Aidepikiwnirotide: I've been patient with you, but now you're repetitive arguments are now risk being discredited with no one here taking you that seriously if you're adamant on solving this issue. You have to face reality with a firm heart and accept that Iran is not synonymous with Persia. It may have been in your hay days, but no longer. If you cannot grasp this reality, then burying your head underground as the world goes by is your only option I'm afraid. If need be, I can provide a shovel free of charge at your disposal. Vormeph (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Vormeph:It's you who are repeating your wrong opinion and trying to force others to accept it ... Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@
McGeddon:,@Mjroots: The best is to keep the current lede i.e. the common part of too many references (i.e. also known as Persia) and then expand more and more and more ... in the body such that when the name has been changed? why has been changed? How has been changed? etc etc etc ... along with related references for each question. In the other word, in the body we have to explain its "modality" i.e. commonly? with its reference formerly? with its reference traditionally? with its reference. In my opinion it's the fairest solution consists of all ideas. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk
) 15:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
What you should be recommending is "traditionally and commonly known as Persia" thus both POVs are covered historical and modern. Its clear the POV your advocating is not getting far....thus may be best to try a compromise and see what others say. --Moxy (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@Moxy: It's OK, I support this one : "traditionally and commonly known as Persia". Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@Moxy: I object, since the knowledge thereof is only limited to the Middle East and the West. A Westerner might recognise that Iran used to be called Persia; but they certainly wouldn't agree that Persia is another official name for Iran. Persia is the former name used. It has been internationally mandated many times that the country is not known as Persia, but simply Iran. Iran was called Persia until 1935 which is documented countless times. You're digging a hole for yourself here Aidepikiwnirotide (talk · contribs) mate; you're just not realising that Iran and Persia are not synonyms. The fact you're sublimating this by saying other editors are advancing their own opinions is just fallacy. The arguments and notions have been raised, but it would not be correct to say that Iran is commonly known as Persia because we don't have a statistic to support that claim. What also needs to be emphasied is 'common among whom'? Iranians may commonly know Iran as Persia, maybe some Westerners; but might someone from the other side of the planet? Maybe not. The use of the term 'commonly' has major side-effects because it assumes the readership of the article, which is not good at all. It's like assuming the reader of a Wikipedia article is a man, instead of both men and women - that in itself is anti-feminist and discriminatory. My proposal stands: Iran, formerly known as Persia, officially the Islamic Republic of Iran. Be it so. Vormeph (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@Vormeph: Continue to force others to accept your opinion! but be sure it's not a correct way! I'm trying to achieve a consensus such that it covers all ideas. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@Moxy:
@Aidepikiwnirotide: If you want to win the argument, then you should provide at least one source that explicitly states Persia is an official name for the country. Good luck. Vormeph (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • When I said "officially" known as Persia ?!!! Are you fine? Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal - remove references from lede

OK, let's see if we can move along a bit here. Per

overciting. Please indicate whether you support or oppose this proposal. Mjroots (talk
) 12:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Please either support or oppose the proposal. This is not the place for discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Mjroots: But you didn't mention any thing about the current lede situation regarding to current references. I know you prefer to leave this matter as soon as possible, but please be fair with this matter. we didn't get any strong reason to change the current expression yet! You prefer to ignore references but rely on some baseless opinion just to finish the matter?! I really don't know what happens behind of this discussion talk page! but I don't know e.g. why Moxy has changed his opinion! after some IP Address attacks ... Anyway, I follow this problem even via Jimmy Wales. wikipedia has to be responsible for its behaviour! and finally don't forget if you want to change anything regardless of REFERENCES, this talk page would be the great stigma and shame for wikipedia forever. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@
McGeddon
:
Change my opinion from what? As for refs we need ones that cover the topic in detail....the ones that explain it very well. Dont just search for the word you like ..search for books that cover the topic well. --Moxy (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@Moxy: But at the moment we're talking about keeping the expression of "Iran, also known as Persia" as it's confirmed at least by relying on my 3 recent references above! but if you intend to waste the time of people, please and please don't start an exhibition discussion! Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Wrong again...i dont care what the lead says because we will explain in the body of the article...what I care about is the bad source clustering the lead. . I am trying to move things forward....are you doing the same? I am not sure if your prosperously acting lost or that its a real problem.--Moxy (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@Aidepikiwnirotide: - you seem to be misreading my proposal. I don't "prefer to ignore references" as you put it. I fully endorse that material must be referenced. What I'm saying is that there is no need to have references in the lede. Now, either support or oppose the proposal. I don't intend for this section to be a discussion forum. There is plenty of room elsewhere on this talk page for that. Mjroots (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Aidepikiwnirotide. Does this not mean that we have consensus to remove that from the Lead? The point should be made and supported in the Body. Bromley86 (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
@Bromley86 "Always" we need citation. We can find thousands examples in the lede: one of them is Greece article plus too many other articles including references in the lede ... Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal - "formerly knowN as Persia" in the Lead

