Talk:List of monarchs of Iran

Untitled

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

Gaumata is not Bardiya

Cambyses and Bardiya are brothers; and Cambyses went to conquer Egypt (525bc) getting killed on the way back. No one ever found out if it was murder. However, his brother Bardiya never found out because he too was murdered to end the family of Cyrus. The Median priests (Magi) selected for their prophetic Mesh-King (their Christos-Xisuthros) one of themselves by the name of Smerdis for the throne so that the murder of Bardiya must occur together with Cambyses (which is why the suspicion of murder of Cambyses also). The name Gaumata is a christening name of a Messiah which means Cow-Mother (Gau-Mata). And in religion it is Maya the mother of Buddha where we find several Gaumata named in India and in China during this period of Cyrus (560-522bc) until Darius which honors 1460-year completion of world (365 sothic leap days) or 1508-year (365 solar leap days). GOOGLE it, if WikiPedia doesn't have it. Thus Smerdis by being christened as Smerdis-Gaumata is being declared the approved fufilled prophecy of God by Magi. The Magi had stopped Jerusalem from being one of the temples built by The Throne (Cyrus) from 526-520bc because the faith itself taught their "christ" would be Persian Mede Magi, not a Jew. This is why three pagan Magi opposing such teaching would be significant to a Christian record. The chart posting a (?) is thus confusing as if another name for Bardiya, and is very faulty like the YouTube evangelist who says his first name is Pseudo (not a name, it means false as in pseudo-science or pseudo-astronomy). So if you see Pseudo-Smerdis this is inaprapro since it is Smerdis being a pseudo-Bardiya. It is significant that Egypt new year Thoth 1 falls on January 1 for these 4 years between leap day 525-521bc. 75.86.64.46 (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

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

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)

They did control large parts of iran according to the maps and descriptions of territorials controls, so the ghurids should be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by History of Persia (talk • contribs) 02:54, 31 July 2015 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.163.64 (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Also for example, Elamites (indigenous people of Iran) were not Persians, since Persians came from the north. The Arab Caliphs were never "Kings" of Persia. They were invaders like the Huns, Barbarians, Mongols, etc. And also any person of non-Persian ancestry should be removed from this page because the list looks like a giant list of random people. It's lost track of the article's main objective; to list Persian Kings. And the design aspect of the list looks hideous, revise it and add pictures beside each king/queen, perhaps for the one's we don't have a picture, add a symbol of their dynasty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.163.64 (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Alp-arslan.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Alp-arslan.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

File:BattleofIssus333BC-mosaic-detail1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:BattleofIssus333BC-mosaic-detail1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Old Persian Empire? Middle Persian Empire?

I feel that there is something of a nationalistic bias in presenting the Achaemenids as the "Old" Persian Empire and, especially, in merging the Arsacids and Sassanids into a single "Middle" Persian Empire.

• It implicitly states that other periods do not represent 'true' Persian history somehow - when it is becoming increasingly apparent that, for example, the Seleukid/Macedonian Empire was largely focussed on its eastern territories and, in many ways, a continuation of the Achaemenid's empire in structure and culture (Kuhrt & Sherwin-White From Samarkhand to Sardis being the most important work taking this perspective)
• It suggests that these dynasties are to be understood only as periods within the History of Iran (Yet uses the now outdated, Western term, "Persia"), rather than as independent periods in their own right. I'm not saying that there was no continuity - quite the opposite! But it seems arbitrary to recognise that continuity only when the guy who sat on the throne happened to have an Indo-Iranian mothertongue. And, on what grounds can the Medians be cut off from the "Old Persian Empire" - the latter held, initially, the same position in the international political system, the same religion, and much of the same culture (Though this early period is not well attested). Indeed, the Classical Greeks usually failed to distinguish the Medians from the Achaemenid Persians at all.
• In particular, it merges the Arsacids & Sassanids into a single "Middle Persian Empire," which ignores the substantial cultural and ethnic differences between the two states. The Arsacids were a semi-nomadic people from the northeast who spoke a related, but different language from their subjects (Arsacid Pahlavi) and ruled as an ethnic elite (with some parallels to the practice of the Seleukids whom they replaced - indeed their coins continue to include inscriptions in Greek), and the foundation of the Sassanid dynasty is frequently represented as a reaction by the Persian people against rule by such foreigners. That is, there is a substantial break between the two dynasties which makes lumping them together odd.
• It doesn't fit with standard terminology, which is to refer to the dynasties by name. It is particularly confusing because the term "Middle Persian" refers to a period in the history of Persian language and literature. That period stretches roughly from 350/300BC-ish to AD 800/900, far longer than the Parthian & Sassanid periods (250 BC - AD 651). Most attestations of middle Persian language and literature date from the Sassanid period or later Middle Persian literature.
• Likewise, the term "Old Persian" primarally has a linguistic meaning, which overlaps with the Achaemenid dynasty, but begins substantially earlier.
• It doesn't fit with Wikipedia's own terminology, which elsewhere refers to the Achaemenids, Parthians/Arsacids & Sassanids, e.g.: History of Iran, Template:History of Iran, Template:Iran topics
• It makes it harder to find the individual dynasties from the "contents" box at the top of the page - there's no hyperlink for the Sassanids
• The division into broad periods is at odds with the presentation of other similar pages listing rulers of long-lasting cultural units, which tend to break things down to individual dynasties (except when multiple dynasties reign concurrently). E.g.: List of Chinese monarchs, List of Armenian kings, List of Byzantine emperors, List of Danish monarchs, List of monarchs of Korea, List of Indian monarchs of Holy Roman Emperors List of pharaohs, List of Vietnamese monarchs

