Talk:Iran/Archive 16

The name "Persia"
I take issue with the rationale for this edit by. 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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
,, 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)
 * , 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * , 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  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 ! 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)


 * , 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)


 * 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)


 * 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 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)


 * "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)


 * As 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * , 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * "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)


 * 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) [https://www.rt.com/uk/337641-prince-charles-iran-visit/ 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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.  Bromley86 (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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, and  regarding the notion Persia now-a-days is simply a literal or cultural term for Iran. Vormeph (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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."
 * 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 (diff).  Do you want me to invite in WP:3O, or similar?  Bromley86 (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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 . 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 . 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)


 * 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. 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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".
 * 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.
 * 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 . ..
 * Encyclopaedia Iranica. Doesn't even mention modern Iran.  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. Trump is not a reliable source, but anyway he just says "Persians", not "Persia".
 * NYT travel piece. 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?). No reference to a modern country called Persia.
 * Persian Mirrors: The Elusive Face of Iran. 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.
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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. He doesn't say that it is called Persia there.
 * Re. The Persians, p.1. 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)


 * , 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 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? --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 "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)


 * 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:

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * . 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)



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!). : 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)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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. 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)

AKA Persia refs
I've previously removed the 4 refs supporting ("supporting", really) the inclusion of Persia in the Lead, only to have 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. Actually supports the removal, as it says: "Known as Persia until 1935".
 * 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.
 * 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 . ..
 * Encyclopaedia Iranica. Doesn't even mention modern Iran.

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


 * 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)


 * 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.
 * . 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)
 * 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)

Unlocked
I've unlocked the page, which may now be edited in the normal manner, keeping with the general consensus reached above. Editors are hereby warned not tp edit war, and that WP:3RR does not give you an automatic right to 3 reverts. Edit warring can be acted upon with less than three reverts. If you make an edit and it is challenged, the the D part of WP:BRD comes into play - discussion. Mjroots (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)