Talk:Iran

See also: Talk:Persia

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

Grammar mistake

I found a grammar mistake in first paragraph of this article. In First paragraph and in 7th line we have: "country that has both a Caspian Sea and Indian Ocean coastline. Iran has been of geostrategic importance because of its". Article "a" before "Caspian Sea" is not needed and I think correct text would be: "country that has both Caspian Sea and Indian Ocean coastline. Iran has been of geostrategic importance because of its".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotoodi (talk • contribs) 12:24, 24 March 2014‎ (UTC)

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

These edits from 4/30/2014 ( Current: "nearby regions wich would last for many centuries onwards." Correction: "nearby regions which would last for many centuries onwards."

Current: "Iran reached it's greatests extent since" Correction: "Iran reached its greatests extent since " )

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Foreverchang (talk • contribs) 01:38, 1 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Social Media and Women's Empowerment

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

The rise of independent women’s rights activists is due to developments in technologies and increasing participation in digital spaces. The reform movement in Iran in the 1990’s encouraged secular thought and feminist thinking. This challenged Iran’s traditional structure by raising self-awareness of social issues, notably women’s rights issues. The emergence of social media has been a great tool to abolish pre-conceived notions of Iranian Women and have gave them a platform to reach out to the world. The media shapes the worlds opinion by deciding what and what not to broadcast. Social media has aided the empowerment of women by attracting global recognition. It gives a voice to the most marginalized groups in society and energizes activists to spread information and create discussions around the world, instantly. Social issues can no longer be hidden from the world by the Iranian government because public scrutiny forces their actions into light, and holds them accountable for wrongful discourse. Bloggers continue to demand social justice and refuse to be silent, knowing there is a possibility of harassment or jail time.

Feminism and activism pose a direct threat to the current power balances in Iran. Media of all forms is a great way to raise important questions and start conversations about women’s lack of rights in Iran. Communication technologies including Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. creates a stage for awareness and participation. Digital and social media is a very powerful tool and one of the most effective ways to advocate for women’s rights. The future gains of these technology platforms are endless. We can note that technology presents its own challenges in itself, because it is difficult to regulate and is quickly revolving. Women contributing equally to society will have an immense impact on socio-economic, social, and political development. Women being allowed to participate in society will not only benefit women, but all Iranian citizens; and on a bigger scope, the world.

Can someone put in an anthem

something like this:

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121101160814/http://www.presstv.ir:80/detail/2012/08/26/258180/iran-urges-joint-bids-to-promote-peace to http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/08/26/258180/iran-urges-joint-bids-to-promote-peace/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120830041459/http://presstv.com:80/detail/2012/05/26/243242/ahmadinejad-new-world-order to http://presstv.com/detail/2012/05/26/243242/ahmadinejad-new-world-order/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.  Stick to sources! Paine  21:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The name "Persia"

I take issue with the rationale for this edit by Vormeph. I do agree with the first part, namely that sourced content was removed by it; claiming that sourced content "is illogical because it doesn't come from an official context" is, however, itself illogical. The claim was correctly attributed to Ehsan Yarshater as WP:PRIMARY requires and not presented as fact, but subsequently, a claim was made that both Persia and Iran are used in cultural contexts and that was sourced by another independent source. Have you not come across WP:OFFICIAL before? It explains the WP:COMMONNAME policy in detail, showing that whether a name is "official" or not has virtually no relevance for Wikipedia's purposes. Of course, in this case, "Iran" is also a common name, and it's common and prominent enough to be this article's title (no one is disputing that); but the mere fact taht "Persia" is "not official" by no means prevents it from being able to be mentioned as an alternative name, if it is in considerable use. Since even Google's n-grams show it to be in relatively wide use even in recent publications, I'd say the burden is squarely on your side to remove the sourced content by actually showing that the claims made in it are false. Justifications that changes "reflect facts" without evidence (but actually removing existing contrary evidence) are not how Wikipedia is edited, and claiming that editors "live in another world" because they want WP:Verifiability instead of alleged WP:Truth aren't conducive to a good editing atmosphere. LjL (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@LjL: By what right should a country be known by another name? Should Netherlands have a similar statement that it should also be known as Holland? Should the USA be known as America? They're both validly referred thus, but that doesn't mean there should be a controversial statement on Wikipedia about it. Neither should there be so on here. You're using one's own opinion and judgement to justify fact; that's enough reason to remove the statement altogether. If anything, by acknowledging that Iran was once known as Persia is lenient enough. I don't think we should rely on the opinions of just one man who has no official ties to the Iranian government to decide what to name the country. The Iranian constitution does not mention the word Persia and all decrees and edicts made by the previous government are annulled by the current. So, your argument has no base because it's relying on the opinions of someone who lives in a past world. I'm in reality here, and the word Persia does not have any real meaning politically nor legally. It may do so historically, but that doesn't mean we should start calling it hither. Hence, to refer Iran historically as Persia is correct since Europeans in the past referred to it as such. Vormeph (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Vormeph: as I mentioned below, Netherlands already has such a statement saying it is "also known as Holland". Similarly for the other examples you mentioned, see blow. Perhaps you should actually read the articles you're trying to use as example? As to "right", English is its own language: Iran doesn't necessarily dictate how English speakers (or English Wikipedians) should call Iran. Germany is natively called "Deutschland", and the name "Germany" is completely different, yet it's what English uses; French uses "Allemagne" for the same country. Shall they all start referring to it as "Deutschland" just because the German constitution does not mention the words "Germany" or "Allemagne"? That's a silly argument. Find sources about how "Persia" is used in modern English, and we can talk. For now, we have sources saying it is used for the country in a cultural context, and that's what matters. LjL (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@LjL: If you read news or hear them, you'll also find that the bespoken country is referred to as Iran, not Persia. There's no Islamic Republic of Persia, there's an Islamic Republic of Iran. There's no Persian- this and that. Suffice it to say your argument is already defeated since English speakers already refer to Iran as such. I have never come across someone who refers to Iran as Persia. Either you're an Iranian nationalist or just delusional to think that Iran is also known as Persia. How can you draw an entire article's name based on the opinions of just one person? If that's the case, then something is VERY wrong. That's why such sourced content was removed; it lacked a basis to be recognised as what the majority viewed. That professor you cited was old and born almost a century ago; he lives in the past. Your sources are dated, and if you refuse to acknowledge that then I suggest you walk along the streets of your local town and ask the inhabitants what Persia is, then ask what Iran is. Most people would know what the latter is, but not the former. You are the one who is refusing to acknowledge that reality; you are the one who is insisting that using the opinion's of an outdated professor are reliable. I am simply enlightening you on this fact, so you can sit down while I make the required changes that you ought to accept. :-) Vormeph (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Iran vs. Persia

@LjL:, @Rwenonah:, @WilliamThweatt: This issue has to be resolved through a mutual discussion regarding whether the country Iran is also referred to as Persia. I'm not against the use of the term Persia, but it's used only in historical contexts; think Prince of Persia or Persian people. I don't know why there's much sensitivity surrounding the issue, but as far as I'm concerned it's pretentious by itself to insist that Iran is referred to as Persia. It's like calling the Netherlands as Holland; USA as America; Russia as USSR; or the United Kingdom as England. The former and latter terms are not the same and refer to either constituent countries, regions or countries that no longer exist. Persia as a country still exists, but it's under another name: Iran. I don't need sources to cite common sense; but if I must cite sources to cite stupidity then I will. I shouldn't have to make this discussion thread, but the latter reason is what advocates it. As for all of you, I hope you all get over your egos and realise that Iran is referred to as such, not by Persia. Vormeph (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You linked to America but perhaps you failed to noticed that it acutally does redirect to United States, and the very introductory statement of that article says The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, U.S., USA, or America), so that makes your example rather a counter-example to your line of reasoning. Holland is just a part of the Netherlands, but the article actually does mention that The name Holland is also frequently used to refer informally to the whole of the country of the Netherlands. So, again, this is weakening your position. Few people would refer to the United Kingdom as "England" in normal English, though they would use "Britain", and the United Kindom article mentions that, saying that The term Britain is often used as synonym for the United Kingdom. As to the USSR, that encompassed Russia and more countries (much like the European Union does now); it stopped existing, and Russia (or officially speaking the Russian Federation) still exists like before.

Do you have any other point against your own rationale (aside from personalizing the discussions by making it about egos)? LjL (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The fact you just referred to Iran as Persia under another name above shows why it should be included as an alternative name. Rwenonah (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rwenonah:, @LjL: All arguments have already been made; but in Iran's case it's a naming issue. The use of Persia implies a historical context because of the way it has been used by Iranologists, in contrast to use of the term Iran which has a more modern basis. Hence, it's correct to say that Persia is what Iran is historically known by, but it's not what it is synonymous with in a political context. I propose that we introduce a section called Name which addresses this, since the etymology section has become bloated with all sorts of information regarding it. Vormeph (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@McGeddon: Just so you are aware, http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsMiddEast/EasternPersia.htm states that the term Persia is used to refer to Iran in cultural and historical matters. Hence, for Iran to be historically known as Persia is correct. It's not also known by that name. This is what you're failing to take into account. You also fail to take into account that ANY royal decrees are annulled following the deposition of that monarch. Vormeph (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

That source explicitly goes on to say that "The official modern use of 'Iran' began in 1935, at the request of Reza Shah of the Pahlevis, although in 1959 it was accepted that both this and 'Persia' were valid.", and the article body echoes that ("Today, both Persia and Iran are used in cultural contexts"). The lede should not contradict this by stating that usage of "Persia" is purely historical. --McGeddon (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@McGeddon: You fail to take into account that any decrees made before 1979 were annulled following the revolution. That's implied in its event. Use of Persia and Iran in cultural contexts may be correct and it will also be correct to say that Persia is what Iran is historically known by. If that's the case, then it would be acceptable to say that Iran is historically and culturally known as Persia as an amendment. The condition is you must rescind your report of me. Vormeph (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You are not in the position here to impose conditions. This is not a political forum. Please stop edit warring and trying to push your POV. UCaetano (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@UCaetano: As far as I'm aware, the POV I'm advocating exists within the sources itself. Iran is historically known as Persia.

Yes, but it is ALSO called Persia today. You are pushing to remove the current usage of that name. The burden is on YOU to convince the other editors. You ARE edit warring (and doing it again and again, you've been blocked before for this), so even if McGeddon would "rescind" his report of your edit warring (which will NOT happen), I'd would report you myself. UCaetano (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@UCaetano: That is nonsense! Iran also called Persia today? Read any online news regarding Iran; have you ever seen the word Persia come up alongside it? NO. If there's something historical (pre-1935) about Iran, then yes it would be referred to as Persia. That's valid because Iran is historically known as Persia. This is what you're failing to grasp. You're rejecting common sense here mate. Vormeph (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm on your naughty list and should not talk to you per your own request. Please get a moderator to solve this issue. As it stands, you do not have consensus. Thanks. UCaetano (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@UCaetano: You are barred from using my talk page in communicating with me. Outside my user space, all discussions are purely professional. The discussion hasn't ended, and the country Persia does not have a legal status within the UN. The UN labels what you call Persia as Iran. If Iran were also known as Persia it would actually be noted in the UN. Vormeph (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

WP is not the UN, in case you haven't noticed. The US isn't listed as "America" in the UN. "also known as" is not about official names. So you're not even wrong. UCaetano (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@UCaetano: Ah, but you see this is where you're wrong: although the USA was called America since its unification, Persia was not known as Iran since its unification. In essence, Persia denotes usage from the unification under the Archaemnic Empire up until the Pahlavi Dynasty where in 1935 it was established that the term Iran be used instead. You're asserting that Persia remains in use. Can you point out a news article that refers to Iran as Persia in a modern sense? There's a challenge for ya. If you are successful, then I will retract my argument. But in case you are willing to bend over, I have a news article that claims my point very clearly. Enjoy reading, so suck it up and read: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21151350 Vormeph (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@LjL:, @UCaetano: You guys are eunuchs to evade my questioning. I have provided a valid source which firmly backs up my claims that Iran is historically konwn as Persia. Now you're fidgeting and boiling up and crying to the Wikipedia admins to say that Vormeph (talk · contribs) is winning the argument because he found sources more recent from a more respectable publisher than one which was made 20-30 years ago. Too much internet has fucked with your heads; go outside and get a glimpse of reality! Iran is not called Persia no more, which part of that don't you understand? Vormeph (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright. Here's a Washington Post article that uses the terms interchangeably; the article describes a major Republican presidential candidate doing the same. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/04/03/donald-trump-repeats-stereotype-about-iranians-when-attacking-obama/). here's a New York Times article that does likewise. (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/dining/persian-food-recipes-nowruz.html?_r=0) Here's another one from the same source. (http://www.nytimes.com/times-journeys/travel/iran-tales-persia/). "Persian Mirrors: The Elusive Face of Iran", by Elaine Scilino, includes a passage about a contemporary Iranian official distributing posters with "Persia" instead of "Iran" (p.g. 21). Also, "no more" is not grammatically correct and calling people "eunuchs" is just weird. Rwenonah (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the research @Rwenonah:! I guess we can call this settled then? UCaetano (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Not wanting to nitpick, but most of those articles use the term "Persian" as a demonym, not "Persia" itself as a country name. That's standard practice, as is calling the language Persian, but doesn't necessarily prove anything about the noun variant (i.e. the country name). That said, all the article claims is that "Persia" is recognized as an acceptable term in cultural context (as opposed to official contexts), and I think that was already established except for WP:DISRUPTION, WP:IDIDNTHEARYOU and WP:NPA issues. LjL (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@LjL:, @Aidepikiwnirotide: Now I thought this issue was resolved, but now I'm not sure what the argument is. I'm reading that it's acceptable to refer to Iran in cultural contexts (and historical too) but it appears a new argument has been raised which requires clarification from the latter. Care to elaborate what you mean by more 'prestigious references than BBC'? Vormeph (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

More prestigious than an article talking about shoes is a requirement. Context matters, even for reliability of sources. The BBC can be an acceptable source, but not for the name of a country within an article about shoes.