@Mjroots:, @Moxy:, @Bromley86: Now that consensus has been reached regarding the references in the lead section. We can now stipulate as to whether there is any foundation for Iran to also be known as Persia. In the media, the country is referred to in its modern context as Iran; however articles referring back to Iran's past use the term Persia instead. As sources I have also linked into this discussion before, they agree that Iran was called Persia until 1935. This could be elaborated in another section such as Etymology or as I originally proposed: Name. Either way, the lead sentence ought to be changed so that is reflects on what is popularly known. To some people, calling Iran Persia may seem fine, but to a reader from south-east Asia or south America, they may not distinguish that both Iran and Persia refer to the same country. Wikipedia ought to be geopolitically neutral; the wisest edit I can fathom so far is to change the lead sentence to thus read:

Iran, formerly known as Persia, officially the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Does this have the support of other editors? Vormeph (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Just to emphasise, this proposal relates only to the Lead and in no way reduces the likelihood of a discussion of "also known as Persia" in the Body. As with the earlier successful proposal, please don't debate here (we have a few other places for that). Please indicate whether you support or oppose this proposal. Also, please feel free to notify people who've already commented on this precise question, but please do note Wikipedia:Canvassing. Bromley86 (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Despite my own admonition not to comment here, I'd just like to point out that I messaged HistoryofIran, as he was the originator of a longer version of the suggested text. He's previously expressed a desire to stay out of the broader debate, but he may make an appearace for this. So if we could wait a day or so before closing, that'd be great. Bromley86 (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Please for achieving a consensus, stop re-creating a new section to repeat your repeated opinion repeatedly. As I wrote to Moxy I support his suggestion that is "traditionally and commonly known as Persia" since it can cover all opinions to stop dispute. We have also reference for this above. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @Moxy: @Mjroots: @Maproom: @Alborz Fallah: Here, I'd like to add another reference (book) entitled : "Patriot of Persia: Muhammad Mossadegh and a Tragic Anglo-American Coup", where the author who is Christopher de Bellaigue in author's note mentions : "Persia is the old European name for Iran. Iran is an even older, indigenous name. In the 1930s Reza Shah told foreigners to stop using the name Persia, but some ignored him Later on his son Mohammad Reza Shah revoked the ban ... I use both terms interchangeably" [1] (Patriot of Persia: Muhammad Mossadegh and a Tragic Anglo-American Coup) Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Finally, If you don't rely on references, you don't have any other alternative to rely on. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Here, I add another reference (book) entitled : "A Persian Odyssey: Iran Revisited", where it confirms that "The name Persia has been Synonymous with Iran throughout centuries." (See The Link Here) [2] ("A Persian Odyssey: Iran Revisited"), Thus, this voting is illegitimate and invalid, since you're ignoring references and relying on repeated baseless opinions (See Ad nauseam). Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Adding two other references (books)
First: title: "Persia (RLE Iran A): History and Heritage" quote: (Page 13) "Today, in English, in other European languages, and in this booklet, the two words 'Persia' and 'Iran' are Synonymous , while the latter is the sole indigenous designation" (See The Link Here) [3].
Second: title: "Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity: Disciplinary and Regional Perspectives (Volume 1) (Oxford University Press)" quote: (Page 266) " “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" (See The Link Here) [4]. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
      • My suggestion is to keep current situation i.e. "Iran, also known as Persia" , by using 4 references below. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the vote of

Rwenonah , just I remember when he told Vormeph : "Vormeph, your self-appointed requirements from earlier have been met. "Can you point out a news article that refers to Iran as Persia in a modern sense? There's a challenge for ya. If you are successful, then I will retract my argument." Persia is used to refer to Iran the country in a political sense, today, by native Iranians, according to multiple published, reliable sources, including news articles and academic books. Now please follow through on your own commitment and stop beating a dead horse." but his opinion was changed suddenly! Anyway ... Aidepikiwnirotide (talk
) 02:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ISBN 978-0061844713
    . In the 1930s Reza Shah told foreigners to stop using the name Persia, but some ignored him
  2. ISBN 978-0967210155
    . The name Persia has been synonymous with Iran throughout centuries
  3. ISBN 978-0415613354
    . Today, in English, in other European languages, and in this booklet, the two words 'Persia' and 'Iran' are synonymous, while the latter is the sole indigenous designation
  4. ISBN 978-0195374926
    . ""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
@Bromley86: You cannot remove my opinion in talk page! Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@Vormeph: Please stop it ! You cannot vote from side! OK? Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots:, @Moxy:, @Maproom:

My 2 cents: there are two meaning for "known" in this context:

  • Official name: this refers to how the country is officially (endonym, even in other languages) called by itself and its people. In this context, Iran (officially the IRoI) is formerly also known as Persia
  • The name by which it is called: this is how people call or identify the country (exonym), regardless of official status. In this context, we have enough sources to say that Iran is also known as Persia