For these reasons I think that the "Old Persian Empire" should be renamed "Achaemenid Empire" and "Middle Persian Empire" split into two sections: "Parthian Empire / Arsacid Dynasty" and "Sassanid Empire". I feel like it would be good to split up the "Arab Caliphs" (The switch from Ummayyad to Abbasid represents a significant cultural, political and social shift) and "Modern Empire" sections as well, but I know less about these periods, and am willing to bow to the wisdom of those more expert than I. Furius (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Grouping Seleucids and Parthians

I reverted an edit combining the Seleucid and Parthian dynasties under a single setting and it looks like we're at risk of getting into an edit war over it, so I think it's well that I explain why. It is my feeling that this list is by nature rather unwieldy, but that it is much easier to navigate if every major dynasty gets its own heading that one can access from the table of contents. Combining the Seleucid and Parthian dynasties together as if they alternate does not actually improve accuracy either, because in large part they did not alternate, they contested control of the Iranian plateau, ruling simultaneously. That hasn't been implemented all the way through, as yet, but it is already how we deal with other cases of contemporary rule, such as the Dabuyids and the confused period in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It is my strong feeling that this is much better than clumping things together. Furius (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Furius, I totally agree with you. I don't see any reason to group the Seleucid and Parthian dynasties in a same section. --Sundostund (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The Ayatollahs redux

I put them back in like I tried to some years ago. If you look at the list, there are elected rulers and rulers who aren't called "shah" The current Iranian constitution makes the position clear and it's clearly monarchical. Ericl (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is intended to list Persian/Iranian monarchs, and that institution ended in 1979. I see absolutely no justification for including Supreme Leaders here (they already have their article, btw). The current Iranian state is republican, and you need very strong, reliable sources in English if you want to equalize the current post of Supreme Leader with monarchs of the past... Your edit is opposed, and you can't include it without consensus (it will be really interesting to see what other users think about this). --Sundostund (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, Ericl, but I don't think it's sustainable. Yes the Ayatollahs are in practice dictatorial, but they still maintain a distinction between themselves and the monarchs. The same approach is taken with List of rulers of China, which doesn't include the Kuomintang or Communists, List of Vietnamese monarchs which excludes the South and North Vietnamese presidents, List of Indian monarchs which doesn't include the Presidents, and so on. Furius (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If I may, Furius, I'd like to add List of French monarchs and List of German monarchs to the examples you've listed above. It would be possible to list literally countless more lists of monarchs here, but I'll refrain from doing so... Also, please take into consideration the previous discussion on this subject. --Sundostund (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so you went there and brought up German monarchs. The German monarchy was elective. Yes, candidature was limited to the royal class, but it was still elective. The dynasties listed spent tons of money to get the job and there was a pretty much state of permanent warfare among the ruling class. While there was three hundred years of continuous Hapsburg rule, the simple fact is, is that they spent fortunes (officially termed "heroic bribary")to get the title, as Charles V of Spain beat Henry VIII of England.

