Talk:Khosrow II

message: "Khosrau" is an inaccurate transcription of his name. We must either use the more accurate transcriptions of "Khosrow" (as in Encyclopædia Iranica), or simply "Khosro" - as these are closer to the actual Persian pronunciation. Or we can use the Latin name as we do with Parthian and Achaemenid rulers (in this case, "Chosroes" or "Cosroe").
Some articles are deliberately using "Khosrow" (such as Piruz Khosrow) while others are using "Khosrau" (and even Khosro). This makes no sense. We need a single unified spelling here, rather than using every permutation and combination of the name possible.--Grinevitski (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, according to the GBooks ngraph, Khosrow is on the rise in recent times, whereas Chosroes (unsurprisingly) dominates older publications. On the other hand, a search for the specific king brings "Chosroes II" clearly on top. Most modern works with a background in Iranian studies seem to prefer "Khosrow" (as does Britannica), but I see also many notable scholarly works using "Khosrau". So if there should be a move, than it should be to "Chosroes", but IMO this classizing name would be at odds with increasingly established modern practice in all historical fields, as well as with the naming of the other Sasanian kings, so it is best to leave it as it is. Constantine   ✍  20:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  But "Khosrau" is simply a phonetically incorrect transcription. In Persian the name is pronounced as xos-row (kos-row in Latin), thus making "Khosrow" a much more accurate transcription. I agree with you that Chosroes is the best option, since it is consistent with Achaemenid and Parthian rulers maintaining their classical spelling (Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes, Mithradates, Orodes, etc.). Why should there be a double standard for Sasanian kings? Grinevitski (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, the vagaries of transliteration... Regardless of how "correct" a transliteration is, its use in Wikipedia is determined by usage "in the real world". I am not competent to argue on the accuracy or reason for the different transliterations, but they are there, and are used. Indeed, if "Khosrau" is used by experts in the field without further commentary, then any discussion about accuracy is moot; it is like a Greek complaining that "Aristotle" is "inaccurate" and that it should be "Aristoteles". From the moment there is wide usage in credible sources, any form of the name is legitimate. Furthermore, if we move the Khosrau articles to Chosroes, then we'd have to move Kavadh to Cavades, Hormizd to Hormisdas, etc. The problem here is that the trend in modern scholarly sources is not to latinize names, at least not for the Sassanid rulers, but to use transliterated forms like Khosrow and Khosrau. It is different for Achaemenid and Parthian rulers, where the "Classicist" consensus on latinized names still prevails, but even there there are authors who have begun using transliterated Persian names. Now, as to the choice between Khosrow and Khosrau, I have no problem with a move, but there needs to be consistency. You need to begin a WP:RM for all Khosraus, and include usage statistics to back up your position from Google Books and/or Google Scholar, as well as the most relevant reference sources (Cambridge History of Iran, Encyclopaedia Iranica etc). Constantine   ✍  07:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: I am conducting research on the Sasanian and Paduspanid empires.  Can I schedule a telephone or email meeting with the moderator of these pages?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.41.59.78 (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A Wikipedia conference-call? :-)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.17.29 (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research / meeting with moderator 

message: There's a few pages on wiki specifically devoted to these letters, such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_career_of_Muhammad, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_letters_to_the_Heads-of-State. So, if this information were removed, it wouldn't be off of wikipedia, it would just be in the more appropriate place. This page is about the history of Khosrow II, unverifiable stories that are almost assuredly false, to my mind, should not be included. Or the other idea would be to add a legacy section, which he did have quite a legacy, and then it could be mentioned in that section with a link to the more appropriate pages mentioned hitherto, as well as the effects of his policies on the Sassanian empire, and how he is remembered. I feel like this would increase the integrity of the page. When you look at the Emperor Trajan's page for example, under Legacy, there's the story of him being resurrected and baptized, in a single sentence, which links to the appropriate page, and the article moves on. (Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  muhammad's letter 

message: "Khosrow II's imprisoned son Sheroe (Kavad II) imprisoned and killed Khosrow II" This sentence is unclear to me. Though I don't know the history, it seems like it could be simplified to "He was imprisoned and killed by his son Sheroe (Kavad II)" Idrathereatpie (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro unclear  

message: This article will be featured in the Main Page "On this day" section in two days' time, and a concern has been raised about the phrase "last great king of the Sasanian Empire", which appears in the OTD blurb and in the opening sentence of this article. Any input from editors familiar with the subject-matter would be appreciated. The discussion is here. Thanks. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for input at [[WP:ERRORS]]