My understanding is that the "known" in the lead refers to the second option, the exonym, not the endonym, and therefore the lead should reflect that. On a separate note, this is the 3rd or 4th time this is brought up in a month or so, with a massive POV pushing for a fast consensus without dissenting debate. My feeling is that this will be brought up again and again until certain editors get their POV. That is not how WP should work. UCaetano (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest that "known as" in the lead of country articles is more correctly aligned with "commonly known as" than with "sometimes known as", and that Iran is not commonly known as Persia (i.e. it's more
Burma
). Certainly, we've not had a flood of sources that indicate it's commonly known as; that's not to say that it doesn't belong in the Body, but not everything in the Body belongs in the Lead.
Regarding the fast push/POV, I'll just point out that I arrived at this debate reverting a removal of this sort of detail from the Body[3] and am pushing for the removal of AKA from the Lead (a) because it's not been shown to be correct, IMO, and (b) because it appeared that both sides of the discussion were coalescing around an alternative suggested by someone who I assume, from their editing history, is a subject matter expert. Given that, it made sense to see if we could nail this and get the lock lifted. Bromley86 (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, let's hear the editors who've participated before: @

McGeddon:, @LouisAragon:, you've all contributed to this article and participated in this discussion before. It has been brought up again by the same user. Would you mind sharing your views and votes? Thanks. UCaetano (talk
) 12:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion

The consensus is drawing to a close, and now I ask @Moxy: and @Mjroots: to make an informed decision as to the state of the matter and Iran artcile. My fear is that once the article is unlocked, it will be heavily vandalised with edits that go conrary to the consensus reached. Regardless, the proposals that have been adopted shall now be implemented to bring this controversial issue to a close. Vormeph (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to wait a little while longer to give the others that UCaetano pinged a chance. I'm especially interested in what Ljl has to say, as he was the one who was first to take it to talk re. your original Lead edit. I suspect the process will go much smoother if the two people who originally reverted you are on board; Rwenonah is now, so you're half way there. Bromley86 (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Agreed,
voting != consensus, and this is just another page in the same discussion, let's not pretend the new sections make it different. UCaetano (talk
) 08:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
@UCaetano:, @Bromley86: The end of the week is approaching, and I think it's time that we now submit the proposals as having consensus reached. Neither of your proposed participants have voted which means they lack interest in the issue. The Iran article has been closed for enough time now, and I think everyone agrees to a mutual understanding that the lead section ought to be changed in some way or another, thus be parallel to the proposals aforementioned. Vormeph (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I fail to see how a new consensus has been reached on this issue, so IMHO we have no choice but to keep the previous consensus. UCaetano (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@UCaetano: And can you clarify what that previous consensus was? Vormeph (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
By definition, before your first edit into the subject which lead to the discussion, here I guess (just for the lead, not for the content further down). UCaetano (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@
Rwenonah: and @LjL: I have my gratitude and apologies to offer which I will write personally because I did not mean for our discussion to go this far and I'm sorry it has led to moderators getting involved and closing the article for everyone. I cannot pardon ignorance with knowledge, because there was no prerogative by reason to effect it. I think everyone agrees that this issue deserves to be closed and for @Aidepikiwnirotide: to view this issue from an objective point of view. The whole point of a lead section is to establish points, regardless of how many references back it. A point that I've raised is that Persia is formerly known as Iran. THat can be debated in another section; but it would be wrong for a new reader from somewhere like Brazil or Kenya to read the lead section as 'Iran, also known as Persia'. That implies Persia has equal usage with Iran; much like America has equal usage with the USA. But it is not so, as Iranian officials do not call their country Persia unless referring to pre-1935 history. The media follows suit, and the argument resolves. Can we now reopen the article and implement the proposals made? Vormeph (talk
) 04:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm less "on board" than I am just exasperated with this discussion, which seems to go on endlessly with constant new sections and appeals to what the Iranian government calls itself and weird inexplicable highlighting. Since consensus seems to be against the edit, let's just stick with the current version of the article.

Rwenonah (talk
) 12:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@
Rwenonah: No, I beg to differ. There is an issue with agreeing to the fact Iran is also known as Persia; because it is not so in every part of the world. It may be so in Iran and amongst the Iranian diaspora; but that does not legitimise claims to use that statement. Wikipedia should not be biased to what people give word to their country. Everything has to be taken from an objective POV. @UCaetano: Remember that discussion we had regarding the government of Iran, whereby even though Iran proclaims itself an Islamic Republic, it wasn't a suitable name to use as the government. You instead used an external source, amended the government type to what it is today. I was against that but I agreed to what consensus has it, and I accept it. Now, for this situation, we need to look at things objectively and ask whether everyone would think Iran is synonymous with Persia. Persia remember used to have different land borders, and had different customs hundreds of years ago; it is very much a valid point to say that Iran and Persia were indeed different systems on the same land. But, I don't know what language I can try to convince you people to end this predicament. We can end it right here just by renaming the lead section as Iran, formerly known as Persia. It makes logical sense because we don't assume any context behind either usage, and we agree that the word Persia became archaic in 1935 when it was decreed by the Shah. If we say that Iran is also known as Persia, then it would be correct to say stuff like Islamic Republic of Persia or the Persian government. It doesn't make sense because Persia is an ethnicity, and the country we call Iran has always been called so by its own native people. So, for the natives to say that Persia is more correct is a slight understatement. But that's my own opinion; valid objecftions. Vormeph (talk
) 12:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Islamic republic is a government, but Iran is a country, where each country can have a government, such that article is speaking about country of Iran and not only government of Iran (i.e. a part of article). Btw, we've 4 new references above e.g. title: "Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity: Disciplinary and Regional Perspectives (Volume 1) (Oxford University Press)" quote: (Page 266) " “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" (See The Link Here) [1]. Any comment on this reference is appreciated. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ISBN 978-0195374926
    . ""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