Also on the list are "Presidents of the North German Confederation" which included a "vicar" who was merely noble, and Ol'Boney himself, who got the job when he was still First Consul of France, didn't have a monarchical title there. The Poles had an elected king and they were considered monarchs. As to Iran, both Palhavis were born commoners, the father having taken over in a coup. (come to think of it, so did the Qajars). The Ayatollahs are no different from the elected monarchs of Germany and Poland.Ericl (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Ericl, the only thing about French and German lists which is relevant here is this: None of them lists post-monarchical heads of state. German list stops in 1918 (it doesn't include the "Fuhrer", although someone can claim he was a "de facto monarch" too), and French list stops in 1870, after the Second Empire ended. Its doesn't include French Presidents, or "Chief of State" Petain (another "de facto monarch"? Near-absolute rule and no term limit)... Pahlavis (and maybe Qajars) were born commoners, but they officially assumed royal/imperial title at one point, and therefore they have the place in this list, unlike Supreme Leaders. As I said before, you don't have consensus to include Supreme Leaders here, and I'm sure it will remain so. --Sundostund (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Median Empire is not par tof Persia

The Median Empire was the first of all Iranian Empires. Medes ruled, not Persian. Persians were subjects of the Medes, and there was no such thing as Persia. Thus, including the Median Empire as being part of Persia, is misleading, even though the empires that followed (like the Achaemenid Empire) were of Medo-Persian origin (referred to as Medo-Persia by Herodotus, not as Persia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.244.23.10 (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 26 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. The discussion focused mostly on the question of what period of time should be covered by the article, which seems separate from what its title should be. No support for renaming the article had been expressed prior to the withdrawal, except one person who never said why they supported it. One person later said they would support the renaming if it meant that pre-Achaemenid rulers of the geographic region would be included. But this is a content question, not a title question, and no clear connection between the two was established in the discussion. Closing this without prejudice against it being resubmitted if it seems to make some difference to whether the scope of the article should include pre-Achaemenid rulers. (non-admin closure) —BarrelProof (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

---

List of kings of Persia → List of kings of Iran – When I ran into this article today it listed a number of pre-Iranian dynasties - I've removed most of those. There are some pre-Median kings I'm not sure about except that they aren't Persian. Nor can we call the Median kings Persian, although some nationalistic minded people do. We can call the Medes Iranian, however. Doug Weller (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

On a side note, the first few 'kings' listed are almost certainly chieftains if they existed at all. Sources vary as to whether they call the Medes(after these chieftains) an empire or a kingdom, but I don't think we need to get into that here. There probably wasn't a Median empire of any kind before about 615, although 19th century authors, based on Herodotus, believed there was. More to the point, we could call this a "List of Iranian kings". Doug Weller (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment @Doug Weller: Maybe "List of Iranian monarchs" would be better? Jaqeli 13:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'd support that because it includes Emperors so would avoid any arguments about whether an Emperor belongs in a list of kings, or what title someone really had. Doug Weller (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Is it proper to refer to Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan as "Iranian"? —BarrelProof (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Support for List of kings of Persia → List of kings of Iran. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if you would say why you support it. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – The country is known as Persia in a historical context. These were monarchs of Persia, not of "Iran". Whether or not they were "Persian", they were kings of "Persia". We must follow common English usage, not retroactively remove usages we do not like. RGloucester — ☎ 20:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: Wasn't Iran primarily known (at least in English) as "Persia" until at least the 1940s? And isn't most of the history covered by this list during the period(s) known as the Persian Empire? (I've personally never heard the term "Iranian Empire".) —BarrelProof (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Sure, if we want to cut down this list to match the current title. The Medes weren't Persian, eg " 'Says Darius the King: Then I sent forth the Persian and Median army that was with me". Take a look at [38]. If it stays with this name, then it should match our articlePersian Empire. It might still be a good idea to use 'monarchs' instead of 'kings'. Doug Weller (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    • It doesn't matter whether the kings were Persian or not. It isn't titled "List of Persian kings"; it's titled "List of kings of Persia". Persia is a place, and anyone who was a king of that place would presumably belong in the list of kings of that place, regardless of their ethnicity or background. Can you explain what you think is the difference between "Persia" and "Iran"? —BarrelProof (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment exactly where did the removed information go to? I will note that sevaral kings of England are not English (and the current dynasty is German) so being a king of Persia is not the same as Persian king, since an ethnic Persian(Iranian) can be king of a non-Iranian people/nation/country. So the reduced list is actually List of Iranian kings of Persia specifying both ethnicity and region/country -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