Anyway, there is no doubt that the name "Persia" can be used in historical contexts: the problem is that it can also be used in other contexts (like cultural), and there are sources for that in the article, so it's wrong to insist that the WP:LEAD must only say "historically known as Persia". It is "also known as Persia" in various contexts, and then, if one wants to know which contexts, they can read the rest of the article. That's how lead sections work. LjL (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Vormeph: The BBC page to which you referred has been written by a "journalist", you thus can refer to this page "ONLY" for related issues such as "News or like that" and "NOT for a Historical Matter" that needs more "attention and research" (we can find many news pages by the internet including incorrect issues). If you want to mention some "News", BBC (or like that) may be a good reference, but not for such this matter. Also you need to consider "the Title of that page" where the matter is another topic and NOT Iran v.s Persia". In fact, the title of the page to which you referred is "Why did men stop wearing high heels?" and "EVEN" in another BBC page entitled "Iran country profile" this fact is mentioned that "Persia, as Iran was known before 1935, ...".Thus, when you say: "historically know as Persia" means that "Persia" has not been using "Contemporarily" whereas Persia has been using in western world till "1935" that is "Contemporary".Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Aidepikiwnirotide: Your argument is in favour of Persia in pre-1935 usage, which relates to a historical way of referring to the country. However, given light that @LjL: also means Persia is what Iran is referred to in historical and cultural contexts I will settle for that. I have no more arguments to make and I do not intend to further any more. Vormeph (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Just I think it's better to add that "Please consider references" instead of "Personal arguments". It's very easy to understand if you want, It's not a "mathematical problem"! What I'm trying to say is that in fact, the sentence of "Iran, also known as Persia" (which has been repeated several times) has been written (usually) by western references (Not native Iranian people!) and in fact, is incomplete expression of "Iran, also known as Persia in western world". In the other word and more clear, "Natively, Iran always has been calling "Iran" (from Old Persian Aryānām, which by then had evolved into Middle Persian Ariyān, and then Ērān and eventually in modern Persian Iran), whereas in the western world, relying on Greek resources (Persis), "Iran" has been calling and knowing "Persia" (because of any reason, correct or incorrect, that here is not matter!). Thus, the more complete form of this expression is "Iran, till 1935, in western world, has been calling as Persia", when simultaneously, has been calling as "Iran" by native Iranian people. Thus, Iran (Native) is the same Persia (Western) as Deutschland (Native) is the same Germany (Western) or Egypt (Western) is the same مصر (Native) or Greece (Western) is the same Hellas (Native) and یونان (in Persian) and too many other examples. What has occurred by Reza Shah is that the western nations has to use the native name instead of western name, that's all. Why do you like to complicate any thing (usually to achieve your purpose)? I don't understand what do you mean when you invent some new expressions such as "cultural usage", "historical usage", ... If such this instruction had not been issued by Reza Shah "Iran" was being called as Persia until now in western world and Iran natively. The only difference between Iran and other countries mentioned above is that there was not such instruction like Reza Shah's instruction for their countries, that's all. Finally, I would like to add my personal opinion about Reza Shah's instruction: I totally agree with use of native name that is "Iran" instead of "Persia" that has been derived from Greek resources, despite all such these problems. Just please don't be sensitive if sometimes "Persia" is used instead of "Iran", it's not related to "Ethnicity issues" and also is not a "native name" but is a part of all Iranian people history.Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Aidepikiwnirotide: "Western" languages, including English, are full of exonyms, which means they give peoples and countries and cities names that are sometimes not similar to the native ones. That is usually not a problem until someone decides to make it one, and when someone does, it's usually under a political agenda. We call Germany "Germany", even though its native name is "Deutschland" and has nothing to do with "Germany". LjL (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Aidepikiwnirotide: As @LjL: states, that's the way people known countries by. Although in this case, I'm not sure if the average guy would know Iran as Persia. But one might know the USA as America; or the UK as Britain. This is why I thought to make it clear what Persia refers to. As for the argument being advanced, one thing to note is that the Ancient Greeks had references to the Persian Empire; but there are no native sources that refer back to Ancient Persia. It's true that Iran derives from Aryanam, but people don't know Iran through that; and historically it's always been referred to as Persia, not Aryanam. I will continue looking for sources regarding the name, but Arayanam isn't a token that should be included in the introduction. It can have merit in the article Name of Iran. Vormeph (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Vormeph: I give you one of the "native" sources mentioned in "Iran in World History (book)" (Richard Foltz): "Darius the Great, who consolidated the Persian (Achaemenid) Empire during a thirty-six-year reign from 522 to 486 bce, has left us history’s first documented statement of explicitly Iranian self-identification. As he states in one of his royal inscriptions: “[I am] an Achaemenid, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage.”1 Following a framework still observed by many in the Middle East today, Darius identifies himself first in terms of family, then by tribe, and finally according to a broader category, what we might refer to today as “race” or “nation.” Iran derives from the same root as “Aryan”: heryos, a word that, in a language spoken on the Eurasian steppes some five thousand years ago, meant “a member of our group.” By perhaps fifteen centuries later, this self-designation had acquired the meaning “the noble ones” (that is to say, “us”). The people who used this word to describe themselves extended it to the place where they lived: Airyanam Vaejo, or “Land of the Noble Ones.” However, since their history included centuries of southwestern migration from their original homeland near the Ural Mountains in Siberia, Airyanam Vaejo was not the same place from one period to the next. In other words, “Iran” was not always where it is now; it was farther north, then farther east." You are not sure if the average guy would know Iran as Persia. At least, in France, where I'm living, it's not the case. Other reasons may be some thing like these: (1) "passing of time" since 1935 without attention to use "Iran" and "Persia" interchangeably, (2) relying on "emotions" instead of "realities and historical facts" and (3) maybe "ethnic prejudice".Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

And two other things: (1) Please don't compare this issue with "UK" and "Britain" or "USA" and "America" that both names are "native", whereas Iran is native and Persia is western (for thousand times ...) (2) To be sure that Iran is the same Persia you can search Persia in Google Map and then see the result. However, you need either (1) yourself write a book, published article, prestigious website, ... and refer to them or (2) rely on existing references (books, published articles). In other word, Wikipedia is not a reference itself but is "a collection of references" and not "a collection of personal opinions".Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of Iranians/Persians prefer to use the term "Persia" for their home country to avoid the connotations Iran has with Islamic fundamentalism in modern times, according to The Ayatollah Begs to Differ : The Paradox of Modern Iran, by Hooman Majd. So ... Persia is a native name. Something begin an exonym or having been linguistically reborrowed doesn't make a name somehow less worthy of mention in the lede. Rwenonah (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rwenonah: If that's the case, then how can we include that in the article without making a generalisation? At any rate, there are loads of different arguments here which are best suited under Name of Iran and what it entails. I think if we go on the original discussion here will just be derailed. Vormeph (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

the fact there is significant dispute over which is preferable shows that Persia is a valid alternative.Rwenonah (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the paragraph Reza shah and the name and the Ehsan Yarshater : Persia or Iran clears all unknown points . Both "Persia" and "Iran" could officially be used interchangeably .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rwenonah:, @Aidepikiwnirotide: The Iran article still needs to discriminate when to use Iran and when to use Persia. For example, it wouldn't make sense to use Persia in political contexts post-1935, regardless of what Reza Shah's decree states. (For what it's worth, all royal decrees were abolished after 1979, so I don't know why people constantly bring that decree up). As for Persia, it's not really used in modern contexts apart from historical usage. Vormeph (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Vormeph: I don't know what is the purpose of discussion, when everybody repeats his opinion, regardless of discussion context. In my opinion, in such this situation the purpose of discussion may be one thing: changing anything as each user wants. My only opinion is suggesting to read again context of discussion without prejudice. The question now is "Do you agree Persia is the same Iran?" "Do you agree history of a country is not changed only with a government's instruction?" "Do you think Google is also wrong when shows current Iran map for Persia?" If you want to change every thing as you prefer, you have chosen impossible way. Please try to be more "flexible" and more "realistic".Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Aidepikiwnirotide: It's not about changing to what a user wants. You're saying that Iran and Persia are mutually the same; but what I'm saying is that Persia is what Iran's historically known by. If Iran and Persia are mutually intelligible then it should be fine to replace a few occurrences of the word Iran within the Iran article with Persia. If that's a WP:POINT you want to make then so be it; but what I make clear here and now is that a line has to be drawn where Persia can be used, and where Iran can be used. Where do you draw the line between the use of the terms Iran and Persia? Vormeph (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Iran and Persia are both fine. People have presented ample sources to prove that to you. If I may quote you from your weird rant from earlier, "Can you point out a news article that refers to Iran as Persia in a modern sense? There's a challenge for ya. If you are successful, then I will retract my argument." It's been done repeatedly. Why do you persist? Rwenonah (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Vormeph: "what you're saying is that Persia is what Iran's historically known by." What is your reference for this claim? Btw, You didn't answer all my questions.Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rwenonah: If you are asking me for "contemporary news articles" I offer you some following news articles for recent months but you "must not" be expected to hear "Persia" too much in "news articles" when "government" presents itself "Islamic Republic of Iran" internationally, whereas most news topics are related to "political matters". Maybe you expect to read a news like "Rohani, president of Persia instead of Islamic Republic! ..."(you need to search "Persia keyword" in contexts):