[1] [2] [3] [4]

References

  1. ISBN 978-0195374926
    . ""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
  2. ISBN 978-0415613354
    . Today, in English, in other European languages, and in this booklet, the two words 'Persia' and 'Iran' are synonymous, while the latter is the sole indigenous designation
  3. ISBN 978-0061844713
    . Persia is the old European name for Iran. Iran is an even older, indigenous name. In the 1930s Reza Shah told foreigners to stop using the name Persia, but some ignored him. Later on his son Mohammad Reza Shah revoked the ban ... I use both terms interchangeably
  4. ISBN 978-0967210155
    . The name Persia has been synonymous with Iran throughout centuries
@Aidepikiwnirotide: Notice your use of the word 'served'. You just defeated your own argument by implying that Persia served (used to) be the international name of the country. :-)))) Hence, the proposal to change the lead to: Iran, formerly Persia, officially the Islamic Republic of Iran. I see now you're coming to reason here. Just a few more steps and you'll come to your senses with reality. Vormeph (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
@Vormeph: Oxford University Press: (1) Iran and Persia are synonymous. (2) Iran has been used ... Persia has served ... Stop Please! Btw I try not to response you personally anymore! Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
@Aidepikiwnirotide: Observe how the Wikipedian crawls through every bit of information to contradict reality. He will continue to think that Iran and Persia are synonymous. True, Persia has served its usage until 1935; Iran has been used since. The door to reality is a strong one, yet he now resorts to ignore me lest he ignores reality altogether. How delusional some people have become! Vormeph (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: & @Moxy: A week has past since the proposal was implemented. Can we now say a consensus has been reached regarding the issue? The Iran article ought to be reopened to the public and the appropriate edits made. @LjL: suggested a compromise of historically known as Persia which I'm also happy to accept if that would mean winning her support of this proposal. Vormeph (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

historically doesn't cover other contexts like cultural (we say Persian Carpet, Persian Cat, ...) etc ... I invite you again to see 4 new references above which confirm Iran and Persia are synonymous. We don't have anything except references to rely on. Meanwhile, I refer you to Oxford Dictionary which defines Persian (NOUN) : A native or inhabitant of ancient or modern Persia (or Iran), or a person of Persian descent and Persian (ADJECTIVE) : Relating to ancient Persia or modern Iran or its people or language. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If we said "historically and culturally known as Persia", would that be acceptable.
Iff we can get consensus, then I am prepared to unlock the article. Mjroots (talk
) 16:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
@Mjroots: Would you please share your opinion about 4 new references above which confirm Iran and Persia are synonymous? It could be helpful if everybody expresses his/her opinions about these references. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
AGF that the quotes are genuine, at least 3 of the 4 are by recognized major publishers and meet
WP:RS. Not 100% sure re #2, but AGF there that is also meets RS. Mjroots (talk
) 16:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
@Mjroots: Thank you so much for your opinion (I copied/pasted all quotes, to be sure about phrases, you can see also their related links). now this fact that Iran and Persia are synonymous (according to 3 references belonging to major publishers) supports Iran, also known as Persia. What do you think about this? Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
@Mjroots: It's ironic you propose that. The original proposal from the very beginning was to rename the section historically known as Persia before I got threatened/harassed/reported. I guess we're back in square zero again, bravo! @LjL: See, what you've done? Vormeph (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
It's not really about what I think though, is it. I might put the odd suggestion forward in an effort to get you all to find common ground, but I'm not taking sides as far as I can avoid it. You'll remember that I didn't block anyone although I probably could have. I prefer that you all thrash issues out if at all possible. We do seem to be getting close to agreement here. Mjroots (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
@Mjroots: @Moxy: @LjL: but, I believe in such situation the worst thing is the silence. Which one has more priority? reality? or finishing as soon as possible? Btw, please don't forget when an opinion is published by a major and prestigious publisher it has been reviewed carefully and several times by many specialist and thus it's not comparable with an opinion that is said by a user (especially when we don't know who is behind of each username), so please consider these important issues ... We don't discuss to satisfy a person or ... but also to achieve reality. finally, I guess you know well what is Ad nauseam that is used by some users ... I wonder if my references are confirmed but ignored and not considered ...Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we are back to square one, with no new consensus reached. Since the discussion keeps repeating itself, @