To answer the question of "exactly where did the removed information go to?", you can find it in this old version of the article, and you can see exactly which sections were removed here. I don't know whether that information can be found in any current article on Wikipedia. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I know that there are people who think that the term Persia is synonymous with Iran, just as I've run across people who think the Medes formed the first Persian empire, which isn't what the sources say. So far as I know, the term "Persia", at least in academia, normally refers to the period starting with the Persian Empire. As does Wikipedia. Thus History of Persia is a redirect to History of Iran. Category:Persian history doesn't cover the Medes or any period before them. There is no "Cambridge History of Persia", but the "Cambridge History of Iran" discusses Persia. Josef Wiesehöfer 's starts with Cyrus and even says "How did it happen that in the sixth century bc a Persian dynasty was able to establish a world empire on the soil of the ancient Near East - an empire that stretched as far east as the Indus and as far west as Egypt, and was to become a model for future Iranian dynasties?" Maria Brosius's book The Persians starts with the Persian Empire (as do I believe other books by her). I'm happy with a list of Kings or Monarchs of Persia that starts with Cyrus, but not one that even includes pre-Iranic peoples. Doug Weller (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

So, if I understand correctly, your definition of "Persia" is a particular geographic region from about 550 BC onwards, is that correct? What is your definition of "Iran"? —BarrelProof (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

My definition? Shouldn't we be using what reliable sources use? Take a look at the Cambridge History of Iran for instance. In any case, we're taking about this article. If you want it to be a list of Kings of Persia, fine. And yes, reliable sources use the word Persia for about 550 BC onwards. Doug Weller (talk) 08:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

By "your definition", I did not mean to imply that the definition was a personal idiosyncrasy – I just wanted to know what definition you are using. Can you please say what definition of "Iran" you are using? We are considering a suggestion to move the article from "List of kings of Persia" to "List of kings of Iran", so I think we need to know what difference it makes, and thus what is the intended difference in meaning between "Persia" and "Iran". Does "Iran" imply a different period of time, or a different geographic region? —BarrelProof (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood you. A different period of time, including the Persian Empire and succeeding empires, kingdoms, etc. I'd have to look at the sources again to see how far back books on the history of Iran go - I'm not sure whether we should cover pre-Iranic monarchs or not if we put Iran in the title. As I've said, I'm happy to keep it a list of Persian monarchs if that's what people want and they will agree that we should use reliable sources for the time period we call "Persian". Doug Weller (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I see, and I hope you realize I am really not trying to offend you here or be provocative – I am just trying to understand and clarify the situation. So your understanding seems to be that if the article is entitled "List of kings of Persia", it should not include some of the later kings. But I have a bit of a problem with that. For example, let's look the period of 1926–34. During this period, Rezā Shāh was the king of a country, and the primary official and unofficial name of his country, in English, was Persia. That was the name that was used for the country in English for nearly all purposes – even for the most formal communication, such as its official participation in the League of Nations. This remained true until 1935. The country was also sometimes called Iran, but it was primarily known as Persia. This continued until he issued a letter in December 1935 "insisting the name Iran (the historical name of the nation dating back thousands of years) be used instead of Persia (Pars), which is the Greek name for Iran that is used in English and European languages" (quoting the linked article). There is absolutely no dispute that in 1930 there was a country called Persia and that he was the king of that country, so if there is a list of kings of Persia, it should clearly include him – and probably everyone before him – going back for some hundreds of years, as that was the name (or at least one legitimate name) of that country. That 1926–34 period may or may not be a period that most historians call the "Persian Empire" (although that Wikipedia article does include his dynasty), but he was definitely a "king of Persia" (and his son was called the "Crown Prince of Persia" at the time – again, quoting the linked Wikipedia article about the father). I really don't think anyone can seriously dispute that, and therefore I really don't think that he (or various other people) could be reasonably excluded from a list of kings of Persia. If the list does include him and the others, then I don't see any real difference between a list of kings of Persia and a list of kings of Iran. Since the country was primarily known as Persia during nearly all of the period covered by the list, I don't see any good reason to change the name of the list, just as if we had a list of rulers of Burma, we probably wouldn't rename it to "list of rulers of Myanmar". —BarrelProof (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