(1) Donald Trump repeats stereotype about Iranians when attacking Obama (2) Persian odyssey: tales from the real Iran (3) 4 ways Iran is becoming a Persian Empire (4) Technology And Online Access Finally Open The Doors For Arabic Culture (5) Four Middle East Water Systems Shape History (6) French Alcatel delivering EPEG’s equipment to Iran (7) Does the US Really Want Iran to Moderate Its Policies? (8) Persia buff Charles makes first official visit to Iran in 40 years (9) Prince of Persia? Charles planning official Iran visit amid uneasy relations (10)Taste of Persia: 10 foodie ways to see Iran (11) Are We Negotiating With Iran or Persia? (12) The pride of Persia (13) 20 best spring recipes: part 3 Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Just, I forgot to say that you maybe need to protest again Donald Trump why he says "Persians negotiators" instead of Iranians? Please note that he also says: "You might be Persian, but the Iranians, frankly, are great negotiators." where he uses "mutually" Persians = Iranians in a contemporary political speech.Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Aidepikiwnirotide: Iranian is a denonym; Persian is an ethnicity. They do not refer to the same people, and in this case Donald Trump is referring to the ethnicity/nationnality of Iranians. This has nothing to do with the name of the country, so your argument falls like a deck of cards there am afraid. Vormeph (talk) 06:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Vormeph: Apparently, you intend to repeat your sentences regardless of references. (1) Are you sure Iranian negotiators had Persian ethnicity? and Donald Trump has been aware of their ethnicity? (2) I have not still gotten your answer about Google Map.Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Aidepikiwnirotide: Persia is so-called because it is a reference to the Fars Province which was then called Pars. As for your argument, it has no relationship with what is being discussed here. What I do notice along the reasoning of the participants here is that they're referring to Iran as Persia in a literal (poetic) as well as in a cultural and historical context. For which, because most of the references presented before us depict Iran as Persia in a cultural or historical setting, it would be useful to make the edits necessary to reflect this. Iran isn't known geographically as Persia, nor is it economically, militarily, socially nor politically known hither. Since the usage of Persia is limited only to cultural and historical contexts, it doesn't qualify to use the word 'also' since that means either usage of Iran and Persia are equally comprehensible and correct, which is outdated since Iran now-a-days isn't referred to as Persia unless you're part of an older, nationalist generation. Vormeph (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Vormeph: Please instead of repetition of your sentences, (1) Answer my question about Google Map (2) The context of Donald Trum's speech has been Political, neither cultural nor historical. (3) The negotiators are from Iran not Fars province. Thus Persian negotiators means Iranian negotiators. I hope you don't repeat again the same sentences and rather try to answer all three questions.Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Aidepikiwnirotide: 1. I think Google Maps redirects Persia to Iran so as to avoid confusion that they're two different countries. Iran and Persia both refer to the same country, but the usage of their names is dependent on the context. Google Maps probably only responds based on popular feedback. 2. Donald Trump was referring to Iranians and Persians by their nationality and ethnicity; the article as I have read also refers to Iran based on historical views and usage. 3. Indeed Iran is not Fars province; but that doesn't mean Persian negotiators means Iranian negotiators. Persian people depicts an ethnicity; whereas Iranian is simply the demonym for someone from Iran. It's interesting though, the fact you refer to Iran through ethnicity more than anything else only makes it more trivial to discuss. Vormeph (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Vormeph: OK, now we compare your two sentences: (1) You say: "Iran and Persia both refer to "the same" country" (I'm glad to hear a new phrase from you and it means Persia = Iran, where "=" means "the same") (2) You say also "Iran isn't known geographically as Persia" where Google Map shows "geographical" regions. (3) If Persian depicts an ethnicity, in Donald Trump's speech, he means "ethnicity of negotiators", whereas he means "their nationality", As a result, "Persian" and "Iranian" both are the demonym for someone from Iran. If you don't agree with this argument, thus you mean Donald Trump in his "political speech" mentions "ethnicity of negotiators" which means that "he is aware of their ethnicity!" and also in a "political speech" the "ethnicity of negotiators" is more important than "their nationality"! (which logically is impossible).Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Aidepikiwnirotide: I think in order to solve this diplomatically we should negotiate in Geneva while eating plenty of Ghormeh Sabzi. :-) Vormeph (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bromley86: Regarding your reversion of my edit: no it's not really a relevant source. The source asserts that Iran and Persia can be used interchangeably in any context; but if that were the case then the UN would register Persia as an alternative name for Iran, if it's requested. Another reason is that the source pre-dates the 1979 revolution. Mohammad Reza Shah was deposed: that's a fact; all his decrees/edits were also abolished since his rule was overthrown. It would be a mere fallacy to assume that the current Iranian government and the international community still abide by the late Shah's decree that Iran and Persia can both be used interchangeably. Hence, the source should be removed. It's also worthy to mention that the professor involved wrote doesn't really have the legal prerogative to say that Iran and Persia can be used interchangeably. It's not appropriate for Wikipedia to use his opinions to justify his opinions as facts. Vormeph (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Vormeph: You discuss in talk page and then edit Iran page regardless of the result and context of the discussion and other opinions ?! Can I ask you why do you use "talk page"?Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You appear to have a position on the use of Persia, which is currently under discussion. A quick skip-read of the above indicates to me that consensus has not been reached (or, if it has, it seems to me to favour the status quo). Additionally, your rationale for removing the statement is flawed, as it is a historical fact that there was an official, if half-hearted, attempt to return to Persia, politically and formally, as at least an option. That that may have been rescinded since does not invalidate it. If we have a reliable source, rather than your OR, that states that it has been rescinded, then we can make that point, but I don't think it's necessary. The article deals with the current situation nicely, IMO: Today, both Persia and Iran are used in cultural contexts; although, Iran is the name used officially in political contexts. Bromley86 (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bromley86: I doubt such a trend really exists; but if people want to use consensus to rationalise their backwards thinking, so be it. It will always remain thus: Iran was known as Persia until 1935; thereafter it has been known as Iran. Iran is sometimes referred to as Persia in cultural contexts, and used in pre-1935 historical contexts. Persia is the archaic name for the country which is not recognised in the UN; not used anywhere in the international community to describe the country; and is only used by people who hide behind consensus and century-old books that are written prior to a revolution. Using your logic, it would mean that I should follow Louis XV's edict that encyclopaedias should be banned, in which case I'm already breaking his law by using Wikipedia, despite there being a French revolution and his reign long been expired. If you are suggesting that the 1959 edict should be used as a basis to use Persia and Iran interchangeably, then that means we can invoke expired edicts to rationalise edits on Wikipedia. What you're thus doing is not really in favour of consensus but quite the contrary. The irony is that we're using democracy to rationalise the opinions of non-democratics! How low can some people get, eh? Vormeph (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that the 1959 edict should be used as a basis to use Persia and Iran interchangeably - I am not. Bromley86 (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Vormeph, your self-appointed requirements from earlier have been met. "Can you point out a news article that refers to Iran as Persia in a modern sense? There's a challenge for ya. If you are successful, then I will retract my argument." Persia is used to refer to Iran the country in a political sense, today, by native Iranians, according to multiple published, reliable sources, including news articles and academic books. Now please follow through on your own commitment and stop beating a dead horse. Rwenonah (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Rwenonah: Iran referred to as Persia by native Iranians? Maybe in the USA where the lot of them are nationalists, but certainly not within Iran. Any one who knows their history will qualify to say otherwise. I don't know where you derive your opinions from, but Iran is not synonymous with Persia. Can you point out which native Iranian today refers to Iran as Persia? Perhaps a source from Iran rather than the USA might be sufficient. Vormeph (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

On that subject, this seems to nicely summarise the current situation: The usage of Persia/Persian, however, was revived by Iranian expatriates in . . .. Although, it should be noted that Ehsan Yarshater has been advocating it since at least 1959.[1] Bromley86 (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bromley86: It won't let me view the source, but it might be interesting to read. One thing to note is that these are Iranian expatriates who are reviving such usage, but it's not the official position. It wouldn't really be correct in any way to aver that we should be calling Iran just because expatriates of that country do. This is really just a case of controversy, and it's like calling Britain Britannia; or America Columbia. The latter names are poetic or literal. In the same sense, the usage of Persia now-a-days has achieved that sense. If we can agree that Persia insofar is a poetic or cultural name for Iran, then we can use that as a means to resolve this discussion once and for all. I think it might be useful to also fetch the opinions of @LjL:, @Rwenonah: and @Aidepikiwnirotide: regarding the notion Persia now-a-days is simply a literal or cultural term for Iran. Vormeph (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Vormeph: You say : "Iran referred to as Persia by native Iranians, Maybe in the USA where the lot of them are nationalists, but certainly not within Iran." (1) I answer you : "Iran referred to as Persia mostly and often in USA, because the native language in USA is English and thus they use often Persia i.e. western term (remember Donald Trump's speech. Do you think he's an Iranian nationalist or patriot too ?!)" but in Iran, people often use Iran instead of Persia, because the native language in Iran is Persian and thus they use the native term i.e. Iran. (I remind you Shahnameh written by Ferdowsi who was a real Iranian nationalist or patriot, where he uses Iran more than 800 times (see: http://bukharamag.com/1393.02.2764.html)) Thus, the "criterion" for calling Iran as Persia is the "native language" and "not nationalism" (Compare Donald Trump and Ferdowsi from the point of view of "Iranian nationalist") (2) when you use "nationalist" term for someone who calls Iran as Persia, in fact you are saying "all your thoughts" (see : Secession).Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Aidepikiwnirotide: I don't know which side you hail from, whether the posterior or not; but in this side of the world we refer to the country as Iran regardless of what the native language or foreign language may represent. As for Donald Trump, to take his words for granted is plain stupid. Vormeph (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I just provided a book, The Ayatollah Begs to Differ : The Paradox of Modern Iran, by Hooman Majd, a regime-sympathetic Iranian, saying that many native Iranians treat "Iran" as synonymous with "Persia", and indeed prefer to use the latter in a political context. So yes, native Iranians do use the term, in a political context, according to non-"nationalist" Iranian sources. Rwenonah (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Vormeph: I'm glad I could predict well your character! Anyway, the audience of this hail is your mind. Do you know why you use stupid term for Donald Trump ? because he doesn't listen, and only babbles. Btw, as I said previously, I'm living in France where most of people know Iran as Persia (la Perse). Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Let's try to stay on message. Trump is not a reliable source (and I say that as a Trump supporter).

To your point, this is the English WP. Certainly in the Lead, we don't have to mention that Iran is called Persia in French (or whatever unprintable name they have for it in Saudi Arabia, etc.). In the body, if true that it's in common use as a country name, it is worth noting. WP is not a reliable source, especially when the references on the French WP for that point are so poor. We'll need a link to a reputable French news source, or similar, to confirm.

This is easy to solve. Does anyone have English reliable sources (news/government/books) that call modern Iran "Persia". I'll be amazed if we do. Bromley86 (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bromley86: Firstly, I don't know what is your criterion to say a source is reliable or not? ("I say this source is not reliable as a Trump supporter" is a misleading, rather it's better to say "this source is not reliable, because ...") (2) I never said that Iran is called as Persia (la Perse) in French, but also I said Iran is known as Persia as mentioned in the Iran article. What is the difference ? when the Iranian government presents itself as "Islamic Republic of Iran", it obviously affects daily conversation of people, if you ask why? I say because everyday in media is mentioned a quote from the Iranian government (its president, supreme leader) and obviously when it repeats for a long term, it enters daily conversation of people, but people never forget that they're talking about the same Persia, where Iran = Persia. (3) I mentioned above (13) news articles related to recent months (I suggest to look at all of them). I refer you to another news article i.e. (11) Are We Negotiating With Iran or Persia?, where it says: "As Secretary of State John Kerry has discovered, you never know which one to expect, Iran or Persia?" means that Iran and Persia are mutually the same. (4) To prove that Iran = Persia geographically as well, I refer you to Google Map, where it shows geographical regions and I didn't get any logical reason to deny it as a reliable source, where if we consider Persia only for historical issues, Google Map shouldn't show current Iran map, because it never shows historical empires, but also it refers only to contemporary geographical regions. If you deny Google Map as well, there is no way except to refer to yourself! Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Good gods man, did you just, in true Trump fashion, double-down on the suggestion that Donald Trump is a reliable source for establishing the name of a country! Whilst I might disagree with the way Vormeph has phrased things, I certainly now have more sympathy with his frustration. My (and, indeed, your) criteria on reliable sources are listed at WP:RS.

Regarding French people and what they call Iran. Again, it's only relevant, and then only for the body, if you can show it happening. You are not a RS.

The sources you mention above are all useless:

(1) No mention of Persia; (2) Historical mentions only; (3) finally, one that mentions Persia as a modern country!; (4) historical ref only - actually says "now Iran"; (5) antivirus software blocks, so let's ignore that one; (6) refers to the Europe-Persia Express Gateway (EPEG) project, not sure why they did that, but it hardly established the name of the country as Iran; (7) historic (1911) reference; (8)cultural ("Persia buff Charles"); (9) ditto, additionally a title tagline (Prince of Persia); (10) cultural; (11) a better one, but " “Iran” and “Persia” diverged a long time ago as cultural and political concepts", "Persia was renamed Iran in 1935", all other references historical or cultural (including the sign-off where they say "As Secretary of State John Kerry has discovered, you never know which one to expect, Iran or Persia?" (also, why bold Kerry, as he didn't say it?); (12) no mention other than in title & it's cultural there; (13) 1 mention, cultural.

So 1 out of 13. In that one, it is mentioned once: "On the Tuesday edition of TRUNEWS, guest Jim Willie mentioned that Iran — who he referred to as Persia" So, we have a reference to one guest calling it Persia. On a website that might well not be a reliable source, given that it is some sort of Christian news site (i.e. hardly a mainstream outlet) "The ministry was launched by Rick Wiles in September 1998 in Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX."[2]

Google maps is not a reliable source for that sort of thing, especially if it's the only one you can find. Nevertheless, typing Persia into Google maps gives this result, where it says Iran & not Persia. That the search engine is clever enough to know what you mean when you type Persia is neither here nor there.

Time to put this one to bed, as we've got a lot of unsupported opinion overruling sensible changes to the article such as that made by Pro translator (diff). Do you want me to invite in WP:3O, or similar? Bromley86 (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bromley86: I hope at least yourself understood what you say. In my side, it's totally nonsense. Anyway, (1) you're not permitted to remove related references. Apparently, you're angry, (I don't know why!), try to be calm down and continue your discussion (of course with logical reasons and without any prejudice). So, I recovered that related references. (2) (Apparently, "is not reliable reference" is your keyword about any reference that is not in your favour). (3) Please note that here the request was mentioning a single contemporary news article such that in the context, Iran referred to as Persia and it's not important WHO refers. Btw, (4) when Google Map shows THIS result, it means that when you are looking for Persia, it shows you its geographical region i.e. Iran, As a result, Persia = Iran (where we intend to achieve i.e. "Iran also known as Persia"). (5) If I bold John Kerry, I mean a contemporary diplomat (he could be somebody else! but I could find at the moment this one! OK?) concerning a contemporary political matter believes impossibility to split Iran and Persia, as the title of this news article confirms this reality. Finally, (6) I invite you to beware of cynical point of view to achieve a reliable consensus. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Which bit don't you understand? You might disagree with it, but it's a fairly rational statement of facts.

I'm not angry, just a little bemused that you don't seem to understand that Donald Trump, great though he may be, is not a reliable source and that a reliable source quoting Trump is not a suitable cite to prove a point.

As to the removal of references, I am entirely allowed to remove bogus references if they don't support the point made. You might want to have a look at where I show that they don't support the point, here. Ljl has likewise made that observation.

I don't think you understand what you've read re. Kerry. Have another look and you'll see that he has said no such thing.

