Talk:Mohammad Reza Pahlavi/Archive 1

message: I think the title is unnecessarily long. This should be moved to "Mohammad Reza Pahlavi" instead, since there is no other Mohammad Reza Pahlavi of another country, is there? Roozbeh 21:14, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad title? 

message: Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi
>>holder of the deferential title Aryamehr ("Light of the Aryans") etc...
I don't believe any kind and compassionate ruler would like to be given or be 
associated with differential titles so as to alienate him/herself from his/her subjects. 
the ruler's subject may in their awe decide to give such a title, but one must remember that 
this is a factual site not a site to promote ones own political agenda.
if any would like to disagree please do so...
: Hello, The word 'deferential' is not meant with regards to people, but to the other Shahs before him. Just as some are called 'The Great', e.g. Cyrus the great. So in my understanding this does not mean 'alienation' or something like that. Nicknames of this kind, or deferential titles, as somebody has written here, are quite common among kings, also elsewhere in the world. I think it should be included, not because of anyone's political agenda, but because the fact that this - very often used - title belongs to this Shah, and people looking for info about him should be able to find that out here. As to whether it was given by the people, well we may argue a lot. Some found and still find it a good thing and some don't. Likewise it is about Khomeini and 'Imam'. I would never use that word when refering to him, but I think in a complete article in wikipedia that should certainly be included. 
: It seems 219.93.174.107 is more interested in reverting rather than discussing anything. 82.210.117.149 23:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Titles

message: hi there. i´m trying to get a discussion going to change the rules on naming consorts, monarchs, etc.. it´s a bit of mess at the moment. maybe you wanna join in and give your opinion? feel free  cheers Antares911 00:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal consorts and monarchs 

message: An anon user added the following content:
:A account by a British diplomat who served for many years in Iran told how the Shah had compalained to him that he was unable to get reliable accounts of what was really happening in his country from his own countrymen. They were too interested in telling the Shah what they though he (the Shah) would want to hear.
Well, the first part of it needs references, and the last sentence is speculation. I hope the anon user  would come up with the appropriate references. Thanks. --Ragib 02:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if reference to the above is not provided, I don't see any reason to keep a speculation in the article. Thanks. --Ragib 17:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation? 

message: Because of the vandalism and repeated reverts of an anonymous user, I suggest to 1.Edit the Pahlavi-related articles to an agreeable form together and then 2.Block them for editing for a while to protect them from this improper behavior. Shervink 01:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's easily said, but it seems that 219.93.174.105 is not at all interested in a consensus. Otherwise they would make some reasoning for their behavior on the discussion page. I think the matter is very clear. It is personal hatred towards the person this page is about. I completely understand thtat he is a politically controversial figure, but personal hatred is not a proper motivation for editing pages. Shervink 11:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reverts are now originating from User:220.73.107.241. Please continue to invite him to register, and to discuss issues on this page by leaving messages on the talk page for his IP, like this one User talk:220.73.107.241. It might also help to wait some time (say 30 minutes) before removing his changes to reduce incidence of revert warring.--inksT 02:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I left him a message. I also agree with Tony Sidaway below. By the way, it seems the same user has also become interested in the Farah Pahlavi page. Shervink 10:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, one may say why omit the title? It implies information which is thus included in the article, but which would be left out if you remove the title. The effort should be put on including such titles in royalty-related articles rather than cutting them out. With your suggestion to make it similar to the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article, I don't disagree. Although I do not see the advantage of that style over this one either. Is it really like that or is it only my impression that something about these styles seems to irritate some people?! And that as a result of this, they simply want to remove them or move them to somewhere they cannot see? Shervink 15:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block for protection from vandalism 

message: I'm inclined to view the removals as borderline vandalism.  Encyclopedias normally describe rulers with the title that protocol prevailing at the time of their rule prescribed.  Pahlavi was the Shah of Iran until he was deposed, and the style of address used during his reign should be recorded in the article. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll lift this now to see if attempts to remove the titles continue. If so, and the editor removing the titles doesn't make responses to the numerous efforts to get him to join in discussion, this will tend to tip my assessment further towards vandalism, though not of a serious enough nature as yet that I think it warrants blocking.  I think it's a difficult case and I hope I'm doing the right thing. If he decides to participate I think this would set my mind at rest and I'll feel that we can treat it as a content dispute. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My take on this as a sysop

message: How about using this: Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (in Persian: محمدرضا شاه پهلوی) (October 26, 1919 – July 27, 1980), was the last reigning Shah of Iran to date, ruling from 1941 until 1979. Before he was deposed, he had the titles "His Royal Majesty" and Aryamehr ("Light of the Aryans").
This way, everything stated are facts ... and anyone's objection to the naming is also handled by mentioning that those titles were during his reign. --Ragib 20:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a fair compromise --Melca
Cool! Go for it! --Tony SidawayTalk 21:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not agree. The title is "His Imperial Majesty", not Royal or something, because Iran was an empire and the government of which he was the head was called Imperial government of Iran. Likewise, we had a "Minister of the Imperial Court", not Royal Court, etc. The very word Shahanshah means Emperor. So please refrain from using the word Royal instead of Imperial. Moreover, the word Aryamehr is more than a title, and is still very commonly used to refer to him. I think the only compromise can be whether to put the title H.I.M. before or after the name (i.e. styled ...) as Melca suggested before. And I do not see, by the way, why a FACT such as the official title of some person should be a matter of compromise. It is not a matter of opinion, so it is not something to compromise about. All you have to do is to look at history to see what the appropriate titles were. Shervink 22:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Royal or imperial, whatever. I only suggested the location of the title, not the exact title/wording. Also, the "official" nature of the title ceased to exist once he was deposed, so this is not like Elizabeth II or other reigning monarchs. Anyway, I suggested the compromise as a non-partisan observer to stop the meaningless edit war over the title. --Ragib 22:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Royal or Imperial, both are officially non applicable since the monarch at hand is Dead and desposed of in Egypt. Not only is this an illegal title by current Iranian law, it is a incorrect name for someone who has already passed away and no longer carries the title of Monarch. There is no compromising with Monarchists that cling on to this man. He does NOT carry this title. Be free to correct it whenever its re-imposed.--Paradoxic 19:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise ideas? 

message: I read in his IMDb biography http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0656624/bio and in some other places that he and his family left Iran after over a year of uprising as he didn't want for a civil war to break out in the country  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irani12 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shah forced to leave Iran? 

message: Where should we mention influences this man has had on fictional culture, such as his portrayal in the series finale of The Spoils of Babylon by Eric Jonrosh? Ranze (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Media depictions