No, BarrelProof that's not at all what I mean. I'm suggesting that the list start with the Persian Empire. That would mean removing Neo-Elamites and Medes (two groups who were not Persian). I'm happy with leaving the name and Rezā Shāh. If we can agree on that I'll withdraw the move request (hm, if I can do that). Doug Weller (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh. Then that's a different question, and it seems like it is off-topic for the discussion of the title of the article. I think it should be OK for anyone (including either of the two of us) to close the RM as withdrawn (esp. as the only support expressed for it was absent any comment about the rationale). But in any case, I might like to make a comment about that other question. I think the question of whether those monarchs of prior periods should be included or not may hinge on the difference between "Persia/Iran" (as a matter of geography) and "Persian/Iranian" (as a matter of cultural identity or as a matter of being from Persis). I think it is hypothetically possible, in principle, to have been a king of Persia (as a vaguely defined geographic region) without being considered Persian (as a vaguely defined cultural characteristic). —BarrelProof (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

BarrelProof - back to the sources question - we'd need sources stating that the Kings/Emperors of Media, or the neo-Elamites, were Persian. Multiple academic sources. That's always been my issue - trying to avoid and stop the nationalistic editing that takes place on this subject. Doug Weller (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Kings of Persia, not Persian kings. There's a difference. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Not so far as the need for sources saying they were Kings of Persia goes. We'd still need sources saying they are Kings of Persia. Doug Weller (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

So far as I can see the point of this page is to present a comprehensive list of rulers within the territory of modern Iran. Thus, removing pre-Achaimenid monarchs seems wrong to me. If moving the page to "List of kings of Iran" makes it easier to include te earlier monarchs, then I support that. Either way, I think the important thing is that the page should treat itself as a list of rulers of the rough geographic area of Iran. If at all possible, we should not cast the page in a way which will encourage debates about whether given monarchs/kingdoms were ethnically Persian/Iranian. The evidence is often meagre and the page would be at serious risk of developing nationalist edit wars. Furius (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Inclusion of pre-Achaemenid monarchs

Above, in the archived move discussion and in some prior comments, please see various remarks about whether pre-Achaemenid rulers in the geographic region of Persia/Iran should be included in the article or not. This is an unresolved question. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Should this list include only monarchs or dynasties which are stated by multiple academic sources to be Persian?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is clear consensus that the monarch or dynasty should be cited to this list should be based on multiple supporting academic sources. AlbinoFerret

---

As per subject line, I'm asking whether this list should be based on multiple academic sources supporting the statement that a monarch or dynasty is Persian. Doug Weller (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. I didn't actually want a close to the move request made without a resolution, but there we are. I agree that we need to prevent nationalist edit wars, and the only way we can do this is by following basic policy regarding sources. This would apply even if the list were renamed to kings of Iran of course, although given what I've seen of histories of Iran that would be a longer and more comprehensive list. Doug Weller (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Summoned by bot. I'm unsure what the previous inclusion criteria was, but I don't see any problem with this one. I think the reasoning for requiring multiple as opposed to only one (because some sources disagree) is good. This may have been resolved by now but thought I should still leave some feedback. Wugapodes (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Summoned by bot. Everyone agrees the list should be sourced. More to the point, if there's disagreement about what ruler/region/period qualifies as "Persian," you should take an inclusionist approach that, if not describing all these in detail, at least notifies readers as to the controversy and directs them to the relevant pages. -Darouet (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

• I just realised I forgot to put my !vote here. I think the article should be moved to List of kings of Iran and the content should be kept to all Iranian kings. Persian king is misleading term which wasn't really used in the native language for a long period of time see my comments below. Brustopher (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

  Actually scratch this. Brustopher (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

So currently the page's introduction is the bare statement "The following is a list of kings of Persia, who ruled over Iran from the third millennium BC until the deposition of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1979." However we resolve this debate, we should end up with something fuller - something like the introduction of List of French monarchs seems like the goal. Whether a king or dynasty was "Persian" is a bad criterion for inclusion in this list:

1. it is a potential magnet for edit wars.
2. it would likely lead to the exclusion of several later dynasties (Macedonians, Caliphs, Mongols) whose exclusion would not, I think, make the list more helpful.
3. it might suggest that ethnically or linguistically Persian monarchies outside the area of Iran should be included (e.g. Khoja (Turkestan)). That would produced unworkably vast list and probably also inspire edit wars.