Finally, please go easy on the formatting. Correct indentation and use of returns/bullets will make your points much clearer than highlighting every other sentence. Bromley86 (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, I see you've reverted my removal of the sources again. Please either undo that, or otherwise justify all 4 of them individually because, as I've said, they don't actually support the point made. Bromley86 (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bromley86: Please don't mix everything hope that you achieve your purposes! Please consider "the request" which I quote here : "Can you point out a news article that refers to Iran as Persia in a modern sense? If you are successful, then I will retract my argument." It's OK? Thus, regarding to this request, I mentioned Trump and Kerry news articles as two examples, if you sense these news articles are not reliable, the problem is related to the request itself! i.e. requesting for "the news articles" ! not e.g. a book, a scientific or academic article ! As a result, I don't care the person who refers to Persia in the news article, or what is the purpose of article, or where is its publisher! hope it's clear enough! Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not Vormeph, so I am not sure why that's relevant. However, the news articles in question do not refer to Iran as Persia in a modern sense, so problem solved? Bromley86 (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

From a user who has the most contributions to Iranian-related articles: Iran should be first-choice, not Persia. Iran is more historically correct, and that's it. Persia is a province [3]. I often avoid to use 'Persia' when I'm editing something, since it is historically incorrect. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the input HistoryofIran. I think we're all agreed that Iran is the correct English short name for the country, and I think we're all (or perhaps just most of us are) happy with Persia being included in the article under "Etymology". But do you have an opinion on whether the Lead should also include "commonly referred to as Persia"/"also known as Persia"? As one of the Iranian expats, your opinion would be interesting. Would your opinion change if this was, say, the Iran article on an Persian-language Wikipedia, as opposed to the English one? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bromley86: In your opinion, Iran nuclear negotiations is not a modern sense?! Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, I don't think you understand what you've read.[4] Persia is not used to refer to the country in that article, when one reads it carefully; it actually states the opposite ("“Iran” and “Persia” diverged a long time ago as cultural and political concepts but one cannot exist without the other". The final sentence, which you've incorrectly attributed to Kerry, is merely the author juxtaposing the rich and warm Persian culture with the cold, hard, political entity of Iran (cold from the West's POV, of course). Or something like that. Bromley86 (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bromley86: OK, I use the same phrase you mentioned above: "one cannot exist without the other", means that Iran and Persia cannot exist without the other. OK. In my knowledge, Iran is only a country (if we've another famous thing called as Iran, let me know. At least, in this article that is related to Iran nuclear negotiations, Iran means a "country") thus, obviously, in the other side of this equation we need a "homogeneous concept" i.e. "a country" i.e. the same "Persia". Thus, here Persia is also a country. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

[{WP:OR]]. Find the sources that say what you want, rather than constructing convoluted arguments around sources that you've already misinterpreted. Bromley86 (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: I know what you are trying to say and technically is correct since from a historical point of view, the term of Iran covers Iranian plateau including Persia province, but correct or incorrect, first Iranian empire (Achaemenids) was known as Persis (Persia province) in Greek sources and until now it's being used in most (or maybe all) of sources about Iranian history, thus we cannot ignore this western name. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Bromley86: In my opinion it should be "formerly known as Persia in the Western world" or something like that, since it was the Western world that knew Iran by that name. No, I wouldn't change my opinion; I will no matter what always favour the usage of the name "Iran" than the name of "Persia".

Aidepikiwnirotide: We can't ignore the OLD western name of the country, but we can reduce the usage of it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Reducing usage of Persia is different with ignoring it totally, otherwise there will be a "disjunction" between "current Iran" an "Iranian history" (the reason is Iranians historically have relied on western sources, since Achaemenids until now! It's a reality that Iranians have not written significantly their history like Greeks who have written about Iranian empires and kings, at this point, Ferdowsi is an exception) and the only solution is to use them interchangeably. You say why interchangeably ? I say because "currently" it is being used and we cannot change all people as we prefer. If you want to reduce usage of Persia, you may publish a book and use only Iran without using Persia, no problem, but not in wikipedia that has to only reflect these published books and current situation "compactly". Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Here are some sources that support notion that Iran is the current name for the country; and express or imply Persia is the by-gone name for the country:

1. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/the-top-ten-dearly-departed-names-of-countries-a6723131.html
2. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/history-of-iran-from-persia-to-present-1.791319
3. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/middle_east-jan-june10-timeline/
4. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21151350
5. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14541327
6. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html
7. http://iran.embassyhomepage.com/iran_travel_information_iranian_embassy_london_uk_cheap_flights_iran_hotel_deals_iran_holiday_travel_insurance.htm#iran-information - The source says the country is locally called Iran
8. http://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2016/jan/14/african-slavery-in-qajar-iran-in-photos - uses the term modern Iran implying that Persia is archaic usage
9. http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/iranpersia/index.htm - also discriminates between the terms Iran and Persia
10. http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/countries/iran-guide/ - stipulates that Persia is now known as Iran.

With all these sources, I'd like anyone to challenge reality by insisting that Iran is still known as Persia. Only such patriots and nationalists would, but from a non-partisan and unbiased POV, Iran is the modern name for the country. Vormeph (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

My only request concerning links above is to verify only website number (7) and the question is that whose website is it really?! Iranian embassy?! this website is as much reliable as their links presented on the bottom of the page, where you find other Iranian embassy (i.e. Iranian Embassies Worldwide) e.g. Iranian Embassy in Argentina , or Iranian Embassy in France , or even Iranian Embassy in US ! or other links. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Iranian Languages-Ethnics

1- I removed this line in Language part "which are classified as either a dialect of Persian" Because Gilaki and Mazandarani are indo-european languages of caspian branch and nobody but those who are completly illiterate can call them "a dialect of persian!!!!!" Here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/IndoEuropeanTreeDielli1.svg

2-Persians, Which here means "Fars People" do not include Gilaks, Talyshs and Mazandaranis. They are different from "Persians" like Kurds, Lurs and Baloochs are. I don't know who changed CIA's World fact book here, and "included" Gilaks to Persians! Coldasicefire (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Coldasicefire: Alright; fair enough. I'm not debating on this issue anymore.
Please calm down, and don't forget to sign your posts.
Rye-96 (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Name order

I know there's been a lot of talk about the name, so, baby steps. Any objection to me:
A. Changing the first line of the Lead to conform with the United Kingdom and United States articles? Namely: "The Islamic Republic of Iran, commonly referred to as Iran . . ."
B. Removing the "also known as Persia" from the first sentence of the Lead. It rather seems to me that it's not, in that context (otherwise the UK would have England as an also known in that first sentence).
That this might be seen as rehashing the above, but frankly that's turned into a bit of a ramble. Bromley86 (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The UK has an "also known as Britain" in the first sentence, so... Rwenonah (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Cool, so we're good on (a)?

Re. (b), not quite. It actually says: "commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain" (the US mirrors that, with "commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America"). Despite my disagreement with Vormeph above, the country of Iran is not now commonly known as Persia. None of the cites in the Lead indicate that it is:

• CIA Factbook. Actually supports the removal, as it says: "Known as Persia until 1935".[5]
• Ehsan Yarshater. A great source for the historical situation, as he was involved, and (I assume) for the Persian nationalist position, but it doesn't support the assertion that it's commonly referred to now. We don't even need to get into whether or not the Shah's decrees were rescinded.[6]
• History Files. It doesn't support the assertion. It supports Yarshater's statement that the Shah rescinded the Iran requirement, but it then goes on to say (in the "Modern Iran" section), "'While the modern state itself is known as Iran, the geographical region in which it sits can still be labelled Persia, as can Iranian cultural and historic matters." This is a country article, so . . .[7]
• Encyclopaedia Iranica. Doesn't even mention modern Iran.[8] Bromley86 (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Lots of sources presented in the above discussion say otherwise. I see no reason to rehash them, but if even a few sources say Iran is also known as Persia, that shows that to be the case; none of those sources explicitly say it is not. Rwenonah (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Not so. Just because a few sources say something, doesn't mean it's important enough to go into the lead.

Anyway, reviewing those references, they do not support the inclusion in the Lead:

• WP reporting on Trump.[9] Trump is not a reliable source, but anyway he just says "Persians", not "Persia".
• NYT travel piece.[10] Does not refer to Iran as Persia, except in the title, where it is clearly and deliberately being used in a historical context.
• NYT food piece (really?).[11] No reference to a modern country called Persia.
• Persian Mirrors: The Elusive Face of Iran.[12] Incredibly weak. It's mentioned in passing on p.21, and is referring to a tourism poster that was likely using Persia in a historical/cultural capacity.

LjL has already pointed out the terminal weakness of these in the context of the country name. Any real cites? Bromley86 (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bromley86: I had some sources but they were removed. Here they are:

* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21151350 I quote: "Good horsemanship was essential to the fighting styles of Persia - the historical name for modern-day Iran."

* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14541327 I quote: "Persia, as Iran was known before 1935"

They all imply the notion that Iran is the modern name for the country; whereas Persia is the historical usage pre-1935. Vormeph (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure. The Ayatollah Begs to Differ by Hooman Masjid notes many Iranians prefer the term Persia. Again, this is all above. Rwenonah (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Rwenonah: Iranians within Iran call their country Iran. If they were to call their country Persia, then in Persian it would be simply called either Pars or Fars. I urge everyone to take note that many sources which condone the usage of 'Persia' in a modern sense have nationalist motives and come from an unofficial stance of the country. To turn the page, I ask everyone to put aside their political differences and look at the facts boldly and clearly: Iran was called Persia until 1935. After 1935 it was known as Iran. History has it that an Iranian Revolution commenced in 1979 (and not a Persian revolution). Iran became the Islamic Republic of Iran (not the IR. of Persia). The UN recognises this, and today Iran is the term used to describe the country, regardless of the nationalists say. If anyone in this article has any sense to contradict this, then it is they that are living in fantasy. They may call Iran Persia for as much as they want, but that will never be its official name. Much like calling Britain Britannia or America Colombia. The latter terms are valid, but they do not have any political meaning. As for Persia, it really just refers to the country of Iran before 1935. The fact we have to make so many topics on this talk page to establish a fact that is cemented by common sense is a folly. It only shows how backwards thinking nationalists are; and how they would go to great lengths and pervert the use of consensus in justifying why one notion presides against all others. Why, I personally would like to call the USA Colombia since it sounds nice and makes the USA sound less antagonistic. But I'm no American patriot, just a Wikipedia editor. Vormeph (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Oooo-kaaaay. I'm not sure what "political differences" you're talking about. I'm not sure what "nationalist" means either; the current Iranian government is fairly nationalist as I understand the term. Do you mean émigrés? Royalists? Dissenters? Anti-Islamic-republic Iranians? Anyway, it doesn't really matter; if there are in fact "many" sources using the term, which you just said, then it's a valid alternative name. A name doesn't need to have "political meaning" or "be endorsed by the UN" or "official" to be an alternative that's used. A better parallel than the US or Britain here is Myanmar; a new regime seized power and sought to call the country something new, but the old name (Burma, in this case) is still commonly used. Rwenonah (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

If Vormeph was a RS, that'd count; as he is not, you need to provide sources to back your assertion. I and others have pointed out to you that the existing refs do not support Persia as the name of the country today. Any more? Bromley86 (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I gave you one above. Another good source is "The History of Iran" by Elton L. Daniel, which notes "a strong argument can be made that in English usage, the terms Iran and Iranian should be reserved for reference to the larger groups of Aryan lands and peoples, and Persia for the empire or country. For the modern nation, however, Iran has probably become too widely accepted to be discarded." Or "The Persians", Gene R. Garthwaite, which notes that Persia is still the preferred term in the UK and that it has "been revived by Iranian expatriates ... this common usage suggested to them a less threatening political identity". It's also apparently used by the country's ethnic minorities to whom the term Iran has a "hegemonic dimension". Or "Secularism and Identity: Non-Islamioisty in the Iranian Diaspora", by Reza Gholami. You haven't "pointed out" anything; the only reason those news articles were relevant was because Vormeph challenged anyone to produce a contemporary news article showing the use of "Persia". There's a profusion of academic texts saying the same thing. Rwenonah (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Re. The Ayatollah Begs to Differ. You mentioned a book, but would you like to show where it supports your position? It's up to you to provide the cite, not me.

Re. The History of Iran, p.3.[13] He doesn't say that it is called Persia there.

Re. The Persians, p.1.[14] He says that Persia/Persian is used in the UK, but you seem to be having trouble finding any UK references. So not good enough for inclusion in the Lead. Ditto, a minority position by Iranian expats does not merit the inclusion of Persia in the Lead (although it does in the appropriate part of the body).

Re. Secularism and Identity: Non-Islamioisty in the Iranian Diaspora. Again, you need to cite, but I suspect (given the diaspora bit) that it's not going to support inclusion in the Lead. Bromley86 (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean "you seem to be having trouble finding any UK references." That book says the term is used in the UK; it's an RS. The Ayatollah Begs to Differ says on pg. 161 that many Iranians prefer the term Persia, especially in the diaspora, and also notes that it's "still prevalent today in many instances" in the West. The History of Iran says, as I quoted above, that there's a "strong argument to be made that the term Iran ... should be reserved for reference to the larger groups of Aryan lands and peoples" and Persia used for the country. The Persians also notes that not only do Iranian expats prefer the term, but so do ethnic minorities in Iran who see "Iran" as having a "hegemonic dimension." These are significant usages of the term by large groups of people; also, there's no reason a usage by expats doesn't merit inclusion in the lede, as it shows that Iran is also known as Persia. The fact it's a minority usage isn't a valid reason not to include it. Rwenonah (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

What I mean is that you're trying to establish that "Persia" is commonly used to refer to the modern country "Iran". And yet, you are unable to link to reliable sources that commonly refer to it as such. Instead, from the pro-inclusion side there's been some real barrel-scraping, where the point that is trying to be made is not actually made (and often in things like recipe articles, to boot).