WP:DR. Everyone (myself included) has repeated the same arguments a million times, and we haven't moved an inch. UCaetano (talk
) 08:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@
McGeddon: You owe me an apology for your discrepancy. Vormeph (talk
) 09:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Please read
WP:OWN this article, so stop acting as if you do. This is clear: we failed to reach a new consensus, so the previous prevails. If you don't like it, feel free to open a mediation request. UCaetano (talk
) 11:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
@
McGeddon: :@Moxy: Because of various opinions, the best is relying on the most prestigious references (publisher, title of book, ...), in other word, we have to respect most major and prestigious references. I provided 4 references which confirm Iran and Persia are synonymous. So, I invite all users to share their opinion about these references (Mjroots has shared his/her opinion about these references (highlighted above with yellow i.e. "AGF that the quotes are genuine, at least 3 of the 4 are by recognized major publishers and meet WP:RS. Not 100% sure re #2 (In following list means reference #4), but AGF there that is also meets RS.")). You can find references below. accordingly, we can decide. (Once again, We don't know who is behind of each username (a specialist or ...) so we need relying on most prestigious references). Aidepikiwnirotide (talk
) 12:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
For me there's no question that both names are commonly used interchangeably, so the previously standing consensus ("also known as...") should stay. But now @Vormeph: simply shifted his argument so that no matter how many references we present, he doesn't think it should be in the top section. My opinion is still the same as my vote: strongly oppose this change, and keep the previous consensus. UCaetano (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
@UCaetano: You cannot reject the majority's view here. The lead section has been voted in favour of references being stripped and the lead section renamed: Iran, formerly known as Persia, officially the Islamic Republic of Iran. There, people agree on that. Now, @Mjroots: it's time to unlock the thread and implement the changes. Just so everyone is aware, @UCaetano: is Iranian himself (it says so on his userpage) so he naturally has a bias towards Iran and his argument that Iran and Persia are used interchangeably. For argument's sake, he needs to terminate his bias and execute the actions of the majority faithfully lest he be discredited as being a worthy diplomat. Vormeph (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
@UCaetano:Yes, the reason of Vormeph is clear : because these references have been confirmed by Mjroots, some of his/her quotes (repeatedly without reference! (Ad nauseam)) : "(1) but Iran is not synonymous with Persia" "(2) Naturally any Iranian would say that Persia is synonymous with Iran due to their patriotic nature" "(3) Many of the arguments that forwarded in favour of the notion that Iran is synonymous (i.e. known as) with Persia are fuelled by a patriotic/nationalist ..." (conclusion: e.g. Oxford university has Iranian patriotic sentiment to publish such a book!) "(4) You have to face reality with a firm heart and accept that Iran is not synonymous with Persia" "(5) you're just not realising that Iran and Persia are not synonyms" Yes, he/she intends to ignore references to achieve his/her purpose. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
@Vormeph:, please read WP:Voting again. WP is not a democracy, the "majority's view" has no power (even more when it's 5 vs. 4 editors). And no, I'm not Iranian (and nowhere in my talk page it says so). Please stop attacking other editors, if you keep acting like this, I'll have no choice but to report you to admins again, and this time I'm sure they won't be as lenient as before. There is no new consensus here and it is clear that the discussion isn't getting anywhere. Feel free to open a mediation request if you feel strongly about your point. UCaetano (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
@Vormeph: You as a non-Iranian (as you claim) it's very strange supporting Iranian government fanatically or participating in Iran and other related Iranian articles more than any other articles ... Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:ROPE and let him show it. UCaetano (talk
) 14:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@UCaetano: The proposal was put in motion and has gained favour for the edits made. Iran is historically (pre-1935) known as Persia. Iran is not exactly synonymous with Persia. When will you come to face that reality? Vormeph (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
According to you: "I don't care how many references you can produce to support your argument; they are not for the lead section. In fact, over-citation of content actually challenges its authenticity, just as much as under-citation." But again, we have not reached a new consensus, feel free to open a mediation request if you feel strongly about it. I'm sure no editor here will object to that. Thanks. UCaetano (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
          • About the fallacy of 1935: According to reference #3 above has been confirmed : "In the 1930s Reza Shah told foreigners to stop using the name Persia, but some ignored him. Later on his son Mohammad Reza Shah revoked the ban (See reference #3). Well, "Vormeph has said above: "You fail to take into account that any decrees made before 1979 were annulled following the revolution." (means revoking the ban by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi)). Conclusion: "If we have to ignore any decrees made before 1979", we have to ignore request of Reza Shah too. (i.e. his request of 1935 to stop saying the name Persia). We cannot ignore one (i.e. revoking the ban by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) and rely on another one (i.e. 1935 by Reza Shah ) which may be in our favor! Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