Thus I think the criterion must be a geographical or legal entity. That could be "Persia" or "Iran", whichever we choose will be somewhat artificial and anachronistic. The most important thing would be to define those artificial and anachronistic limits clearly and sensibly. Furius (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I find it interesting that this discussion was phrased in terms of a characteristic of the ruler, rather than a characteristic of the place that was ruled – i.e., in terms of Persian kings rather than kings of Persia. For example, I believe most people would say that Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan were not "Persian", although they both ruled over Persia. The way this was phrased thus seems to call into question not just the pre-Achaemenid rulers, but also some of the later ones as well. Like Furius, I suspect that it might be difficult to determine whether a person is "Persian" or not, and I also don't see how it would be helpful to the article to omit those rulers who were not Persian. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

What does this have to do with WP:VERIFY and the need for sources? We should not be trying to make up our own definitions. Doug Weller (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

No one is quarreling with the notion that the article should be well sourced and readily verifiable. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. That's another interpretation, not what I meant. It is a lot easier if we can deal with dynasties though, rather than have to source each individual king with sources saying they are were a king of Persia. I agree you can have non-Persian kings of Persia. I can reword the question (I mean I'm allowed to), but I'm not sure how to word the dynasties bit.

So, "Should this list include only monarchs or dynasties which are stated by multiple academic sources to be Kings/Emperors of Persia?" but that doesn't cover the dynasties issue. Doug Weller (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the idea that this list should be sourced is accepted by everyone - and as you point out, it's required by wiki-law anyway. I've already said that I don't think asking whether the kings were "Persian" is a good idea. I don't see how asking whether the dynasties were "Persian" is different - since the dynasties are just groups of kings it comes to the same thing. What would work, I think, is making the criterion geographic - "did the kings rule over (part of the area of) Persia/Iran?" That is what we should be seeking to source. Furius (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Only if it doesn't include kings or dynasties before the Achaemenid Empire. Before that, sources call the area Iran. Doug Weller (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Which sources? The Cambridge Ancient History, a very trusted secondary source for the ancient world, includes chapters entitled "Persia, c. 2400-1800 B.C." and "Persia c. 1800–1550 B.C." Furius (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

And the two Cambridge Histories contradict each other, which is why I said multiple. Matt Waters Professor of Classics and Ancient History, puts the Elamites in Iran.[39]. Birth of the Persian Empire[http://www.amazon.com/Birth-Persian-Empire-Idea-Volume/dp/1845110625] talks about Bronze Age Iran. The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran, another Cambridge University Press, uses Iran, and writes about the Persians entering Iran. Do most reliable English sources use Iran or Persia to refer to the period before the Achaemenid Empire? So far as I can tell they use Iran. Doug Weller (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

There is not necessarily a contradiction when two sources appear to use somewhat different terminology or when two sources cover different periods of history. An author may often define a term for purposes of a particular work without necessarily saying that anyone who uses the term differently is wrong, and sometimes authors will not provide explicit definitions of their terms. If directly asked the question, an author might readily concede that multiple equally-valid definitions exist or that it would be reasonably acceptable to use a different word than the one they happened to choose when writing a particular work. One history of the United States might start with Christopher Columbus, another might extensively discuss pre-Columbian culture, a third might start in the Paleolithic era, a fourth might start with the Mesozoic, and a fifth with the Big Bang. That does not make them conflict with each other. Many people would consider "Persia" and "Iran" as simply two names that are both commonly used for the same geographic region, and consider either one to be applicable regardless of the period of time that is being discussed. In any case, I am glad that it has been clarified that the only part of history that was the target of this discussion is the period before the Achaemenid empire. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"So far as I can tell they use Iran." I take your point and as your sources indicate, "Iran" seems more normal in more recent works. Actually, it seems, for all periods. You seem to be establishing that a page called "List of kings of Iran" would take the form of the page as it stood before this discussion. But we don't have a page called "List of kings of Iran" - it redirects here. So should this page be renamed? Or is there some utility to a list that starts with Cyrus? Furius (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no policy or guideline reason not to have two lists, one longer one called List of kings of Iran, one starting with Cyrus called List of kings of Persia. Practically I suspect that any "List of kings of Persia" would be edited by Persian nationalists to include previous kings, so I'd prefer a rename and the longer list. Doug Weller (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:CONTENTFORK says we shouldn't create two separate articles in which most of the content is duplicated (especially with underlying POV issues), so we shouldn't have two lists that both cover the period from 500 BC onwards. If we have a list that is restricted to the period of the Achaemenid Empire onwards, then it should probably contain some prominent note near the top of it that says "For a list of kings that ruled in the geographic region prior to the Achaemenid Empire, see List of pre-Achaemenid kings of Persia/Iran". —BarrelProof (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