As I've said, I accept that some in the Iranian diaspora (or Persian diaspora?) commonly refer to it as Persia. That is not sufficient, IMO, for inclusion in the Lead, as it's just not important enough. The average reader of this article will never see the name "Persia" used for the modern state of Iran.

I also accept that the books that you refer to are almost certainly all reliable sources. But none of them establish that Persia is in common use in the English language; as this is the English WP, that's the test. Please note that, as always, and especially given the RfC, providing correct cites is useful. Where there's no online reference, quoting to support your point is useful (e.g. The Persians p.161, it would be interesting to see the full context of your quote "still prevalent today in many instances"). Bromley86 (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Finding a source that uses the term "Persia" to refer to Iran is a useless exercise, since all that establishes is that an individual source uses the term, which is likely not representative of popular usage. It's better to use sources that actually talk about the nomenclature and how and where Persia is used, which I've done. So far, I've given you RS's that establish that Persia is the preferred term among 1) expats, 2) ethnic minorities, 3) in the UK, and 4) is "still prevalent in many instances" in the West. You agree that they're reliable; so presumably these sources' ideas stand, there being no other reason to reject them. That being the case, that very much establishes it as "in common use in the English language". Rwenonah (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The finding of sources that call Iran "Persia" is hardly useless when trying to show that it's in common usage. We don't have to use 10 cites to support a point in the article, but, when questioned on a point, we should be able to find 10 news articles (or similar) in English that call it Persia if it's in common use. But no one can. Just as we should be able to find it in tertiary sources like EB/CIA Factbook/etc, which we can't.

1) I think we're all happy that some expats refer to it as Persia, but that doesn't make it a common name for Iran.

2) You've not shown that it's used by ethnic minorities in English.

3) The UK. One source. Sources make mistakes, or are interpreted incorrectly; it happens. If it's in use in the UK, it should be easy to find it elsewhere, but you've been unable to support it when asked.

4) Ditto for "the West".

So none of that establishes common use in the English language. Again, find a news article that calls it Persia (and not in the way Aidepikiwnirotide does), a book that calls it Persia (other than briefly mentioning that some might call it Persia), etc. That's how one establishes common use. Bromley86 (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I've found sources. You've dismissed them because ... well ... you've kind of just dismissed them because that seems to be what you wanted to do. We'll see what the RFC says. Rwenonah (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bromley86:, @Rwenonah: This whole debate is similar to another issue that expired back in November as to what Iran's government should be called.Talk:Iran/Archive_15#Government_of_Iran Eventually a source unaffiliated with Iran was used and then that was established. I'm not sure why a certain user has revived that issue by calling Iran a dictatorship, but I am retiring that argument since it bears no substance. As for the name of Iran, I propose that we find a source that is not affiliated with someone Iranian nor within Iran so that we can draw an unbaised point of view. Naturally any Iranian would say that Persia is synonymous with Iran due to their patriotic nature. If we are to use a source by such people it would consitute as original research and thereby undermine the verifiability of the Iran article itself. The solution to all this is to look for sources in newspapers/journals that discriminate between the terms Iran and Persia. For example, the BBC articles I have shown here clearly state that Persia is the historical name for Iran. Interestingly enough, Aidepikiwnirotide removed not only those sources as hardly credible, but reinstated the statement 'also known as' Iran. I hope people are also aware that the old sources that backed-up claims Iran is syonnymous with Persia have also become lost. Regardless, those sources constituted original research since they were biased towards Iran. The BBC sources I've used are impartial, and if we get more soures from non-partisan news soures, then we can use those to establish this point: Persia is the historical name for Iran. The term Persian denotes an ethnicity, but that does not warrant calling Iran hither. Vormeph (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is there two big sections about the same problem? We already have one here? [15] --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

My fault. There was a lot of noise to the signal in the section above, and I was trying to get the sources that would be used to support the inclusion of Persia in the Lead out in the open where we could examine them. I think I've done that, and I'm happy that there is no justification from what we've seen above for the inclusion as also known as or commonly known as in the Lead. Unfortunately, I've not convinced Rwenonah, who's been the one with the most sensible sources.

BTW, I'm happy with your suggested wording for Persia in the Lead[16] "formerly knows as" (not sure if the "in the Western world" is necessary, in the Lead, but frankly anything is better than what we have, so no strong argument against it). I'd be interested to see what Ljl thinks, as he's the one who took issue with Vormeph's original edit. Bromley86 (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bromley86: I wonder why you think that there is no justification! whereas, I never got a logical reason why you don't consider Google Map, along with my explanations about this. Also, please compare Google Map with references in section above (Iran vs. Persia), where I dissected only one of them i.e. number (7). (I also wondered nobody except me mentioned this references!) Anyway, if you need more references, I suggest you another book:[17]

Where, it's mentioned "Iran, traditionally known as Persia", (where traditionally means typically). Finally, you cannot don't answer people and leave the questions open and then be happy. You need to convince people. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Re. Google maps, I explained it to you, you just don't understand. No matter, take it to WP:RSN if you don't believe me.

When you say you dissected one of them, what you mean is that Vormeph made an error and was too quick to use a reference that he believed was an embassy ref without checking into it. An error on his part, but one that you yourself have been repeatedly guilty of here. I note with interest that you do not "dissect" any of the others. Not that I've looked at them in detail myself, but you seem very impressed with the fact you've caught him out on one. Frankly, I'm not impressed by his line of argument there either, but that's a different matter.

Re. your recent add, I'm reverting. You do not understand the nuances of English. In this case, traditionally refers to the fact that Iran was referred to as Persia for thousands of years. I'll also open a section below for you to address the other refs that you seem to, in error, believe support AKA Persia.

I have no idea what you mean by "cannot don't answer people". Clarify, and I'll be happy to answer. Bromley86 (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bromley86: Did you count you've denied how many references until mow?! What do you want?! I think the number of references has been denied by you is double digits!!! Only you and Vormeph are reliable!!! Once again, I rely only on the related expression in a reference (book etc) i.e "Iran, traditionally known as Persia", (where traditionally means typically) and I don't care the rest of that reference, title of book etc. I refer you to references mentioned in section Iran vs. Persia again, where I explained one of them (number (7)) and nobody else speaks about such these references!!! Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I genuinely have no idea what you want me to say. If you supply references that do not say what you think they do, then that's hardly my fault. I've explained to you where your understanding of English is flawed, but you are unwilling to understand. I can only recommend that you leave the pro-inclusion case to Rwenona. Bromley86 (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bromley86: I repeat here also : removing references (where they have been explained enough above) means vandalism. Otherwise I have to report you as vandalism. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Iran - the dictatorship?

I have added the fact that Iran is a dictatorship under the form of government. Wikipedia's article on dictatorship states a dictatorship is a form of government where a country is ruled by one person or entity. According to the constitution of Iran the country has a Supreme Leader who is the ultimate authority in the country and therefore it meets if not exhibits the definition of a Dictatorship. If anyone can come up with an argument that disproves Iran being a dictatorship, I am willing to hear it. Olowe2011 ^Talk 10:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment - For those who practically have intercourse with sources here you go:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Pesaran, M. Hashem. "The system of dependent capitalism in pre-and post-revolutionary Iran." International Journal of Middle East Studies 14.04 (1982): 501-522.

And a number more that I will leave you to find for yourself Olowe2011 ^Talk 11:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Lets have some more reliable sources establishing this to the extent that it goes in the infobox, rather than as a possible mention in the Body. As the editor wanting to add the information, you need to make the case rather than the other way around. Also, WP:BRD, so please don't add it back in until we've had a stab at the D. Bromley86 (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Bromley86, I am working on the principle of WP:IAR so that quote for a guideline will not adjust my logic. I've proided sources and you are in effect removing / blanking sourced content from the article. The sources provided are also reliable. However, if you would like more here they are:

• Halliday, F., 1979. Iran: Dictatorship andDevelopment. Harmondworth: Penguin Books.
• Amjad, M., 1989. Iran: from royal dictatorship to theocracy (Vol. 242). Greenwood Pub Group.
• Irfani, Suroosh. Iran's islamic revolution: popular liberation or religious dictatorship?. Zed books, 1983.
• Cronin, S., 2003. Modernity, change and dictatorship in Iran: the new order and its opponents, 1927-29. Middle Eastern Studies, 39(2), pp.1-36.
• Wintrobe, R., 1998. The political economy of dictatorship (Vol. 6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Olowe2011 ^Talk 11:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

And what do they have to say on the subject? Bromley86 (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• All the above sources stipulate in one way or the other that Iran is a Dictatorship. Olowe2011 ^Talk 11:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Then use them as cites, with reference to where they actually say it. Incidentally, re. the 3 cites you initially supplied here. (1) is not a RS, (2) does not make your case ("slide towards", not "is a") and (3) is just a book name, not a reference. You need to show that it is commonly accepted to be a dictatorship, with things like CIA Factbook (no),[18] EB (no),[19], BBC (no),[20] etc.

I will not allow your edit to remain (IAR works both ways, although I suspect using it as a defence against 3RR might go badly!), as you have not satisfied me of the validity of your position. Rather than edit warring, would you like me to ask for a 3rd opinion? Bromley86 (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

As I suspect we won't see eye-to-eye on this one, I've requested a WP:3O. Bromley86 (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment- Bromley86 you can do what you like. If you are satisfied by pedaling Iran to be a religiously excused dictatorship (i.e. a "theocracy.") So be it. However, you know that you're lying by calling it something other than a Dictatorship. So let it be that Wikipedia's readers are misinformed by sources that are politically motivated (CIA and the BBC.) Strangely, both these sources are controlled by the governments which aided in the so called Iranian revolution and both would have no interest in saying that they'd been a part of creating a dictatorship. So yes, do what you like but I don't think you're any better of a man to defend knowledge and its truth than those in the Iranian establishment, good day. I am out of this political nonsense. Olowe2011 ^Talk 11:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

3O unrequested as we seem to have resolved this. Bromley86 (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bromley86:, @Olowe2011: This discussion is ironic since Iran recently hosted runner-up parliamentary elections which are also for positions in the [Assembly of Experts]], the council that elects/supervises/removes a Supreme Leader from power. Iran is not a dictatorship since it does host elections; but its democracy isn't perfect. That again does not support a ground that Iran is a dictatorship. The issue regarding government type was resolved last year following an agreement between me, @UCaetano: and others. If you want to stipulate that Iran is a dictatorship, then you should consider referring back to the archives. I'm surprised that you hold a rather impartial view towards this matter since you @Olowe2011: have it on user page to claim otherwise. I think everyone here will agree that branding Iran as a dictatorship out of the blue is vandalism. Vormeph (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Vormeph: And who, pray tell, appoints members of the Assembly of Experts? Oh gosh let me think... oh waits its the "Supreme leader of Iran." The infallible oh so great Supreme dictator who with the grace of his words managed to inspire the legal authorities of Iran to arrest a (oh guess what?) a member of this "elected" Assembly of Experts. Please, before calling me impartial or bias attempt to get your facts about the topic at hand and read the sources provided... thank you. Olowe2011 ^Talk 14:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Olowe2011: Members of the Assembly of Experts are elected. Sources:

* http://presstv.ir/Detail/2016/05/04/463919/Second-round-parliamentary-elections-Iran/

* https://faculty.unlv.edu/pwerth/Const-Iran%28abridge%29.pdf

It's better to research a few things before asserting a point without much knowledge. :-) Vormeph (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Vormeph: And further to this the fact that you appear not to know what Iran's constitution says about the "Supreme Authority" is concerning given your zealous contributions to this article and discussions. By having a simple quick skim of the Iranian's constitution it mentions in its own words that the leader of Iran is the "Supreme Authority." What is there to argue about? This alone satisfies the definition of a dictator and be it by admission of unreliable sources who contributed to the countries current state or not it remains a fact. I have no more time for this political nonsense for which i'm debating with someone who has absolutely no idea what they are talking about, finally, again - good day to you. Olowe2011 ^Talk 14:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Vormeph: You did not just direct me to a Iranian state ran television news source when trying to make an argument as to how Iran is not a dictatorship. I am absolutely done with this childish discussion. Take your nonsense and preach it somewhere else or read what you preach. Bye Olowe2011 ^Talk 14:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Vormeph: & @Bromley86: On a final note, WP:TELLTHETRUTH. Thanks. Olowe2011 ^Talk 15:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Iran is indeed under a dictatorship. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of "Persia" in the Lead as a common alternate name

Should the Lead contain the statement "also known as Persia"? Bromley86 (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see the Name Order section above for a summary of the references used by advocates to support it's inclusion. There's another section The name "Persia" that pre-dates it which you might also want to look at, but it's long and unfocussed. Bromley86 (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

AKA Persia refs

I've previously removed the 4 refs supporting ("supporting", really) the inclusion of Persia in the Lead, only to have Aidepikiwnirotide revert. Generally, refs are not needed in the Lead, as the Body should make the point and the Lead summarise. However, for contentious points, Lead refs are fine. This is, at the moment, contentious, so refs in the Lead are fine.

All that said, refs that do not support the point made are not refs. Anyone reading the current article might well think that the CIA Factbook supports the inclusion of Persia as an AKA: it does not.