@Aidepikiwnirotide: So, now today: is it called Islamic Republic of Iran or Islamic Republic of Persia? Which is official, and why? Vormeph (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Islamic Republic of Iran has been chosen as official political name by political government which has been mentioned in current Iran article and so here this is not disputed issue, whereas, both Iran and Persia are name of the country belongs to people such that can have a political government and are not related to style and manner of current political government, where all political government always have been unstable and temporary (like previous). The political government is only permitted to choose a temporary political name i.e. Islamic Republic of Iran which is not the topic of this discussion, because this name has been mentioned in current Iran article, where the article is speaking about a country and not only a political government i.e. only a part of this article. Btw, you cannot SPLIT a name, so you cannot SPLIT {"Islamic+Republic+of+Iran"} as a name! but you can use/don't use entire the name! Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
@Aidepikiwnirotide: You're in an empty theatre mate; no one here has the slighest clue of what you're writing about. Vormeph (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
And along with references above! Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
@Mjroots:, @Moxy: As far as the terms provide, the lead section has been motioned to be renamed: Iran, formerly known as Persia, officially the Islamic Republic of Iran. I've also come across some well-reputed media outlets that refer to Iran historically by just Iran, not Persia. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/17/rafsanjani-daughter-criticised-meeting-leader-banned-sect-iran This article for example makes no mention of Persia even though it is a semi-historical article about Iran pertaining to Persia. It does show that the name Persia is increasingly becoming archaic and obsolete. Because of these findings, I am happy to accept either formerly or traditionally in the lead section, only on the condition that all references pertaining to Persia in the said section are moved to the Etymology section or removed as required. Vormeph (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it hasn't been motioned to be renamed. There isn't even a majority of editors voting either way, there's a tie in the number of votes. Please stop trying to push your POV. UCaetano (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Counterexample for : "This article for example makes no mention of Persia even though it is a semi-historical article about Iran pertaining to Persia. It does show that the name Persia is increasingly becoming archaic and obsolete": (See the map) Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@UCaetano: Then whose POV should I forward? An ass? We all have to make a justified opinion of things to make a rational decision; of course if you need discourse to that then I suggest the former. Time for compromise! I'm happy to accept either traditionally known as, as per @Moxy:'s suggestion; or historically known as as per @LjL:'s attempt at compromise. Hopefully this will gain the support of other editors. Vormeph (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
User Vormeph has been blocked for one month for consistent
WP:NPA violations, so he won't be taking part in this discussion any longer. UCaetano (talk
) 13:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Vormeph now indeffed, talk page access blocked. Maybe we can now draw this to a close and I an unlock the article.
    • That's how I see it. Now, do we have agreement that Iran was formerly known as Persia and that such info can be in the lede and article, suitably referenced? If so, I will happily unlock the article. Just nobody start on the subject of Iranian cats, or there'll be big trouble. Mjroots (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@
Rwenonah after his vote he said: "let's just stick with the current version of the article" ... How did you achieve such conclusion? I'm sure that you have read carefully the context of all parts of this discussion ... Meanwhile, I never heard of Iranian cat ... The best is avoiding to conclude emotional, since it is not a personal issue and we're not discussing to satisfy a person or a group, but also to achieve reality and of course relying on references Aidepikiwnirotide (talk
) 16:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@
ISBN 978-0061844713. Persia is the old European name for Iran. Iran is an even older, indigenous name.") So, when you say "Iran, formerly known as Persia" simply means that Iran is a new name for Persia!!! that is totally wrong, because Iran is older than Persia. Please, consider the facts. (facts means references) Aidepikiwnirotide (talk
) 19:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@Aidepikiwnirotide: - replace "formerly" with "also"? Mjroots (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@
ISBN 978-0195374926. "“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.) Iran and Persia are synonymous. Hope, it would be clear enough and helpful. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk
) 22:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@Mjroots: In my opinion, the more precise phrase is : "Iran, also known as Persia in the west or in the western sources". Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner
:Online 07:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2016

Iran is correctly pronounced as /ɪˈrɑːn/; and /aɪˈræn/ is an awkward pronunciation invented by American politicians! Please remove /aɪˈræn/ from the article!

SadiSheriff (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide
reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S 
23:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The sources listed for the pronunciation (Oxford dictionaries) include only the right pronunciation (/ɪˈrɑːn/), so /aɪˈræn/ should be deleted unless there is a source for it. 193.170.152.33 (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Hello SadiSheriff/193.170.152.33: I am rejecting this request because the second pronunciation is actually American English. Whilst I personally use the British pronunciation, the American way is also correct and therefore I'm not removing this. st170etalk 13:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


Not done: Hello St170e,

Well I believe nouns should be pronounced as they are! And Iran is a noun and should be pronounced as it is; not as it has wrongly changed to, in the past decade! Please refer to the following resources for the correct pronunciations of the noun Iran, from a variety of different sources:

1- Merriam Webster Dictionary [3]

2- Cambridge Dictionaries Online [4]

3- A good article from International Business Times on how to pronounce Iran! [5]

4- Oxford Dictionaries [6]

5- Collins Dictionary [7]

Please note that 80 percent of the above resources are actually American Publications.