We could do that. Or "List of Kings of Iran and Persia"? Doug Weller (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed that this article already says, at the beginning, "For more comprehensive lists of kings, queens, sub-kings and sub-queens of Iran please see: List of rulers of Pre-Achaemenid kingdoms of Iran, List of rulers of Parthian sub-kingdoms, ...", so I think what I was suggesting is already in place. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a bit soon perhaps to assume agreement, but if we deleted the neo-Elamites and the Medes from this list, then we'd have separate non-overlapping lists that seem to match mainstream sources, is that right? Let's see what Furius says. Doug Weller (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable solution. The list of pre-Achaemenid kings is a bit of a mess at the moment, but perhaps being unique will lead to more attention being lavished on it. Furius (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I came here by Legobot's notification and am not that well read in pre-Sassanid Iranian history, so apologies if what I am about to ask is incredibly stupid. Why should there be any distinction between kings of Persia and kings of Iran? To quote from Axworthy's "Empire of the Mind" on the issue "[Reza Shah] ordered that foreign govenments should drop the name 'Persia' in official communications and use instead the name 'Iran' - the ancient name that had always been used by Iranians themselves" (p.231). Why disqualify pre-Achaemenid kings for being kings of Iran instead of Persia, when the same could be said of the post-Achaemenid kings. Aren't the two terms interchangeable? Brustopher (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Not entirely. Persia originally only referred to Persis, it only came to refer to the whole of Iran later. So for example in the Behistun inscription it is written King Darius says: These are the countries which are subject unto me, and by the grace of Ahuramazda I became king of them: Persia, Elam, Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt, the countries by the Sea, Lydia, the Greeks, Media, Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, Drangiana, Aria, Chorasmia, Bactria, Sogdia, Gandara, Scythia, Sattagydia, Arachosia and Maka; twenty-three lands in all. I.e. Elam, Media etc are separate countries from Persia. Fornadan (t) 12:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The Median Empire or Kingdom (sources differ) is not generally considered to be a Persian Empire or dynasty. We go by our sources. User:Brustopher, have you read all my comments above? Doug Weller (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

In this section yes, but not in the previous sections of talk page. I only just noticed the move request directly above is quite relevant. I think I phrased what I was trying to say quite poorly because it was a bit mixed up in my head. I've found a better way of expressing it now. Beginning with Reza Shah, "Persia" was no longer used in foreign correspondence. From this it could be argued that neither of the Pahlavi's belong on this list. Not only that but long before the Pahlavi dynasty, "Iran" was the term commonly used by the polity's residents, not "Persia". This could arguably (although it's a bit more of a stretch) disqualify everyone after the Sassanids from this list. Basically I guess what I'm arguing is that the original move request was right and that Persia is a misleading term in this context. Brustopher (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Reza Shah didn't declare that his country had stopped being Persia. He only declared that its preferred name for official purposes was Iran. He definitely did view his dynasty as a continuation of what is generally referred to as the Persian Empire. As I understand it, he and his son strongly promoted the idea that their dynasty was part of the great Persian empire – see, for example, the article about the 2,500 year celebration of the Persian Empire that was hosted by the son. (Although whatever they said or thought does not necessarily dictate what we should say on Wikipedia, since they are no longer in charge of Iran and were never in charge of Wikipedia.) —BarrelProof (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes but "generally referred to" in the West, not in Iran. If you look at the Persian in that article (and the fawiki version), the word used is Iran not Persia. Also Iran was used internally instead of Persia for a long time before the Pahlavis.Brustopher (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2015 (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.