So, I am removing them again. I'll copy my earlier explanation of why they don't support the assertion that the modern country of Iran is also known as Persia:

• CIA Factbook.[21] Actually supports the removal, as it says: "Known as Persia until 1935".
• Ehsan Yarshater.[22] A great source for the historical situation, as he was involved, and (I assume) for the Persian nationalist position, but it doesn't support the assertion that it's commonly referred to now. We don't even need to get into whether or not the Shah's decrees were rescinded.
• History Files.[23] It doesn't support the assertion. It supports Yarshater's statement that the Shah rescinded the Iran requirement, but it then goes on to say (in the "Modern Iran" section), "While the modern state itself is known as Iran, the geographical region in which it sits can still be labelled Persia, as can Iranian cultural and historic matters." This is a country article, so . . .
• Encyclopaedia Iranica.[24] Doesn't even mention modern Iran.

Anyone wanting to re-add them should similarly explain why. Bromley86 (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bromley86: Whu do you open a new section for each of your questions? I refer you to previous section, where I explained in details what is your arguments flaws. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK, you have not once explained why you support the inclusion of the CIA Factbook, for example. Please do so, or point me to where you've previously done so. And please do not edit war: again, I am removing these references not because I disagree with the statement being included (which I do), but because I have looked at them and they do not support the statement made.

As for reporting me, please do. I've tried to engage with you on this and would welcome some resolution. Bromley86 (talk) 10:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bromley86: Once again, you cannot scatter the discussion by "opening multiple sections" !!! It's your another misleading !!! Thus, I invite you to come back the previous section ! Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It's explained in the opening post here. Irrespective of the current discussion on the content, the refs do not support that content. This is a different matter. I have looked at them, have you? I keep referring to the CIA Factbook one, because it simply doesn't mention Persia as a synonym for modern Iran, and yet you insist on restoring it at every opportunity. So, as I said, explain why you think it (and the other 3) should be included.

Regarding your recent cite, that's a slightly different case, which is why my original removals were 2 edits and not 1. You added a new ref, it was challenged, and now it's up to you to defend its inclusion on the Talk page. You can do it above, where we were talking about it, or here; where ever works for you. Bromley86 (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:3O requested. Bromley86 (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, these refs don't support the statement they're being used in support of. They should be removed or at least not used in this context. Rwenonah (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks.

@Aidepikiwnirotide:. Could you please comment on why you believe, if you still do, that the 4 cites mentioned at the top of this section should be included to support the assertion that modern Iran is also known as Persia? If you've changed your position, great, but please say so. Once we have your position, we'll be able to close this section. Please stay on topic and limit yourself to just those 4, and just that small statement in the Lead. Thanks, Bromley86 (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bromley86: I commented in section "Moving forward". Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but you didn't answer the question posed here. This repeated refusal to explain why you repeatedly re-added these refs is now disruptive. If you won't state your reasoning, you will be ignored. Bromley86 (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I added new reference in the last section along with explanations. but you ignored the opinion of third party, as well. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hoy! Anyway, the cites will be removed when the article is unlocked, so I suppose I'd better drop the stick. Bromley86 (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand your ... language! Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Locked

Due to the above disagreement and what is verging on an edit war, I have locked the article. It will not be unlocked until consensus is established by the RFC above. The key is in the lock of my banhammer case. Mjroots (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots:. There are two disputes going on here ATM. The first is the dispute on whether or not Iran is still known as Persia, and the second is regarding whether the sources currently used say that it is.

The FRC will take care of the first, in time. I was about to request a 3O on the sources thing, as that's just between Aidepikiwnirotide and myself; would you be willing to allow the removal of the references before that if the 3O decides that they're bogus?

Also, I wasn't sure what the "key . . . banhammer" point means. Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots:,@Bromley86:

In response to Bromley86 : If you say only "theses references don't support!" regardless of all precise explanations that mentioned in sections above is not enough and in fact "it doesn't support anything". I'd like to mention again here the references in section Iran vs. Persia, (e.g. number (7) by Vormeph ) that nobody speaks about such references (for achieving a consensus all these issues must be discussed) and in such situation you denied my several references (including Google Map, when you are looking for Persia Geographical Region, it shows you Current Iran Map which means Persia = Iran and last book which mentions "Iran, traditionally known as Persia", (where traditionally means typically) and several other references!). :@Bromley86: It's better to be more unprejudiced and please don't forget that "your opinion doesn't mean consensus", but also to achieve a consensus you need to convince people. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need any references for the fact that the country is "also known as Persia". We certainly don't need five. The statement is uncontroversial. Many native-English speakers refer to the country as "Persia", just as they refer to The Netherlands as "Holland". Many people born in Iran and now resident in English-speaking countries refer to the country of their birth as Persia. Maproom (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Maproom: I totally agree with you, just for more confirmation, I added another reference. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

If any editor wishes to have an edit made to the article, use {{edit fully-protected}} to make a request on this talk page. It will be assessed on its merits and may or may not be made. Please note that I have locked the article at the WP:WRONGVERSION, as I always do when locking articles. Mjroots (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Consensus surrounding the name of Iran

@Mjroots: Thank you for intervening in this case, since it has very much spiralled out of control. As for @Bromley86:, @Aidepikiwnirotide:, @Maproom:, @Rwenonah: and myself, we have to vote on what needs to be included in the introduction. I ask all of you to consider this: there are no references that support the notion Iran is an Islamic Republic. Conversely, there should be no references that support the notion Iran was once known as Persia. Many of the arguments that forwarded in favour of the notion that Iran is synonymous (i.e. known as) with Persia are fuelled by a patriotic/nationalist motive to establish a point that is hardly politically correct. Holland vs the Nederlands argument is similar, however the former term is still in use because it is popularly known as such. News articles refer to either country names and they co-exist alongside each other.

The same is not true for Iran because Iran according to historical sources has it that its folk have always referred to their country as Arayanam-vej, which morphed to Eran and to recent times now called Iran. On the Western side, Greek sources referred to this country as Persia, in reference to Fars province where the Persians originate from. To use the term Persia today would mean alienating other ethnic minorities residing within Iran to imply that the country holds true to Persian people rather than Iranian peoples. Wikipedia isn't about deciding whose side to take, but more about taking a heuristic point of view and ascertaining, based on all the sources inspected, as to the substance of a fact. I have given many sources which support the notion that the country is indeed called Iran, and on many news-outlets the same is true. The term Persia is only used in pre-1935 historical usage, cultural usage or in a literal/poetic usage. In the same sense that a country like Britain would be called Britannia in a poetic way; or America would be called Colombia in a poetic sense. These terms are not official, but are a way of contextualising the country through another channel.

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

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

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

@Vormeph: Before anything, you need to explain about your references (the references in section Iran vs. Persia, number (7)). Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Please stop dragging your ridiculous argument into every section. Bromley86 (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm for a cut-down version of what HistoryofIran said in the Lead: formerly known as Persia (full version - formerly known as Persia in the Western world. That would not need citing, as it's unlikely to be challenged. The Body should probably reference the Persian expats, but I can see both sides of that argument.

On a related note, I'd also appreciate a little input (with respect, not from Vormeph) in the Talk:Iran#AKA_Persia_refs section, where Aidepikiwnirotide is advocating the use of sources that do not confirm the statement they're meant to support. Bromley86 (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, ethic minorities apparently consider the term Iran "hegemonic", according to the sources I've presented above, presumably as it implies an "Aryan" national identity, which is not embraced by Turkmens, Azeris or Iranian Arabs, who therefore prefer the term Persia (I'm not sure this necessarily translates into wide usage in English tho). I've also presented numerous sources showing that Iran is used in reference to the country now, which you agree with, but object to on the basis that it's used from "patriotic/nationalist motive". That's also the reason the term "Iran" is used; if anything, expats who use "Persia" are trying to avoid association with the current "patriotic/nationalist" government of Iran. If we're going to not use Persia in the lede, which I'm really not prepared to continue arguing against, it needs to be on the basis that it isn't commonly used and not on the basis that it is used, but that it's usage is "nationalist". Overall, I support "formerly known as Persia" as well, given that the term doesn't seem to be in wide usage in English.Rwenonah (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bromley86: Don't forget that "all sections of this talk page should be considered" and you are not permitted to scatter the discussion in several separate sections. Meanwhile, you need to rely on references instead of "Personal Baseless Opinions". I greatly respect to all Iranian ethnicities, but "Persia" here should not be translated, since it's a "proper noun" as we don't translate "Iran" as well. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

We certainly do translate proper nouns. English Wikipedia has an article on "Germany", even though the German name for the country is "Deuschland". Maproom (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

A common notion has been advanced by @Bromley86: and @Rwenonah: that the body of text contested be rewritten as formerly known as Persia without citations. Disregarding historical/nationalistic and cultural arguments, I think this notion is the most practical option at the present time as it also includes my support. Vormeph (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Vormeph I only rely on references. what does without citation mean?!!! In that case, we cannot rely on only some personal baseless opinions! you say this, because you don't have enough references to prove your claims. Once again, wikipedia is a collection of references, you can either publish a book and then cite it in wikipedia or rely on current references. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Aidepikiwnirotide: The introduction shouldn't contain references to a point. It is for this reason it was also proposed that we create a section called Name which not only has the bespoken points, but also references and explanations to them. Since you are so adamant on this issue and quite knowledgeable, it might be wise to accept this notion and in return you can handle the content within the Name section in collaboration with other editors. If you can do that, then we can end this debate once and for all because right now no one has editor access to the Iran article because of the rift between you and @Bromley86:. It's a pity that you have no shame on this matter, and only more of your recalcitrant editing will make this harder to resolve. Vormeph (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Vormeph: Don't ratify rule, please! ("The introduction shouldn't contain references to a point" !!!). rather, it's better to justify "your references", where the questions has been left open. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Can someone make an edit request to fix the lead...as of now we have horrible spacing and reference overload in the first sentences...makes the article look non reliable (as in a WP:SYNTHESIS of sources off the bat). Why are the sources not in the article itself.....no need to make the lead so hard to read? Wikipedia:Citation overkill. This is simply not what we want for a lead WP:LEADCITE-- Moxy (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Moxy: In my opinion, one of the problem is to "create several sections" for scattering the discussion by Bromley86 and Vormeph maybe to prevent achieving a reliable result. To be sure about the situation, please only read everything that has been written by Vormeph, where their sentences are antithesis of his previous phrases in each section. he offers some unreliable references and then says there is no need for citation and all references should be removed! and so on. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain more on why we would not follow our basic guidelines on this lead problem? I am not sure if you have been through a GA our FA review....but source overkill in the lead is one of the most undesirable things we fix during thoses process. What is the problem with moving them to the "Etymology" section....were we could quote sources like number 13. The opening sentence has a huge WP:LEADCLUTTER problem and the source only make it worst. Think of our readers ...not other editors. Dont see how editwaring to make the article harder to read is a good thing. -- Moxy (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Moxy: But my question is that what is the problem of current version of Iran article? and what is the purpose of some users to remove all justified and explained references? (please see history of discussion) The are many important questions here that still have been left open, e.g. I've not still gotten a logical answer about Google Map, when you are looking for Persia Geographical Region, it shows you Current Iran Map which means Persia = Iran and last book which mentions "Iran, traditionally known as Persia", (where traditionally means typically). And finally, consensus doesn't mean forcing a user to accept a wrong opinion! but also what determines the result is "references". I suggest you to see one the unreliable references that mentioned above by Vormeph in section Iran_vs._Persia (You can see this reference HERE) where I asked some important questions about this reference but didn't get any answer. What does discussion mean? forcing a user to accept a wrong idea? Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

"Traditionally" does not mean "typically", and the source you have cited does not say it does. It uses the word "typically" in presenting its definition. Maproom (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok so no reason not to follow our guidelines on the matter at hand. I will be bold for you guys and fix things up a bit when page is unlocked as per all the suggestions above in other talks. Not sure why this is so hard....will just explain the current usage on names and add Russell, Malcolm (21 August 2014). The Middle East and South Asia 2014. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 63–. ISBN 978-1-4758-1236-7. as the source and move the others to the proper section. On a side note I really hope Google maps is not used as a source anywhere...not reliable in anyway Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources..... --Moxy (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Moxy: Concerning Google Map, it is not including five current references in current Iran article, but also it has been used for more explanation (i.e. both Persia and Iran imply the same country) but we cannot say Google Map as a common tools to find countries, cities, regions etc is not reliable, because in this case, we'll accept that Google Map misinforms people worldwide !!! Anyway, I remind you my another reference (following book), Iran (Middle East: Region in Transition) where, it mentions that "Iran, traditionally known as Persia", (where traditionally means typically). Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

A notion has been proposed that we amend the introduction. Editing the controversial line to formerly known as Persia and moving the references to the Etymology or a new Name section would be desired. But for now, the Etymology section would suffice. Are we in agreement by factor of majority to edit the article thus? Aidepikwnirotide is hardly contributing and quite frankly his behaviour is bordering on trolling. My input so far:

YES Rename the introduction so that it reads Iran, formerly known as Persia, officially the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Comments: References that were in place should be temporarily moved to the Etymology section where they will be processed later once the article's protection status is lifted. 18:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vormeph (talk • contribs)

@Vormeph: I don't know what is your purpose to repeat again your previous repeated phrases above without your signature! Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Again, you seem to have problems with English comprehension. The full statement by Niteshift36 says exactly the opposite of what you think:

"If the "also known as..." is correct, I'm certain that we can find a better source than Google maps. If we can't, that should tell us something."[25]

I.e. He's (a) not taking a position on the veracity of the AKA statement, (b) however, if true, he thinks we should be able to find a better source than Google maps and (c) if we can't, then that doesn't bode well for the veracity of the AKA statement.