Cheers, SadiSheriff (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Iran
  2. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=sJWzAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=%22Iranians+are+here+defined+as+speakers+of+Iranian+languages%22&source=bl&ots=BRGFXsfPRM&sig=8qVbMxm6_8zIwzOgLQB67aLLYbM&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Iranians%20are%20here%20defined%20as%20speakers%20of%20Iranian%20languages%22&f=false
  3. ^ 1- Merriam Webster Dictionary.
  4. ^ 2- Cambridge Dictionaries Online.
  5. ^ 3- A good article from International Business Times.
  6. ^ 4- Oxford Dictionaries.
  7. ^ 5- Collins Dictionary.
Not done: See previous decline. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Currently there are two pronunciations listed in this article. One of them is included in all the sources mentioned here, the other one lacks reliable sources. Why should a pronunciation be there without a source? Just because someone thinks it's the American pronunciation? Please either add a source for it or remove it. Also, please take a look at source number 3 above (the ibtimes article), the wrong pronunciation is considered disrespectful. 193.170.152.67 (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Please stop re-opening this edit request. Iran has two pronunciations; American English-speaking people will use the latter pronunciation. There are a lot of differences between British English and American English and the differences need to be respected. st170etalk 21:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but this is not how Wikipedia works. You cannot just claim something with no source and put it into an article. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, "published" sources. I don't care if that pronunciation remains, given that a source is added for it. 78.104.164.56 (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I note that Merriam-Webster (cited above) lists "\ī-ˈran\" as one of the pronunciations, which, going by this guide, would approximately translate to /aɪˈræn/. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

آرین گاشی

Iran VrntrickZpoint — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.232.201.188 (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2016

39.54.184.41 (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC) i want to edit that page there is something wrong in that page

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.232.201.188 (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Other Recognized Religions

On the Wikipedia page

Bahá'í Faith in Iran it starts with "The Bahá'í Faith in Iran is the country's second-largest religion after Islam..." I question that it isn't listed at all in the sidebar section Other recognized religions. Could it be that Bahá'í isn't officially recognized? ☺ Dick Kimball (talk
) 17:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Spoken Languages

I respectfully suggest that after "Persian" insert its endonym "(Farsi)" to clarify that they are the same and that Farsi has not been omitted. I was just now under that misimpression. ☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not agree. See this: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~karimi/Persian%20or%20Farsi.pdf. Moreover, using the word "Farsi" is discouraged by the Academy of Persian language in Tehran. (I don't have an English source for this, but you can see this: http://www.payvand.com/news/05/dec/1063.html)

talk
) 19:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

correcting the GDP(PPP)

According to the International Monetary Fund Estimates for 2016, Iran's GDP (PPP) has been 1,439,295 not $1,015 billion[1] and 17,251 per capita. Autoconfirmed users, Please correct it! Thanks.

As a matter of
WP policy we don't report forecasts (Besides 2016 is not over yet). Cheers :) 47.17.27.232 (talk
) 11:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Iran and Russia "strategic allies"?

This statement is deeply flawed IMO. See this good analysis entitled "The Russian-Iranian alliance that wasn't" for more info. 47.17.16.137 (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

correcting the GDP(PPP)

According to the International Monetary Fund Estimates for 2016, Iran's GDP (PPP) has been 1,439,295 not $1,015 billion[1] and 17,251 per capita. Autoconfirmed users, Please correct it! Thanks.

As a matter of
WP policy we don't report forecasts (Besides 2016 is not over yet). Cheers :) 47.17.27.232 (talk
) 11:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Iran and Russia "strategic allies"?

This statement is deeply flawed IMO. See this good analysis entitled "The Russian-Iranian alliance that wasn't" for more info. 47.17.16.137 (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

More details

There are a lot info on climate change in Iran and pollutions in Tehran. Industry develops. Should be more details in relevant section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persian2015 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Iran and Russia
"strategic allies"?

This statement is deeply flawed IMO. See this good analysis entitled "The Russian-Iranian alliance that wasn't" for more info.47.17.27.96 (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it is good to be critical of these synthesis statements here on Wikipedia. Unfortunately it is increasingly common to see these kinds of synthesis statements here, in particular from US users I am afraid. In some countries, the press and media are very quick to establish self-assembled "truths". Often based on hear-say, popular beliefs in politicized circles, biased informants or activists opinions they quickly become "facts". "Facts" that no one rarely dares to confront in fear of shitstorms and wild accusations. However, no matter how many times a hypothesis, idea or plain lie is mediated and proclaimed as true will it ever be true.
Wikipedia is not a news media. We need solid references when we publish stuff and unfortunately press and media articles are increasingly unreliable as such. They can give an idea about the current public opinion, trends in the political environment and culturally biased popular ideas of its time, but seldom nothing more than that. Even Ritzau is increasingly biased, politicized and unreliable as a source of events. Many of their press releases are just political statements or interpretative commentaries of events, some of which might never even have happened. RhinoMind (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
We don't see any mention of Iran in the Russia article (first red flag). What about 10-15 years delays in the deliveries of S300 or the Bushehr nuclear power plant? Mostly 2 useless objects for Iran since it has its own Bavar 373 and has enough oil or gas for power-plants and has a fairly well developed domestic nuclear industry.47.17.27.96 (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

parthian dynasty

As part of time table in the general information of Iran: One of persian dynasties in the iran's history was parthian empire (247 BC–224 AD) and I think, it should be inserted to the list of persian dynasties of Iran. I inserted the wohl list, because after this review, the nummber of counting must be corrected as 3 for "parthia" and 4 for "sassanid" to 8 for "Constitution amended" instead 3 for "sassanid" to 7 for "Constitution amended".