Ghaznavids

Where are the Ghaznavids? Tafshina (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Ghazanavids were a dynasty established by Mahmud of Ghazni in Afghanistan and became Shah of all Khorasan which Mahmud and his successors conquered more lands from modern Iran, Transoxiana, and India Aceditor00 (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

What about pre-Cyrus kings?

what happened to cambyses I, tiespes, Cyrus, and the namesake of the dynasty: Achaemenes. They were vassals, but should still be mentioned right? and it says kings who ruled modern day persia, which is the equivalent of Iran. the Medians DEFINATELY was within those borders but i hear that was resolved so (DAMMIT). also can someone get this page protected? ive been seeing cyrus's name being replaced by thing like: Justin bieber. SERIOUSLY.History of Persia (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The pre-Achaemenids are still at List of rulers of Pre-Achaemenid kingdoms of Iran. I don't think that vassal kings belong here anyway - we have separate pages for other vassal kings (e.g. List of rulers of Parthian sub-kingdoms). While the Medians were Iranian kings, they weren't kings of Persia. After Cyrus, "King of Iran" and "King of Persia" are basically the same thing in English, so he's a good place to start the list. Furius (talk) 09:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Rashidun Caliphs and Supreme leaders

I think that one of these should be added or removed. Rashidun were not *monarchs* and they were elected, as much as Supreme Leaders are *elected*.See Rashidun Caliphate#Electing or appointing a caliph and Iranian Assembly of experts for further information. And Supreme Leadership is absolute power in the regime,And he has actually more authority than of Monarch of the United Kingdom and its for lifetime, and thats the difference between them and similar *democratic* positions like the President of Israel. NetBSDuser (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, there's even a hadith that actually shows the the title of "Malik" which means king/monarch were different and seperate from the title of Caliph.

GrandSultanMaeltheGreat (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

To both of you, for your information, monarchs can be elected and there are many examples of elected monarchs in history.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: Of course, there have been many elected monarchs throughout the history. My point here is that none of these two titles have been labeled as monarchs in their time and both of them have been completely non-hereditary and the election method and the amount of power of these two in their respective domains have been almost identical. With any logic, either Rashidun Caliphs should be removed as not being monarchs or the Supreme leaders should be added as being monarchs. NetBSDuser (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of monarchs of Persia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715045224/http://parthian-empire.com/articles/Genealogy-Coinage-Early-Parthian-Rulers-II.pdf to http://parthian-empire.com/articles/Genealogy-Coinage-Early-Parthian-Rulers-II.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101107074550/http://www.etana.org/coretexts/14913.pdf to http://www.etana.org/coretexts/14913.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Iran or Persia

Isn't "List of monarchs of Iran" a better name? Because then you can add Median Kings too. As far as I know the first real Iranian King is Cyaxares, and not Cyrus or Achaemenes. It was Cyaxares who founded so-called Persian Empire, but Cyrus got the credit. (Medo-Persian Empire is better name, because the early Persian kings called themselves "King of Persians and Medes) Amir El Mander (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Iran since its more historically accurate and the usage of the word over Persia in academic sources is increasing every year. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Iran is better. However i disagree with you when you say that the first real Iranian king was Cyaxares. Before him, Phraortes and Deioces ruled over the Medes. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Coin of Phraates V of Parthia.jpg
• Coin of Sanatruces of Parthia.jpg
• Coin of Vologases IV of Parthia.jpg
• Coin of Vologases V of Parthia.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• درهم ولید ابن عبدالملک از ایالت سجستان (سیستان.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• HasanAgha.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

About the article Shah of Persia

Persia? Iran? This is nationalistic article, Pesia was a name given by Europeans to modern Iran and it has nothing todo with Ghurids, Timurids, Samanids, Safarids and many other Afghanistan historical empires. Aceditor00 (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

What nationalism, it refers to the empires that ruled Iran, see List of rulers of Tibet for a similar article. There was no Afghanistan back then either and the term Afghan always only meant "Pashtun" until the modern era so idk why you're claiming those as Afghanistan. --Qahramani44 (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Reza Shah portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Mingburnu.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

states that have nothing to do with Iran.

In this text, there should be states centered in Iran and describing the Iranian monarchy. It is not right to include the Umayyads, Seljuks and other Arab states. These states are not Iran-centered or Iranian, they later invaded Iran. 188.227.212.100 (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Macedonians, Seleucids, Mongols, these do not belong to the Iranian monarchy. 188.227.212.100 (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Persia vs Iran

Why is this page called List of monarchs of Persia instead of List of monarchs of Iran CaspianUser (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)