Also, a request for input from the RSN is a perfectly normal thing to do when two people have a disagreement about the reliability of a source. You seem to think things should be handled in one massive wall of text, whereas I'm quite happy to break large problems into smaller ones and then fix those individually. Bromley86 (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Moxy:,@McGeddon:,@Mjroots: Hello, I've another reference that I'd like to add this book to Iran article, (entitled Women's Costume of the Near and Middle East) where it mentions that "Iran equally today still known as Persia" Women's Costume of the Near and Middle East Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Moving forward

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

@Moxy: I suggest we start voting now. The proposals I made above don't all have to be adopted, so YES/NO/COMMENTS will suffice. It's high-time that we end this issue because it's become flooded with unnecessary info and has disrupted others from editing the Iran page. @Rwenonah: and @Bromley86: your input here would be most-appreciated. Vormeph (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

YES Rename the introduction so that it reads: "Iran, formerly known as Persia, officially the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Comments: I'd previously made the argument that it should be IRoI, commonly known as Iran, previously known as Persia, as that's the form on higher editor-population articles like USA & UK. Still think that's better, but I'd happily accept I, P, IRoI if that's the decision.

References that were in place should be removed. The 4 original ones do not support the assertion (we have cross-aisle, for want of a better term, support for this now that Rwenonah has commented.[26] The most recent add has been boldly made, reverted (as it doesn't support the statement) and then repeatedly added back in; that one should be removed too, pending discussion and agreement (which, IMO, will not be forthcoming).

All that said, I'll accept them all being shifted if that gets the article unlocked quicker, and we can just remove them from the Body after. The new Lead will cease to be controversial, so will not require cites. Bromley86 (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Vormeph: Please don't repeat again and respect references! otherwise it's not possible to move forward. I remind you the last reference where it says that "Iran equally today still known as Persia" (and please have a look at yourself references!) Once again, I greatly respect all great Iranian ethnicities, but "Persia" here is a "proper noun" and should not be translated as we don't translate "Iran" when we say "Iranian" (that means Aryans) (Do you think all Iranian ethnicities are Aryan!) Thus, I emphasis that we shouldn't translate both Persian and Iranian since they are both proper noun. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Moxy:,@McGeddon:,@Mjroots:

I've got half a mind to close many of the discussions here. It would be useful if all editors use the RFC above to thrash the issue out. Once consensus is reached, the article can be unlocked. Mjroots (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. Could you leave the AKA Persia refs section open though, at least for a day or so, as I'm about to try to get Aidepikiwnirotide to comment there, so we can at least put to bed the 4 original, incorrect, cites used in the Lead? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

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

We need good sources about the topic.....not non related mention this in passing. I am concern here that cherry-picking is going to be problem forward. --Moxy (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: We have two Wikipedians (myself and @Bromley86: who are in favour of renaming the lead section Iran, formerly known as Persia, officially the Islamic Republic of Iran. References in that section should be moved to the Etymology section so that a more elaborate explanation as to the usage of Persia can be extended. It is kindly appreciated for other Wikipedians @Moxy: and @LjL: as well as @Aidepikiwnirotide:. As for you Aidepikiwnirotide (talk · contribs), I'm not asking for more explanations over which. A notion has been proposed and you must now either vote or abstain. So long as you continue rambling on about the Iran vs Persia predicament, this article will remain closed. C'est simple que cela. Vormeph (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Instead of moving references to etymology section (that is very strange!), the best is to keep references in the lead and then expand it in etymology section. It seems very logical than removing references! Btw, I just added two other references above. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Aidepikiwnirotide: I suggest you read this section so you understand our reasoning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_create_and_manage_a_good_lead_section#References_in_the_lead.3F Vormeph (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Vormeph: I know well your purpose! instead, I refer you to recent references. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Aidepikiwnirotide: I was just going to mention WP:LEDECITE. My preference is that the lede does not need references as all info in the lede is cited in the main body of the article. Mjroots (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: OK, but do you know why there are several references there? to prove "Iran, also known as Persia". Firstly, I refer you to my recent references and then say that because there is no strong reason to change the current expression in current Iran article, as Moxy has mentioned previously, thus there is no need to change it (I rely on references). Instead, we can expand it in etymology section. You know well there are many wikipedia articles with such situation, because of disputed issues. I agree with you, but in a normal situation. but the problem now is that some users like Vormeph and Bromley86 want to force all users to accept their opinion! . And also in the other hand, some users attack any user who is not agreed with them (of course by IP Address) Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I want to force you (and only because you've reverted my removal edit) to explain why you say the CIA Factbook, for example, supports the AKA Persia statement. It does not. Discussing with you is pointless if you won't engage. And, if you do (finally!), please reply in the relevant section. Bromley86 (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bromley86: Stop misleading please! I'm talking about my 3 recent references! (1. (title: "Video Games Around the World (MIT Press)") published by MIT publisher in a modern topic, where mentions " Iran, commonly known as Persia " and 2. (title: "The Art and Architecture of Persia") which mentions "Iran— also traditionally and commonly known as Persia in the West") and 3. (title: "Women's Costume of the Near and Middle East") where it says that "Iran equally today still known as Persia") Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• I am concerned your not hearing what others are saying about references...first I would like you to read the sources i added above and note how they go in to detail about the naming of the country. They are books about the topic at hand (two somewhat even support your view...and explain why modern and historical terms are used in context).....we do not consider books about video games or women's clothing to be definitive info about a country. Books that just have intros for a country is not the same as books that talk about the situation. That said source 13 is good. -- Moxy (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• • :@Moxy: Let say, I want to move forward and finish as soon as possible, nut some users like Bromley86 and Vormeph don't permit to move forward ! Anyway, if I offer a historical book, you it's not a modern sense! if I offer a modern book (ref no [10]) you say it's not related to the name of a country ! if I suggest you see Google Map, you say it's not a common reference. Let also remember what was the main purpose of this discussion : Keeping the expression of "Iran, also known as Persia" ? thus, if in several references with different topics and content mentioned "Iran, commonly known as Persia" what do you conclude? Would you say your conclusion? Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

What your not showing is that many books that mention this in passing say the opposite of what your showing us.....thus we need sources that explain the situation...we need to link our readers to more info on the topic, not just regurgitating the same sentence in passing. We must provided sources that expand our readers knowledge of the topic at hand....Google maps does not do this...nor do books about video games or website that say less then we do. --Moxy (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

References

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

@Vormeph:It's you who are repeating your wrong opinion and trying to force others to accept it ... Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Moxy:,@McGeddon:,@Mjroots: The best is to keep the current lede i.e. the common part of too many references (i.e. also known as Persia) and then expand more and more and more ... in the body such that when the name has been changed? why has been changed? How has been changed? etc etc etc ... along with related references for each question. In the other word, in the body we have to explain its "modality" i.e. commonly? with its reference formerly? with its reference traditionally? with its reference. In my opinion it's the fairest solution consists of all ideas. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

What you should be recommending is "traditionally and commonly known as Persia" thus both POVs are covered historical and modern. Its clear the POV your advocating is not getting far....thus may be best to try a compromise and see what others say. --Moxy (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Moxy: It's OK, I support this one : "traditionally and commonly known as Persia". Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Moxy: I object, since the knowledge thereof is only limited to the Middle East and the West. A Westerner might recognise that Iran used to be called Persia; but they certainly wouldn't agree that Persia is another official name for Iran. Persia is the former name used. It has been internationally mandated many times that the country is not known as Persia, but simply Iran. Iran was called Persia until 1935 which is documented countless times. You're digging a hole for yourself here Aidepikiwnirotide (talk · contribs) mate; you're just not realising that Iran and Persia are not synonyms. The fact you're sublimating this by saying other editors are advancing their own opinions is just fallacy. The arguments and notions have been raised, but it would not be correct to say that Iran is commonly known as Persia because we don't have a statistic to support that claim. What also needs to be emphasied is 'common among whom'? Iranians may commonly know Iran as Persia, maybe some Westerners; but might someone from the other side of the planet? Maybe not. The use of the term 'commonly' has major side-effects because it assumes the readership of the article, which is not good at all. It's like assuming the reader of a Wikipedia article is a man, instead of both men and women - that in itself is anti-feminist and discriminatory. My proposal stands: Iran, formerly known as Persia, officially the Islamic Republic of Iran. Be it so. Vormeph (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Vormeph: Continue to force others to accept your opinion! but be sure it's not a correct way! I'm trying to achieve a consensus such that it covers all ideas. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Moxy:

@Aidepikiwnirotide: If you want to win the argument, then you should provide at least one source that explicitly states Persia is an official name for the country. Good luck. Vormeph (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• When I said "officially" known as Persia ?!!! Are you fine? Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal - remove references from lede

OK, let's see if we can move along a bit here. Per WP:LEDECITE, I propose that all references are removed from the lede. The information given in the lede should be duplicated in the main body of the article, and suitably referenced there, without overciting. Please indicate whether you support or oppose this proposal. Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

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

---

@Mjroots: But you didn't mention any thing about the current lede situation regarding to current references. I know you prefer to leave this matter as soon as possible, but please be fair with this matter. we didn't get any strong reason to change the current expression yet! You prefer to ignore references but rely on some baseless opinion just to finish the matter?! I really don't know what happens behind of this discussion talk page! but I don't know e.g. why Moxy has changed his opinion! after some IP Address attacks ... Anyway, I follow this problem even via Jimmy Wales. wikipedia has to be responsible for its behaviour! and finally don't forget if you want to change anything regardless of REFERENCES, this talk page would be the great stigma and shame for wikipedia forever. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@McGeddon:

Change my opinion from what? As for refs we need ones that cover the topic in detail....the ones that explain it very well. Dont just search for the word you like ..search for books that cover the topic well. --Moxy (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Moxy: But at the moment we're talking about keeping the expression of "Iran, also known as Persia" as it's confirmed at least by relying on my 3 recent references above! but if you intend to waste the time of people, please and please don't start an exhibition discussion! Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Wrong again...i dont care what the lead says because we will explain in the body of the article...what I care about is the bad source clustering the lead. . I am trying to move things forward....are you doing the same? I am not sure if your prosperously acting lost or that its a real problem.--Moxy (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Aidepikiwnirotide: - you seem to be misreading my proposal. I don't "prefer to ignore references" as you put it. I fully endorse that material must be referenced. What I'm saying is that there is no need to have references in the lede. Now, either support or oppose the proposal. I don't intend for this section to be a discussion forum. There is plenty of room elsewhere on this talk page for that. Mjroots (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

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

• Support Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Vormeph (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support--Moxy (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Bromley86 (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal - "formerly knowN as Persia" in the Lead

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

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

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

• Support Bromley86 (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Vormeph (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Rwenonah (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC). Just note there is zero chance someone would fail to "distinguish that both Iran and Persia refer to the same country" if Persia was included in the lede, since it would literally say the two countries were the same in the first sentence. "Geopolitical neutrality" isn't and shouldn't be the reasoning behind an edit.
• Oppose UCaetano (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I've added 4 new references below. Any comment on these references is appreciated. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support 'Also' implies an 'equality of use', not borne out by refs. 'Sometimes' might be apt, I get the impression that this is a bit like 'Burma', 'Ceylon', 'Peking' etc. where use of the older term is principally in historical and cultural contexts and informally. The article is about a modern state, and I don't see sources using 'Persia' in that context.Pincrete (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - LouisAragon (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly: this would basically endorse the idea that it's definitely not known as Persia today, but only "formerly", and focus on the officially sanctioned naming, which is not what Wikipedia does. As discussed below, it may or may not be commonly still known as Persia, and it would depend on context (political or cultural, as discussed now a hundred times; overwhelming sources being used "today" are just political news reports, anyway), but this particular wording is as far removed from my support as it could be. If we want to stay at a previous compromise, say "historically known as Persia", or the hinted-at "sometimes known as Persia". LjL (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per LjL. "Formerly" is too strong, and contradicts "Today, both Persia and Iran are used in cultural contexts" in the article body. --McGeddon (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments

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

Despite my own admonition not to comment here, I'd just like to point out that I messaged HistoryofIran, as he was the originator of a longer version of the suggested text. He's previously expressed a desire to stay out of the broader debate, but he may make an appearace for this. So if we could wait a day or so before closing, that'd be great. Bromley86 (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Please for achieving a consensus, stop re-creating a new section to repeat your repeated opinion repeatedly. As I wrote to Moxy I support his suggestion that is "traditionally and commonly known as Persia" since it can cover all opinions to stop dispute. We have also reference for this above. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• • @Moxy: @Mjroots: @Maproom: @Alborz Fallah: Here, I'd like to add another reference (book) entitled : "Patriot of Persia: Muhammad Mossadegh and a Tragic Anglo-American Coup", where the author who is Christopher de Bellaigue in author's note mentions : "Persia is the old European name for Iran. Iran is an even older, indigenous name. In the 1930s Reza Shah told foreigners to stop using the name Persia, but some ignored him Later on his son Mohammad Reza Shah revoked the ban ... I use both terms interchangeably" (Patriot of Persia: Muhammad Mossadegh and a Tragic Anglo-American Coup) Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Finally, If you don't rely on references, you don't have any other alternative to rely on. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• • • Here, I add another reference (book) entitled : "A Persian Odyssey: Iran Revisited", where it confirms that "The name Persia has been Synonymous with Iran throughout centuries." (See The Link Here) ("A Persian Odyssey: Iran Revisited"), Thus, this voting is illegitimate and invalid, since you're ignoring references and relying on repeated baseless opinions (See Ad nauseam). Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• • • Adding two other references (books)

First: title: "Persia (RLE Iran A): History and Heritage" quote: (Page 13) "Today, in English, in other European languages, and in this booklet, the two words 'Persia' and 'Iran' are Synonymous , while the latter is the sole indigenous designation" (See The Link Here) .