uncorrected version:

| established_event1 =

Median Empire
| established_date1 = c. 678 BC | established_event2 = Achaemenid Empire | established_date2 = 550 BC | established_event3 =
Sassanid Empire
| established_date3 = 224 AD[2] | established_event4 =
Safavid Empire
| established_date4 = 1501[3] | established_event5 =
Islamic Republic
| established_date5 = 1 April 1979 | established_event6 =
Current constitution
| established_date6 = 24 October 1979 | established_event7 =
Constitution amended
| established_date7 = 28 July 1989

corrected version:

| established_event1 =

Median Empire
| established_date1 = c. 678 BC | established_event2 = Achaemenid Empire | established_date2 = 550 BC | established_event3 =Parthian Empire | established_date3 = 247 BC | established_event4 =
Sassanid Empire
| established_date4 = 224 AD[2] | established_event5 =
Safavid Empire
| established_date5 = 1501[3] | established_event6 =
Islamic Republic
| established_date6 = 1 April 1979 | established_event7 =
Current constitution
| established_date7 = 24 October 1979 | established_event8 =
Constitution amended
| established_date8 = 28 July 1989

}} Sem70 (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b "Report for Selected Country Groups and Subjects (PPP valuation of country GDP)". IMF. Retrieved 13 June 2016.
  2. ^ a b Alireza Shapur Shahbazi (2005), "The History of the Idea of Iran", in Vesta Curtis ed., Birth of the Persian Empire, IB Tauris, London, p. 108: "Similarly the collapse of Sassanian Eranshahr in AD 650 did not end Iranians' national idea. The name 'Iran' disappeared from official records of the Saffarids, Samanids, Buyids, Saljuqs and their successor. But one unofficially used the name Iran, Eranshahr, and similar national designations, particularly Mamalek-e Iran or "Iranian lands", which exactly translated the old Avestan term Ariyanam Daihunam. On the other hand, when the Safavids (not Reza Shah, as is popularly assumed) revived a national state officially known as Iran, bureaucratic usage in the Ottoman empire and even Iran itself could still refer to it by other descriptive and traditional appellations".
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Andrew J. Newman 2006 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Caspian sea

Unfortunately the article has lack of information on Caspian Sea and etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.148.89.98 (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Kim Kardashian

Why did you add Kim Kardashian?! 217.164.67.136 (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done by another - vandalism by someone who thinks they are funny - Arjayay (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

De facto Nagorno Karbakh

It is first time i see a country being bordered by a de facto country and it is being mentioned on the official page? NKR has no jurisdictional power and has not been recognized by any UN member including Armenia! If this case applies here why it is not mentioned in other countries? 89.211.185.77 (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 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:

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lead

  • There's relatively more info on history of the country than most other countries, but that's ok, since History of Iran is a major subject. I tried to summarize it a bit. There is no need to mention so many years in the lead of Iran, and even in the lead of History of Iran. I replaced them with millenniums and centuries.
  • "Proto-Elamite and Elamite kingdoms" was change to "Elamite" with a wikilink to Elam, which is shorter yet more accurate.
  • I summarised sentences about the Medes, as well as the territorial extent of the Achaemenids. There was much emphasis on the geographical extent of the Achaemenids, while the empire was significant for achievements in multiple areas, such as its form of government. I replaced "Iran" with "Persia" in some sentences to make it more accurate.
  • Changed "Manichaeism and Zoroastrianism " to "Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism" as Zoroastrianism is more important.
  • Many people don't know Arab rule over Iran was only 2 centuries. so I added that "and after two centuries, new Iranian dynasties emerged", adding an important fact regarding the Iranian identity throughout its history: "and although again conquered by Turks and later the Mongols, the Iranian national identity was always reasserted, developing a distinct cultural entity" with a wikilink to Greater Iran aka Iranian Cultural Continent.
  • Significance of Iran under Nader Shah is almost exclusively due to its military power, I mentioned it.
  • "Following a coup d'état instigated by the U.K. and the U.S. in 1953, Iran gradually became closely aligned with the West but grew increasingly autocratic." I think this line of information should be somehow summarized. But I kept it as I don't have any alternative. Note that the subject is "Iran", not "Contemporary history of Iran".

--Z 10:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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:

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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:

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 58 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:

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrong national anthem

The national anthem played instrumental in the top of the page is wrong, it have to be replaced by the good one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.233.227.191 (talk) 16:57, 13 June 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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iran/Archive_17&oldid=1148102480"