Second: title: "Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity: Disciplinary and Regional Perspectives (Volume 1) (Oxford University Press)" quote: (Page 266) " “Iran” and “Persia” are Synonymous The former has always been used by the Iranian speaking peoples themselves, while the latter has served as the international name of the country in various languages" (See The Link Here) . Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• • • My suggestion is to keep current situation i.e. "Iran, also known as Persia" , by using 4 references below. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

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

• Meanwhile, I think it would be better to consider the opinion of all users who have voted previously in this discussion (you can see all opinions in history of the discussion). Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

References

@Bromley86: You cannot remove my opinion in talk page! Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Vormeph: Please stop it ! You cannot vote from side! OK? Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots:, @Moxy:, @Maproom:

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

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

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

I'd suggest that "known as" in the lead of country articles is more correctly aligned with "commonly known as" than with "sometimes known as", and that Iran is not commonly known as Persia (i.e. it's more Siam than Burma). Certainly, we've not had a flood of sources that indicate it's commonly known as; that's not to say that it doesn't belong in the Body, but not everything in the Body belongs in the Lead.

Regarding the fast push/POV, I'll just point out that I arrived at this debate reverting a removal of this sort of detail from the Body[27] and am pushing for the removal of AKA from the Lead (a) because it's not been shown to be correct, IMO, and (b) because it appeared that both sides of the discussion were coalescing around an alternative suggested by someone who I assume, from their editing history, is a subject matter expert. Given that, it made sense to see if we could nail this and get the lock lifted. Bromley86 (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Conclusion

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

I think we need to wait a little while longer to give the others that UCaetano pinged a chance. I'm especially interested in what Ljl has to say, as he was the one who was first to take it to talk re. your original Lead edit. I suspect the process will go much smoother if the two people who originally reverted you are on board; Rwenonah is now, so you're half way there. Bromley86 (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, voting != consensus, and this is just another page in the same discussion, let's not pretend the new sections make it different. UCaetano (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@UCaetano:, @Bromley86: The end of the week is approaching, and I think it's time that we now submit the proposals as having consensus reached. Neither of your proposed participants have voted which means they lack interest in the issue. The Iran article has been closed for enough time now, and I think everyone agrees to a mutual understanding that the lead section ought to be changed in some way or another, thus be parallel to the proposals aforementioned. Vormeph (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see how a new consensus has been reached on this issue, so IMHO we have no choice but to keep the previous consensus. UCaetano (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@UCaetano: And can you clarify what that previous consensus was? Vormeph (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

By definition, before your first edit into the subject which lead to the discussion, here I guess (just for the lead, not for the content further down). UCaetano (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@UCaetano: We could all play ignorant and say that Iran is Persia; then this whole series of debates and locking of the article would never have happened. Ideally we'd have to agree to this fact with the off-chance that there won't be a huge edit war over it. But it's not possible to do so, because there is always room for structure and improvement. It's true that it's taken such a long while to establish what ought to be done on this topic. But after all the efforts we've made, to say that it would've been better to just leave the edit as it is only means our efforts here are in vain. It's like Gailelo trying to prove our planet is round and orbited around the sun, while may disagreed. But despite his trial, suspension and imprisonment, his theories were still correct. What I kindly request from you @UCaetano: is no more fighting and simply gather what has been raised thus far. I don't want people to point the finger at me for the closure of the Iran article, but I have to raise a point even when I have been reported twice and banned over the matter. If it is not convincing enough that we should resolve this issue once and for all with the help of @Bromley86:, @Moxy: and @Mjroots: then it set a foundation for the maintenance of the Iran article. Heretofore it was all over the place, but I think what we've done by debating is formed a consensus as to what should be done in the Iran article. I know I've been really adamant and harsh towards some Wikipedians and have vented my frustration much in the history, but I praise @UCaetano: for being patient. I personally do not want another edit war, and I've leanrt that we cannot keep fighting over issues motivated by nationalism. As for @Rwenonah: and @LjL: I have my gratitude and apologies to offer which I will write personally because I did not mean for our discussion to go this far and I'm sorry it has led to moderators getting involved and closing the article for everyone. I cannot pardon ignorance with knowledge, because there was no prerogative by reason to effect it. I think everyone agrees that this issue deserves to be closed and for @Aidepikiwnirotide: to view this issue from an objective point of view. The whole point of a lead section is to establish points, regardless of how many references back it. A point that I've raised is that Persia is formerly known as Iran. THat can be debated in another section; but it would be wrong for a new reader from somewhere like Brazil or Kenya to read the lead section as 'Iran, also known as Persia'. That implies Persia has equal usage with Iran; much like America has equal usage with the USA. But it is not so, as Iranian officials do not call their country Persia unless referring to pre-1935 history. The media follows suit, and the argument resolves. Can we now reopen the article and implement the proposals made? Vormeph (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm less "on board" than I am just exasperated with this discussion, which seems to go on endlessly with constant new sections and appeals to what the Iranian government calls itself and weird inexplicable highlighting. Since consensus seems to be against the edit, let's just stick with the current version of the article. Rwenonah (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Islamic republic is a government, but Iran is a country, where each country can have a government, such that article is speaking about country of Iran and not only government of Iran (i.e. a part of article). Btw, we've 4 new references above e.g. title: "Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity: Disciplinary and Regional Perspectives (Volume 1) (Oxford University Press)" quote: (Page 266) " “Iran” and “Persia” are synonymous. The former has always been used by the Iranian speaking peoples themselves, while the latter has served as the international name of the country in various languages" (See The Link Here) . Any comment on this reference is appreciated. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

References

@Aidepikiwnirotide: Notice your use of the word 'served'. You just defeated your own argument by implying that Persia served (used to) be the international name of the country. :-)))) Hence, the proposal to change the lead to: Iran, formerly Persia, officially the Islamic Republic of Iran. I see now you're coming to reason here. Just a few more steps and you'll come to your senses with reality. Vormeph (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Vormeph: Oxford University Press: (1) Iran and Persia are synonymous. (2) Iran has been used ... Persia has served ... Stop Please! Btw I try not to response you personally anymore! Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Aidepikiwnirotide: Observe how the Wikipedian crawls through every bit of information to contradict reality. He will continue to think that Iran and Persia are synonymous. True, Persia has served its usage until 1935; Iran has been used since. The door to reality is a strong one, yet he now resorts to ignore me lest he ignores reality altogether. How delusional some people have become! Vormeph (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

If we said "historically and culturally known as Persia", would that be acceptable. Iff we can get consensus, then I am prepared to unlock the article. Mjroots (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Would you please share your opinion about 4 new references above which confirm Iran and Persia are synonymous? It could be helpful if everybody expresses his/her opinions about these references. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

AGF that the quotes are genuine, at least 3 of the 4 are by recognized major publishers and meet WP:RS. Not 100% sure re #2, but AGF there that is also meets RS. Mjroots (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Thank you so much for your opinion (I copied/pasted all quotes, to be sure about phrases, you can see also their related links). now this fact that Iran and Persia are synonymous (according to 3 references belonging to major publishers) supports Iran, also known as Persia. What do you think about this? Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: It's ironic you propose that. The original proposal from the very beginning was to rename the section historically known as Persia before I got threatened/harassed/reported. I guess we're back in square zero again, bravo! @LjL: See, what you've done? Vormeph (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not really about what I think though, is it. I might put the odd suggestion forward in an effort to get you all to find common ground, but I'm not taking sides as far as I can avoid it. You'll remember that I didn't block anyone although I probably could have. I prefer that you all thrash issues out if at all possible. We do seem to be getting close to agreement here. Mjroots (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: @Moxy: @LjL: but, I believe in such situation the worst thing is the silence. Which one has more priority? reality? or finishing as soon as possible? Btw, please don't forget when an opinion is published by a major and prestigious publisher it has been reviewed carefully and several times by many specialist and thus it's not comparable with an opinion that is said by a user (especially when we don't know who is behind of each username), so please consider these important issues ... We don't discuss to satisfy a person or ... but also to achieve reality. finally, I guess you know well what is Ad nauseam that is used by some users ... I wonder if my references are confirmed but ignored and not considered ...Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we are back to square one, with no new consensus reached. Since the discussion keeps repeating itself, @Vormeph:, if you feel strongly about this change, I suggest you seek ways to solve this with help from editors external to the discussion via WP:DR. Everyone (myself included) has repeated the same arguments a million times, and we haven't moved an inch. UCaetano (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@UCaetano: From what's transpired here, I think everyone wants the Iran article unlocked. They just have to get their heads round the fact Iran and Persia are not in co-current usage. The majority of voters have favoured Iran, formerly known as Persia, officially the Islamic Republic of Iran as the lead. I suggest we stick with that and unlock the article. The most important part is that we unlock the article NOW because by itself that is disrupting the spirit of Wikipedia over this issue. Remember that I was right since the very beginning that It was wrong to assert Iran and Persia weren't synonymous, but unfortunately due to the nature of the internet and all its ways people just use their egos to contradict that in the most ridiculous ways possible, to even the point of locking the entire article so that no one can edit just because an editor refuses to accept another's logical argument. I don't care how many references @Aidepikiwnirotide: you can produce to support your argument; they are not for the lead section. In fact, over-citation of content actually challenges its authenticity, just as much as under-citation. We're back in square one because @Mjroots: wants the lead section to be named Iran, historically known as Persia which was the EXACT thing I got reported and banned from Wikipedia for. @McGeddon: You owe me an apology for your discrepancy. Vormeph (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:Voting. WP is not a democracy, and voting is no substitute to discussion, only a way to gauge the general view of the editors. Unlocking the article is NOT the most important thing here. If you really think so, I'm sure you'll agree to keep the previous consensus, and not engage in doing the same edits again and again. Please stop using "get their heads around the fact", "refuses to accept another's logical argument", "I don't care how many references you can produce", "use their egos", you're just making it clear that you're the problem here, and your previous blocks and warning were deserved. You do not WP:OWN this article, so stop acting as if you do. This is clear: we failed to reach a new consensus, so the previous prevails. If you don't like it, feel free to open a mediation request. UCaetano (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Traditionally' would be the best word to use here--Moxy (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@UCaetano: :@McGeddon: :@Moxy: Because of various opinions, the best is relying on the most prestigious references (publisher, title of book, ...), in other word, we have to respect most major and prestigious references. I provided 4 references which confirm Iran and Persia are synonymous. So, I invite all users to share their opinion about these references (Mjroots has shared his/her opinion about these references (highlighted above with yellow i.e. "AGF that the quotes are genuine, at least 3 of the 4 are by recognized major publishers and meet WP:RS. Not 100% sure re #2 (In following list means reference #4), but AGF there that is also meets RS.")). You can find references below. accordingly, we can decide. (Once again, We don't know who is behind of each username (a specialist or ...) so we need relying on most prestigious references). Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

For me there's no question that both names are commonly used interchangeably, so the previously standing consensus ("also known as...") should stay. But now @Vormeph: simply shifted his argument so that no matter how many references we present, he doesn't think it should be in the top section. My opinion is still the same as my vote: strongly oppose this change, and keep the previous consensus. UCaetano (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@UCaetano: You cannot reject the majority's view here. The lead section has been voted in favour of references being stripped and the lead section renamed: Iran, formerly known as Persia, officially the Islamic Republic of Iran. There, people agree on that. Now, @Mjroots: it's time to unlock the thread and implement the changes. Just so everyone is aware, @UCaetano: is Iranian himself (it says so on his userpage) so he naturally has a bias towards Iran and his argument that Iran and Persia are used interchangeably. For argument's sake, he needs to terminate his bias and execute the actions of the majority faithfully lest he be discredited as being a worthy diplomat. Vormeph (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Someone report the Administrator who locked this article

I swear this Administrator who started threatening people with his "ban" hammer and then proceeded to gold lock an article BEFORE an edit war actually happened should be reported to the ArbCom. This is the worse show of pre-action bs I have seen ever. Why does the administrator think he has the right to GOLD LOCK an article when an EDIT WAR HAS NOT EVEN HAPPENED YET. Admin, go get your big head out from your butt before I do it for you via Arbcom you little rat and admit you did wrong. 146.0.229.49 (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the article's edit history, you will see that the edit war was already under way when the protection was applied. Maproom (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@146.0.229.49: You're going to take me straight to ArbCom without even bothering with AN/I? Go ahead, punk. Make my day!. BTW, you might want to take a look at user talk:Mjroots#You are a disgusting human being. Mjroots (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The IP now has an account User:HeroChaos...dont think he/she is going to be here long.--Moxy (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)